Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2011• arm. n (Pnergizing Ontario GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: March 21, 2011 TIME: 9:30 A.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) (a) Minutes of a Special Meeting of February 25, 2011 4 -1 (b) Minutes of a Regular Meeting of February 28, 2011 4 -25 5. PRESENTATIONS No Presentations 6. DELEGATIONS (Draft List at Time of Publication — To be Replaced with Final 6 -1 List) (a) Lou Devuono, Regarding the Heroes Highway Ride (b) Ron Richards, R.G. Richards & Associates, Regarding Report PSD- 017 -11, a Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment to Permit the Development of a Food Store of 2,829m' and Two Smaller Buildings of 783m2 and 185m2 Respectively for Retail /Service Commercial Uses — 680 Longworth Avenue, Bowmanville (c) Gary Jeffrey, Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC), Regarding the AACC Annual Report for 2010 (d) Kim Gavine, Executive Director, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, Regarding Eight Different Reports which the Foundation is working on Regarding the Effectiveness of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Foundation CORPORATION OF THE MIli �!CIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET. BOWMANVILLE. ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 G.P. & A. Agenda - 2 - March 21, 2011 7. PUBLIC MEETINGS (a) Public Meeting Regarding the Proposed Building By -law Amendments for 7 -1 New Regulations and Increases to the Building Permit and Inspection Fees Report: . EGD- 011 -11 (b) Application to Amend the Clarington Zoning By -law 7 -2 Applicant: Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Ltd. Report: PSD -025 -11 8. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) PSD- 025 -11 To Permit the Construction of a Six -Bay Motor Vehicle 8 -1 Repair Garage Applicant: Dunbury Development (Courtice) Limited (b) PSD- 026 -11 Monitoring of the Decisions of the Committee of 8 -11 Adjustment for the Meeting of March 3, 2011 (c) PSD- 027 -11 GO Extension to Bowmanville Environmental Assessment 8 -17 (d) PSD- 028 -11 Request for Information on Drafting and Implementing an 8 -55 Air Quality By -law (e) PSD- 029 -11 Application for Removal of Part Lot Control 8 790 Applicant: Maple Woods Land Corporation 9. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) EGD- 009 -11 . Proposed Goodyear Dam Fish Passage Improvement 9 -1 Project Collaborative Agreement (b) EGD - 010 -11 Longworth Estates Subdivision Phase 2, Bowmanville, 9 -9 Plan 40M -2242, "Certificate of Acceptance ", and "Assumption By -law ", Final Works Including Roads and Other Related Works (c) EGD- 011 -11 Building Permit and Inspection Fee Amendments and New 9 -14 Building By -law (d) EGD- 012 -11 Monthly Report on Building Permit Activity for 9 -52 January, 2011 (e) EGD- 013 -11 Monthly Report on Building Permit Activity for 9 -58 February, 2011 G. P. &A. Agenda - 3 - March 21, 2011 (f) EGD- 014 -11 Proposal to Close and Convey a Portion of a Road 9 -64 Allowance (Given Road) Situated in Lot 30, Concession 2, Former Township of Clark (g) EGD- 015 -11 Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road Intersection — 9 -69 Bowmanville 10. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT (a) OPD- 004 -11 2010 Winter Report 11. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT No Reports 12. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT No Reports 13. MUNICIPAL CLERK'S DEPARTMENT 10 -1 No Reports 14. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) COD - 009 -11 CL2011 -08, Osborne Street Reconstruction & Energy 14 -1 Drive Construction 15. FINANCE DEPARTMENT (a) FND- 005 -11 Mayor and Councillors' Remuneration and Expenses 15 -1 for 2010 (b) FND- 006 -11 Building Permit Fees Annual Report for 2010 15 -15 16. SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT (a) LGL- 004 -11 Clarington ats. St. Mary's Cement 16 -1 Court File No: 09 -CV- 375276 17. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE No Reports G.P. & A. Agenda - 4 - March 21, 2011 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (a) Addendum Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment to Permit the 18 -1 PSD- 017 -11 Development of a Food Store of 2,829m2 and Two Smaller Buildings of 783m2 and 185m2 Respectively for Retail/Service Commercial Uses — 680 Longworth Avenue, Bowmanville Applicant: 1804603 Ontario Inc. (b) Correspondence from Kaylin Morissette and Julie Cryderman, requesting 18 -25 Funding for their Participation at the U19 World Championship — Women's Field Lacrosse in Hanover, Germany in August, 2011 (Tabled from Council Meeting of March 7, 2011) 19. OTHER BUSINESS 20. COMMUNICATIONS 21. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS (a) Confidential Verbal Report of Municipal Solicitor, Regarding the Host Community Agreement 22. ADJOURNMENT Clarington Lradirig 16r IM1'uy Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Minutes of a meeting of the Special General Purpose and Administration Committee held on Friday, February 25, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present Were: Mayor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak, attended the meeting until 4:51 p.m. Councillor J. Neal Councillor W. Partner Councillor C. Traill Councillor W. Woo Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Director of Engineering Services, T. Cannella Director of Planning Services, D. Crome Director of Operations, F. Horvath Director of Corporate Services & Human Director of Finance/Treasurer, N. Taylor Director of Emergency & Fire Services, G Municipal Solicitor, A. Allison Municipal Clerk, P. Barrie Committee Coordinator, J. Gallagher Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. ORDER OF AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 112 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner Resources, M. Marano Weir THAT the order of the agenda be changed as so that the delegation from Clarington Museums and Archives is moved to item 3(a) from item 3(e). CARRIED ME 4 -1 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 PRESENTATIONS Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance/Treasurer made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation regarding the 2011 Municipal Budget. Ms. Taylor discussed charts regarding the following topics: • Net Municipal Level Per Capita in Selected Municipalities • Property Taxes as a Percentage of Income • Financial Position Per Capita • Comparison of Relative Taxes • Historical Trends —Assessment Growth History • Summary of Clarington's Budget Increases since 2001 • 2011 Budget Overview • Budget Impact Summary List of Reductions Since Budget Education Session External Agencies Request • Future Considerations • 2012 -2015 Forecast DELEGATIONS Martha Rutherford- Conrad, Executive Director and Julie Cashin- Oster, Vice - Chair, Clarington Museum & Archives (CMA), addressed the Committee regarding their 2011 budget request, with a verbal and PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Rutherford - Conrad provided the Committee with a summary of the accomplishments in 2010. Ms. Rutherford - Conrad stated the goal of the CMA is to preserve the past while taking a proactive role in Clarington's future. She noted that one of the accomplishments was to undertake a process modelling exercise, which is a work process analysis that charts work flows through inputs and outputs providing a better decision making tool. Ms. Rutherford - Conrad stated that the other major accomplishment was the installation of PastPerfect Software which manages collections, members, exhibits, loans and campaigns. She relayed the example of how this software will be used, which can include the recording (audio or video) of the story of the artifact, which can be featured in the display of the artifact. Ms. Rutherford - Conrad informed the Committee that the CMA currently has a mathematics co -op student who is working on a data mapping project. She highlighted the following events /services which took place in 2010, including: Edwardian lunches, spirit walks, Pumpkin Bee, Summer Camps, 100 Years of Girl Guiding in Canada Exhibit, donations of artifacts including a rare oil painting by a Camp 30 POW, and Doors Open 2010. Ms. Rutherford - Conrad reviewed the visitor statistic trends, which show an increase in visitors. She also reviewed a chart showing the revenue sources as well as expenses. Ms. Rutherford- Conrad informed the Committee of the 2011 exhibits, new revenues and marketing approaches. -2- 4 -2 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Angie Darlison, Executive Director & Don Welsh, Interim President, Clarington Older Adult Centre (COAA), addressed the Committee regarding their 2011 budget request. Ms. Darlison noted that the organization suffered a loss in 2010 with the passing of Peter Evans. She advised the Committee that they are pleased to be the sole tenants of the Clarington Beech Centre. Ms. Darlison noted that there are currently 1387 members. She noted that in May, the COAA was the first Seniors Centre in Ontario to implement the MySeniorsCentre software which tracks members, registers volunteer hours, and registrations. Ms. Darlison stated that the COAA Strategic Plan was endorsed by Council in June, 2010. She noted that the goal is to promote the health and happiness of seniors in the community. Ms. Darlison noted that the COAA was able to purchase the "Wheels of Action Van" in July, which has transported 2025 riders to and from the Centre since its purchase. She informed the Committee that, in August, the "Coaazy Cafe" was opened using the former Community Care space. Ms. Darlison was proud to announce that, in September, the COAA broke a record for the attendance at the annual open house (over 400 attendees) which resulted in 132 new members joining within a month of the open house. She informed the Committee that, in December, the COAA partnered with SNAP Clarington to produce a public program guide which resulted in many new registrations from the public. Ms. Darlison noted that the COAA raised over $40,000 (exclusive of the fundraising for the van) through bi- monthly euchres, special fundraising, membership fees, facility rentals, and the "Elderly Fund" from the Province. She stated that the COAA expects to have a balanced budget. Ms. Darlison stated that the COAA is not asking for an increase to the budget, simply status quo and thanked the Committee for their support. Councillor Neal left the meeting at 10:12 a.m. and returned at 10:15 a.m. Gail Rickard, Chair, Clarington Public Library, addressed the Committee regarding their 2011 budget request, with a verbal and PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Rickard introduced some other members of the Clarington Public Library Board. She noted that there has been an increase of 9% in materials checked out, 14% in card holders, 9% in Program attendance, 4% to the visits to branches and 72% to visits online. She reviewed a chart showing the 2011 Funding Sources and noted that the Provincial grant has not increased since 1996. Ms. Rickard reviewed a breakdown of the 2011 budget for the Library, which shows a 3.82% increase and noted that the majority of the increase is in wages and benefits. She noted that there is also an anticipated increase in other revenue of approximately $16,000. Ms. Rickard informed the Committee that the cost per capita of the Library (from 2009) is $31.88, which is well in keeping with the neighbouring libraries. She highlighted 2010 achievements which included: wireless access, browse -aloud software, web -wise workshops, Healthy Families (with Kinark Child and Family Services), WWII Story- Sharing, and Food for Fines (allows customers to donate food instead of paying library fines). Ms. Rickard informed the Committee that the Library works with many partners in the community. She noted some of the 2011 initiatives, including: a needs assessment study for the Courtice Branch; upgrading the computer system, new on -line resources, on -line registration /payment, and digitization -3- 4 -3 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 of local newspapers. Ms. Rickard highlighted some of the comments from Library patrons. Edie Hopkins, Library Director, answered questions from the Committee. Craig Ryan, President, and James Campbell, Executive Director, Visual Arts Centre of Clarington (VAC), addressed the Committee regarding their 2011 budget request. Mr. Ryan spoke about the VAC, including highlights from 2010 and expectations for 2011. He noted that there have been several exhibition opportunities at VAC, at the Municipal Administration Centre and the Library. Mr. Ryan stated that VAC has provided many educational programs including drawing, painting, pottery, painting and others, for adults and children (including birthday parties). He informed the Committee that VAC has organized the "Artists in the Classrooms" program, sponsoring artist talks and artist recognition programs. Mr. Ryan advised the Committee that the VAC is located at the historic Barley Mill and they have partnered with community organizations such as Rotary. He noted that VAC is also supported by the Ontario Arts Council (OAC) and the Municipality, while relying on a small staff, a number of volunteers, Council representatives and some community partners. Mr. Ryan informed the Committee that, in 2010, Richard Thorns left the Executive Director position after 10 years in the position. He was pleased to announce that they had recruited James Campbell as Executive Director who has quickly established himself and the transition has been successful. Mr. Ryan stated that VAC appreciated being the beneficiaries of the Mayor's golf tournament in 2010, which was also an opportunity to promote the arts in the community. He informed the Committee that the OAC asked them to submit a three -year plan, which is a recognition of their confidence in the VAC and therefore the process of obtaining funding from the OAC should be smoother. Mr. Ryan stated that in 2010, they established an education committee to review how education is delivered. He also informed the Committee that they had received $50,000 from a Trillium Grant to renovate the washrooms. Mr. Ryan informed the Committee that the construction is currently underway and that they are pleased with how the contractor, board, volunteers and Municipal staff have worked on this project. He noted that these changes will result in changes to work spaces, which will be the challenges for 2011. Mr. Ryan stated that VAC is looking at taking the model of the education committee and will be creating other sub - committees (such as a fundraising committee and human resources committee) to improve services. He stated that one of the challenges for 2011 will be the requirement to meet accessibility standards. Mr. Ryan noted that VAC is requesting a 4% increase to cover operating cost increases. He also noted that Jane Eccles, a local artist, has recently left the board to pursue her artist pursuits, and to that end, she has a show opening at the Whitby Station Gallery this Saturday. 4 -4 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 RECESS Resolution #GPA- 113 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the Committee recess for 10 minutes until 11:00 a.m. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 11:00 a.m. ORDER OF AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 114 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Partner THAT the delegation of Mr. Bob Kreasul be moved from Item 3(n) to prior to the Department Head presentations, Item 3(g). CARRIED DELEGATIONS - CONTINUED Sally Barrie, Community Care Durham, addressed the Committee regarding their 2011 budget request. Ms. Barrie informed the Committee of the significant senior population growth in Clarington (approximately 11 %). She stated that there has been an increase of 27% of residents over 50 in Clarington. Ms. Barrie informed the Committee that, as a result, the cost of providing services increases each year, including the need to actively promote Community Care's services. She noted that volunteer recruitment continues to be a large challenge and requires screening, interviewing, orientation and ongoing training (there are over 400 registered volunteers). Ms. Barrie informed the Committee that there was only an increase of 0.6% in overall service delivery but that there was an increase of 4.9% in delivery/transportation services. She noted that last year at this time, they were awaiting completion of the renovations of the new office at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex and that on Monday March 29, 2010 they moved into the new offices. Ms. Barrie thanked the committee for their confidence in what Community Care brings to the community. She noted that much of the stigma is lessened by the exposure provided by the new location at Rickard. Ms. Barrie informed the Committee that there has been successful two -way cooperation with the Rickard staff since the move. She thanked the Committee for ongoing commitment and interest in how Community Care serves the community. -5- 4 -5 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Brad Arbour, Firehouse Youth, addressed the Committee regarding their 2011 budget request. Mr. Arbour provided background on the Firehouse Youth as well as an update. He advised the Committee that it was the Clarington Youth Advisory Committee (CYAC) which formed a special task force to create an action plan, resulting in using the former fire hall as a youth centre. Mr. Arbour informed the Committee that the John Howard Society provides structured and supervised recreational programs and that the 2010 statistical report showed 225 registered youth and 1300 visits, with 59% under 16 years of age. Mr. Arbour noted that the hours have been changed and the Firehouse Youth is now open Tuesday to Friday from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. He stated that they offer recreational activities such as hockey, basketball, ping pong pool, foosball, as well as online computer access. Mr. Arbour stated that they are currently in the process of planning to offer an afterschool snack program, in conjunction with Feed the Need in Durham. He informed the Committee of the various areas sponsored by Firehouse Youth, such as: healthy relationships, anger management, self esteem and others. Mr. Arbour stated that in 2010, there were many trips and outings offered, free of charge, including Oshawa Generals Games, Cobourg beach, a Mirvish play, paintball, and a Blue Jays game on Camp Day. He informed the Committee that the Firehouse Youth could not operate without the funds provided by the Municipality for such items as Battle of the Bands, Christmas Dinner, Golf Tournament, etc. Mr. Arbour informed the Committee that individuals and business also support the Firehouse Youth. Bob Kreasul, representing Port Darlington boat owners, was present regarding Bowmanville Creek Dredging as mentioned in Report FND- 003 -11. Mr. Kreasul reviewed a photo (and other documents) of the area. He clarified that the dredging in question has to do with the public portion. Mr. Kreasul informed the Committee that the quote for this area, obtained last year, was approximately $40,000 (of which, the Municipality's portion would be 1/3). He informed the Committee that a brief estimate of incomes derived from the chartering of salmon boats for a season is approximately $2,925,000.00 in addition to $1,041,300.00 for the non - resident fishing licenses. Mr. Kreasul stated that the Port Darlington harbour is within a one day sail of Toronto, but it is passed by due to the need for the harbour to be dredged. He stated that the launch ramp only has a 10 inch draught. Mr. Kreasul reminded the Committee that the parking kiosk is still not hooked up which could have funded the dredging for the area. He'noted that the dredging cost is not an annual cost, but rather a 5 -7 year effort. Mr. Kreasul informed the Committee that they are planning to hold an information session for staff and Council to think of creative ways to achieve the dredging. He also invited Council to join him on his boat to see Clarington from Lake Ontario. Marie Marano, Director of Corporate Services and Human Resources, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Corporate Services Departmental Budget. She noted that Corporate Services has focussed its efforts on maintaining the core services such as advertising, Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and health and safety. Ms. Marano noted that Report COD - 008 -11 addresses the Clarington.net publication and is currently included in the budget. She informed the Committee that 4 -6 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 the recommendation in the report is to moving the dollars to the advertising budget which will allow more focus on programs which will generate revenue, thereby effectively discontinuing the Clarington.net publication. Ms. Marano informed the Committee that, if Clarington.net is to proceed, there will be three issues this year (May, September and December). She noted that one of the predominant challenges facing Corporate Services is growth in terms of facilities and employees, which directly impacts the department, in particular, Information Technology (IT) and the need to keep pace with current technology as well as the need to be proactive in order to carry out services properly and effectively. Ms. Marano noted that there are currently six individuals in the IT division, noting that the average size of the IT Departments in lakefront municipalities is 14. She highlighted the following areas addressed in the budget submission: Employee Assistance Program (EAP), Communications and Health and Safety. RECESS Resolution #GPA- 115 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the Committee recess for one hour and five minutes until 1:30 p.m. CARRIED The meeting convened at 1:30 p.m. DELEGATIONS - CONTINUED Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Municipal Clerk's Departmental Budget. Ms. Barrie noted that there are no large projects expected in 2011, excluding an improvement in the webpage for the Clerk's Department as well as continuing the enhancement of the Records Management Program. Gord Weir, Director of Emergency Services, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Emergency Services Departmental Budget. Chief Weir noted that the department has reviewed their accounts, line by line, and adjusted where necessary. He noted that they have put off some projects this year. Chief Weir stated that there are some repairs and purchases of vehicles that are required, noting that it takes approximately 16 months to purchase a pumper. He added that the funds for equipment reserve are required for replacements of equipment as well as equipping new staff. -7- 4 -7 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Engineering Services Departmental Budget. Mr. Cannella provided the Committee with an insight on what is driving the Engineering Services Department budget. He noted that they are trying to move away from servicing land for developers and to move towards updating rural roads stating that he fears that this may be one of the worst years for rural roads and therefore there should be a focus on them this year. Mr. Cannella noted that they have been using the gas tax to improve the overall network. He touched on the road reconstruction program, which is coordinated with the Region of Durham. Mr. Cannella explained that there is a benefit to making the improvements at the same time as water and sewer construction, as the Region of Durham pays for a portion of the road reconstruction. He noted that this budget includes funds for a leash -free dog park. Mr. Cannella informed the Committee that one of the largest challenges in the budget process is construction costs, noting that the costs of oil and gas have affected the budgeting of construction costs. Mr. Cannella stated an upgrade of a staff position is recommended to allow for more in -house design which would offset the outsourcing of design. Fred Horvath, Director of Operations, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Operations Departmental Budget. Mr. Horvath thanked his staff and the Finance Department staff for their assistance with the budget. He highlighted the different areas of the Operations Department. Mr. Horvath informed the Committee of the Minimum Maintenance Standards which must be complied with. He indicated that the department assists with over 30 special events, oversees the operation of Community Halls (of which 25% are over 100 years old), implements the winter maintenance program, including the seniors' snow clearing program, and looks after the aging infrastructure. Joseph Caruana, Director of Community Services, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Community Services Departmental Budget. Some 2010 revenues were down, but staff offset this by controlling expenditures. The department's focus in 2011 will be meeting the requirements of accessibility legislation, energy conservation, Darlington Sports Centre roof replacement, day camps, Super Cool Science program, introduction of new programs, volunteer board workshops and updating of the departmental Strategic Plan. A full -time recreation software assistant has been requested to support the CLASS software, which maintains the registration of programs and facilities. David Crome, Director of Planning Services, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Planning Services Departmental Budget. Mr. Crome advised that he has requested the addition of one crossing guard, when conditions warrant. He highlighted consulting projects which are to be funded from the Development Charge Reserve, the land acquisition strategy, the Port Granby Funds, and Community Improvement (CIP) funding which is partially drawn from the CIP Reserve. Mr. Crome 4 -8 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 advised that, at Council's direction, funds have been included in the budget to allow for the development of a small parkette at Highway #2 and Trulls Road. ORDER OF AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 116 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the agenda be altered to add Mr. Andy Allison, Municipal Solicitor, to address the 2011 Legal Services Departmental budget. CARRIED DELEGATIONS - CONTINUED Andy Allison, Municipal Solicitor, provided the Committee with a verbal review of the 2011 Legal Services Departmental Budget, noting that 90% of the expenses identified in the professional fees account will be recovered and therefore are not part of the general levy. He stated that there may be outside legal counsel required, but that it is an estimate as these cannot necessarily be anticipated. FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2011 CURRENT AND CAPITAL BUDGET Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Novak 1. THAT Report FND- 003 -11 be received; 2. THAT the 2011 Operating and Capital budgets as outlined in Schedule "A ", at an estimated tax levy impact of 6.29% (exclusive of tax policy impacts), as directed in Report FND- 003 -11 be approved; 3. THAT direction be provided on the items listed as optional items for consideration, as itemized in Schedule "B" to Report FND- 003 -11 at an estimated tax levy impact of negative 1.13% if all items are selected; 4. THAT direction be provided on the grants for external agencies per their requests itemized in Schedule "C" to Report FND- 003 -11 at an estimated tax levy impact of 0.31 %; 4 -9 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 5. THAT Schedules "D ", "E" and "F" of Report FND- 003 -11 outlining Reserve and Reserve Fund Contributions and new Reserves /Reserve Funds be approved; 6. THAT approximately $801,000 be drawn from the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund to offset the tax rate impact; 7. THAT the financing of Capital projects, as outlined in the documents attached to Report FND- 003 -11 be approved; 8. THAT the external agencies, referred to in Schedule "C" of Report FND- 003 -11 be advised of Council's decision regarding their grant requests; 9. THAT the Mayor's Golf Tournament take place in 2011, at no cost to the tax base, with the net proceeds from the Mayor's Golf Tournament to be directed to Memorial Hospital Foundation - Bowmanville; 10. THAT any cash flow shortfall in the Development Charges Reserve Funds be interim financed from the Municipal Capital Works Program, Impact/Escrow Reserve Fund and General Municipal Reserve Funds, to be repaid with interest as cash flow permits: 11. THAT the payment of the 10th year balloon on the debenture debt for the Municipal Administrative Centre and Main Library Expansion be approved with $1,000,000 from the General Municipal Reserve Fund and $569,480 from the Impact Escrow Reserve Fund for the MAC portion and $808,520 from the Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund for the Main Library Portion; 12. THAT the Main Library Portion of the balloon payment funded from the Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund in the amount of $808,520 be repaid from the Library Development Charges Reserve Fund over a further five year period with interest as cash flow permits and Council reconfirms its intent to fund this to the extent allowable from future development charges; 13. THAT the Staffing Plan (Schedule "G" to Report FND- 003 -11) be approved subject to the budgetary allocation for new staffing in any given year not to exceed the value of assessment growth for that year; 14. THAT the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to make any adjustment if necessary to ensure staff resources are allocated and deployed fairly and consistently among all departments, and in adherence to maintaining the current service standard; 15. THAT direction be provided regarding Canada geese deterrent methods in the 2011 budget; -10- 4 -10 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 16. THAT Report FND- 003 -11 be adopted by resolution in accordance with provisions of Ontario Regulation 284/09 of the Municipal Act, 2001; 17. THAT the issue of dredging of Bowmanville Creek be deferred for consideration at a future budget when erosion issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, and 18. THAT the appropriate By -laws to levy the 2011 tax requirements for Municipal Regional and Education purposes be forwarded to Council for approval, once final tax policy information is available. CARRIED AS AMENDED LATER IN THE MEETING See following motions Resolution #GPA- 118 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule A be amended as follows: THAT Revenue Losses, Item #7, "Reduce Contribution from Veridian Interest — One Time in 2010 ", be changed from $300,000 to $0. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA- 119 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA - 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule A be amended as follows: THAT Revenue Losses, Item #7, "Reduce Contribution from Veridian Interest — One Time in 2010 ", be changed from $300,000 to $150,000. CARRIED - 11 - 4 -11 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 120 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule A be amended as follows: THAT Expense Increases, Item #28, "WSIB Surcharge ", be changed from $100,000 to $70,000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 121 -11 Moved by Councillor. Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #2 "Pavement Patching" be included in the budget in the amount of $14,500. CARRIED Resolution #GPA - 122 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #5, "Catch Basin Repairs" be included in the budget in the amount of $15,000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 123 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #14, "Courtice CIP Project — Tax Levy Portion" be included in the budget in the amount of $50,000 to allow for a CIP project along the Highway #2 corridor. CARRIED -12- 4 -12 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 124 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #25, "Reduce Corporate Advertising Program" be included in the budget in the amount of $13,000. MOTION WITHDRAWN Resolution #GPA- 125 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #25, "Reduce Corporate Advertising Program" be included in the budget in the amount of $20,000, leaving $7,000 in the budget for one edition of Clarington.net. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 126 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #17, "Increase Revenue for Penalty and Interest on Taxes" be included in the budget in the amount of $100,000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 127 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #19, "Increase Supplementary Taxation Revenue" be included in the budget in the amount of $75,000. CARRIED -13- 4 -13 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 128 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT the Mayor's office budgets be amended as follows: • Phone & Fax accounts be reduced by $2,700; • Staff Development accounts be reduced by $5,000; • Reception account be reduced by $5,000; and • Office expenditures account be reduced by 3,000 for a total reduction of $15,700. CARRIED Resolution #GPA - 129 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #16, "Decrease Various Facility Hydro Usage Estimates ", be included in the budget in the amount of $50,000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 130 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #18, "Reduce Physician Recruitment ", be included in the budget in the amount of $30,000. CARRIED -14- 4 -14 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 131 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #20, "Reduce Fire Staff Development" be included in the budget in the amount of $5,000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 132 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #21, "Reduce Fire Chemical /Foam" be included in the budget in the amount of $9,000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 133 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #22, "Reduce P/T Firefighter Wages Overall Budget" be included in the budget in the amount of $50,000. CARRIED -15- 4 -15 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 134 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule "A ", be amended as follows: THAT Item #38, "Proposed New Staffing Impact" be reduced from $700,000 resulting in no new staff being hired other than four full -time fire fighters, one Engineering position being upgraded and one full -time IT position in Corporate Services. CARRIED AS AMENDED LATER IN THE MEETING See following motions. Resolution #GPA- 135 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 134 -11 be amended by including one additional full -time staff member in the Operations Department. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 136 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 134 -11 be amended by including the additional staffing requests of the Clerk's Department, being one full -time Municipal Law Enforcement Officer and the conversion of one part-time Administration position to a full -time position. See following motions Resolution #GPA- 137 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 136 -11 be divided to allow for consideration of each position separately. CARRIED -16- 4 -16 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 138 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 136 -11 be amended by including the full -time Municipal Law Enforcement Officer (MLEO) in the Clerk's Department, conditional upon CUPE's agreement to a letter of understanding that the new MLEO will be able to work weekends and evenings as required. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 139 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 136 -11 be amended by adding the following: THAT the conversion of a part-time Administrative position, in the Clerk's Department, to full -time be deleted from Schedule G of Report FND- 003 -11. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 140 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 134 -11 be divided to allow for consideration of the hiring of the four full -time fire fighters separately. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 141 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 134 -11 be amended by changing the words "four full -time firefighters" to "two full -time firefighters ". MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA- 142 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the hiring of four full -time firefighters be approved. CARRIED The foregoing Resolution GPA- 134 -11 was then put to a vote and CARRIED AS AMENDED. 17- 4 -17 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 143 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the full -time positions identified in the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 134 -11 be implemented for a July 1, 2011 start date. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 144 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended to delete Recommendation #6, in its entirety, which states: "THAT approximately $801,000 be drawn from the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund to offset the tax rate impact." MOTION WITHDRAWN Resolution #GPA- 145 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA - 117 -11, Recommendation #6 be amended to read: "THAT approximately $400,000 be drawn from the Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund to offset the tax rate impact." MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA - 146 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #15, "Staff Recognition" be included in the budget in the amount of $15,000. CARRIED 4 -18 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 147 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule D, Reserve Funds, be amended by reducing Account #502, "Industrial /Economic Development" Reserve Fund from $50,000 to $0. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA- 148 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT $15,000 identified on Page 227 of the draft budget (Unclassified Admin — Other Equipment) be deleted. MOTION LOST RECESS Resolution #GPA- 149 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the Committee recess for 5 minutes. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 4:01 p.m. 2011 CURRENT AND CAPITAL BUDGET - Continued Resolution #GPA- 150 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT $30,000 identified on Page 224 of the draft budget (Central Parking Meter) be deleted. CARRIED -19- 4 -19 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 151 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended by adding the following: THAT the Region of Durham be requested to reconsider their position that they will no longer reimburse lower -tier municipalities for roadside clean ups, as identified in Section 17.1 of Report FND- 003 -11; and THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all municipalities in the Region of Durham. . 8 Resolution #GPA- 152 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended by adding the following: THAT the consulting work for the recreational master plan identified in the Community Services Operating budget (Page 110 of the draft budget), be done in- house. MOTION WITHDRAWN Resolution #GPA- 153 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended by adding the following: THAT Community Services Staff prepare a report on efforts to approach public and community partners to operate the canteen in the Newcastle & District Recreation Centre. CARRIED -20- 4 -20 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 154 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #6, "Weed Spraying /Median Maintenance" be included in the. budget the amount of $20,000. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA- 155 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule B be amended as follows: THAT Item #24, "Eliminate EAP (Partial Year)" be included in the budget in the amount of $23;400. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 156 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT the revenue identified for the Engineering Services Department (Page 70 of the draft budget) be increased by $8,000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 157 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Schedule A be amended as follows: THAT Revenue Losses, Item #7, "Reduce contribution from Veridian Interest — One Time in 2010 ", be further amended from $150,000 by reducing an additional $100,000 for a total of $50,000 remaining. CARRIED -21- 4 -21 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 158 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended as follows: THAT Recommendation #2 be amended by deleting the figure "6.29 %" and replacing it with the figure "3.49 %; and THAT Recommendation #4 be amended by deleting the words "direction be provided on" and adding the words "be approved as" following the words "external agencies ". SEE FOLLOWING MOTION Resolution #GPA- 159 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 158 -11 be divided to allow for consideration of each item individually. MOTION LOST The foregoing Resolution #GPA- 158 -11 was then put to a vote and CARRIED. Councillor Novak left the meeting at 4:51 p.m. Resolution #GPA- 160 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing Resolution #GPA- 117 -11 be amended by deleting Recommendation #15, regarding Canada geese deterrent methods in its entirety. CARRIED As Councillor Novak (seconder of Resolution #GPA- 117 -11) had left the meeting, Mayor Foster requested an alternate seconder to ensure continuance of the vote on the matter under discussion. Councillor Woo indicated that he would second the motion. The foregoing Resolution #GPA - 117 -11 was then put to a vote and CARRIED AS AMENDED. -22- 4 -22 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 2012 TO 2015 OPERATING AND CAPITAL FORECAST Resolution #GPA- 161 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report FND- 004 -11 be received for information. CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS CORPORATE ADVERTISING VERSUS CORPORATE NEWSLETTER Resolution #GPA- 162 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report COD - 008 -11 be lifted from the table. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 163 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report COD - 008 -11 be received; THAT newsprint be approved as the method of advertising Municipal required notices and activities by allocating the current level of funding incorporated in the 2011 budget to newsprint advertising; and THAT the municipal advertising policy be revised as appropriate. MOTION WITHDRAWN Resolution #GPA- 164 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report COD - 008 -11 be received for information. CARRIED -23- 4 -23 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 25, 2011 OTHER BUSINESS There were no items of business considered under this section of the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Resolution #GPA- 165 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the meeting adjourn at 5:10 p.m. MAYOR 4 -24 CARRIED -24- MUNICIPAL CLERK Clarington ,_ling 1hr MU, General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 Minutes of a meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present Were: Mayor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak Councillor J. Neal Councillor W. Partner Councillor C. Traill Councillor W. Woo Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu Manager of Transportation and Design, L. Benson Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Director of Planning Services, D. Crome Director of Operations, F. Horvath Director of Corporate Services & Human Resources, M. Marano Director of Finance/Treasurer, N. Taylor Director of Emergency & Fire Services, G. Weir Municipal Solicitor, A. Allison Deputy Clerk, A. Greentree Clerk II, J. Gallagher Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Councillor Hooper indicated that he would be declaring an interest in Report PSD- 017 -11. Councillor Neal indicated that he would be declaring an interest in Report PSD- 023 -11. - 1 - 4 -25 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 ANNOUNCEMENTS Councillor Hooper announced that a new Swiss Chalet has just opened in the Bowmanville west end development. He congratulated the Swiss Chalet on a new opening. Councillor Hooper also announced that he had attended the Wine, Cheese and Chocolate event held on Saturday, February 26, 2011 at the Haydon Community Hall, which was a successful event. Councillor Novak announced that, on Wednesday, February 23, 2011, she attended a dinner reception, held at the Port Darlington Marina, with the Honourable Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Infrastructure, in support of the Durham Provincial Liberal Association. She also announced that she had attended, on Thursday, February 24, 2011, the public open house on the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Watershed Management Plan and informed the pubic and the Committee that the Planning Services Department has extra copies of the Plan. Councillor Traill announced that Mayor Foster, Councillor Hooper, and she attended the successful Chicken Pot Pie fundraiser at the Tyrone United Church on the weekend. Councillor Woo announced that he, along with Mayor Foster, attended the 51St annual Canadian Nuclear Association Conference which included 800 delegates and 60 exhibitors. He informed the Committee that Sheila Hall from the Clarington Board of Trade (CBOT) manned the Clarington booth. Councillor Woo noted that they were encouraged by the interest in Clarington. He also announced that, on Saturday, February 27, 2011, he and his wife attended the opening of Jane Eccles' ( Bowmanville artist) exhibit at the station Gallery in Whitby. He also announced that this Thursday, March 3, 2011, Clarington Wind Concerns will be holding a public meeting with Dr. Robert McMurtry (member of the Board of Directors for the Society for Wind Vigilance) as the speaker. Councillor Woo also announced that there will be a soft opening of the new Shoppers Drug Mart in Newcastle, on Thursday, March 3, 2011, with the official opening to follow on Saturday, March 5, 2011. Mayor Foster noted that Clarington was the only municipality with a booth at the Canadian Nuclear Association Conference. -2- 4 -26 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 ALTER AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 166 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the agenda be altered to order the delegations as follows: Jacquie Hoornweg, Jacqueline Muccio, Libby Racansky, Clifford Curtis, Bob Annaert, Ron Richards, Kerry Meydam, and Katrina Metzner. CARRIED MINUTES Resolution #GPA- 167 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the minutes of the regular meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on February 7, 2011, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS David Stewart, Architect with John G. Williams Limited, the firm responsible for facilitating the review and drafting of the recommended General Architectural Design Guidelines (GADG) provided the Committee with some background of the GADG, which began in 2002. Mr. Stewart noted that the 2002 Guidelines were reviewed during the past year with stakeholders such as BILD, DRHBA, and other design consultants. He stated that the following were the Municipality's objectives: • Update guidelines to more current standards in accordance with periodic review /update revisions • Achieve more comprehensive 'community design vision'/ supplementary guidelines Improved quality of housing design Provide greater municipal input in review process Mr. Stewart noted that the developers had concerns surrounding additional costs imposed by new design criteria as well as approval delays. He provided the Committee with an overview of the 2002 Guidelines, such as community safety, garage design criteria, model design criteria, siting criteria /model repetition, and priority lot dwellings. Mr. Stewart stated that the new guidelines have been updated to expand the list of consultants, include an orientation meeting with staff, supplementary guidelines and to provide more stringent guidelines consistent with other GTA municipalities. He listed -3- 4 -27 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 the stringent features which include better detailing of rear elevations, hand railings and porches, sustainability, energy efficiency, utility meters, municipal address signage, corner lot fencing, garage design provisions, townhouse design, and treatment of driveways. Mr. Stewart outlined the benefits to the Municipality, such as more municipal input, improved design quality, provides level playing field, and that the guidelines are more results oriented. He noted that these changes are at zero cost to the Municipality as the consultant bills the developers directly. Mr. Stewart reviewed the main objectives of the architectural control process, dwelling design criteria, garage design criteria, priority lot dwelling, community window dwellings, view terminus dwellings, and public exposed rear elevations. He informed the Committee of the details of the design review process (i.e. initial meeting, initial review prior to sales, final review and approval, and site inspections to monitor compliance). DELEGATIONS Jacquie Hoornweg, President and Chair, Durham Strategic Energy Alliance (DSEA), was present to provide the Committee with a DSEA update and information on the Innovation Durham Northumberland Project. Ms. Hoornweg introduced two Board members: Jeff Kistner, from Intellimeter, and Sheila Hall, Executive Director of the Clarington Board of Trade. Ms. Hoornweg provided the Committee with an overview and some background on the DSEA, which was formed in 2005 as an energy- friendly environment with its genesis in Durham Region. She noted that the offices were moved, in 2009, to Durham College Whitby campus. Ms. Hoornweg stated that the DSEA is funded by the Ministry of Research and Innovation, Ontario Centre of Excellence and Durham Region as well as through the membership base. She stated that their purpose was to ensure that the Durham Region had an energy profile with all levels of government. Ms. Hoornweg noted that there were originally 11 founding members (including municipalities, academia, public sector and private sector) and now there are 70 members in Durham Region and beyond. She noted that one of the projects that they are facilitating is the electric vehicle research project. Ms. Hoornweg informed the Committee about the establishment of the Regional Innovation Centre. She noted that this process began with the initial submission of Expression of Interest in November, 2009 and resulted in $830,000 over three years to establish Innovation Durham Northumberland (IDN), which officially opened December 16, 2010. Ms. Hoornweg stated that this organization is geared to assist high technology companies. She mentioned that they have increased their locations, as follows: UOIT, DSEA at Durham College and Northumberland Manufacturing Association offices. Ms. Hoornweg informed the Committee that they have expanded their mandate, received sustained core funding, expanded services for members, and have additional resources and access to funding. 4 -28 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 168 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the delegation of Jacquie Hoornweg, President and Chair of the Durham Strategic Energy Alliance, be received with thanks. CARRIED Jacqueline Muccio was present to advise the Committee of an issue with parking which inhibits proper snow removal. Ms. Muccio informed the Committee that, in the 4Y2 years that she has lived at her current address, she has noted that there are snow removal concerns on all the roads in Clarington. She made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Muccio stated that it is difficult to exit the driveway due to either ponding or icing at the end of her driveway, due to the accumulation of the snow. She discussed photos which showed a neighbour's vehicle is often parked near the driveway windrow which impedes the snow plow operator from clearing to the edge of the road. Ms. Muccio noted that the problem is compounded because of the curve of the street. She informed the Committee that the same vehicle parks on the road from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. which, in addition to snow clearing problems, causes difficulty with the Muccios entering and exiting the street. Ms. Muccio reviewed photos showing that there is room in the neighbour's driveway for the vehicle to park. She informed the Committee that this parking issue (of many vehicles) also causes blindspots on the curve of the road. Ms. Muccio informed the Committee that there are risks for children crossing or playing on the street. She provided the Committee with several possible solutions, such as: evening /weekend by -law enforcement; increase ticket penalties; add "no parking" signs to entire curve of the street; install additional sidewalk component for crossing more directly; add a fire hydrant; and send letters to repeat offenders attached to tax bills. Resolution #GPA- 169 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Ms. Muccio be thanked for her delegation; and THAT the issues regarding parking, on Windham Crescent in Courtice, be referred to staff. CARRIED -5- 4 -29 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 Libby Racansky was present regarding Report PSD- 016 -11 - draft plan of subdivision and rezoning applications. Ms. Racansky made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation. She stated that the "Kingsberry Properties (1317870 Ontario Limited) and William Tonno Construction Limited" development will cause problems for the natural habitat currently existing in the area as the plan is to move the amphibian breeding habitat. Ms. Racansky noted that the development is in a location that Planning Services Staff had indicated was not ideal for development. She noted that there are many vernal pool locations which will be impacted by the development. She noted that several studies have been done which show that only clusters of development should be allowed near vernal pool locations. Ms. Racansky informed the Committee that there is an agreement with the existing subdivision which cannot be changed, but will be affected by this development. Ms. Racansky provided the Committee with quotes from several sources indicating the connection with development and environment. Ms. Racansky also stated that she is concerned about the proposed pond, indicated on Page 9 of Report PSD- 016 -11, and the details surrounding the pond. She also informed the Committee that she is concerned about erosion monitoring on the tributary and a portion of the main branch of the Farewell Creek as well as the relocation of rare plant species and the construction of the proposed amphibian wetland. Ms. Racansky informed the Committee that the lands were not developed earlier because there was not enough services and now the developers are reluctant to accommodate the natural environment. Clifford Curtis was present regarding Report PSD- 016 -11- draft plan of subdivision and rezoning applications. Mr. Curtis informed the Committee that he owns land near the proposed plan of subdivision subject lands. He made a verbal and electronic presentation. Mr. Curtis noted that his primary concerns relate to erosion of the "valley wall ". He reviewed photos of the Farewell Creek showing signs of erosion. Mr. Curtis informed the Committee that the Slope Stability Report showed that the existing neighbour's shed and the trees shown in the photos will fall into the valley. He noted that the proposed diversion of the Kingsberry watershed is something that is usually avoided. Mr. Curtis reviewed an excerpt from a March 3, 2010 report from D.G. Biddle and Associates which shows the 25 year soil conservation amounts show a 30% increase in the erosion (even with a storm water management pond). He showed another study which shows the amount of erosion that will affect his property. Mr. Curtis summarized his concerns as increased erosion leading to slope failure, increased foot traffic, and increased liability. He requested that the Municipality ensure that there is erosion control at the toe of the slope with minimal impact to tree cover and fencing at the property boundary to reduce the foot traffic and affects on vegetation. Mr. Curtis estimates the costs to do the necessary stabilization work at $100,000. Although a drainage easement would satisfy him, he believes the best situation would be for the Municipality to expropriate. M 4 -30 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 Bob Annaert, Senior Project Manager and President of D.G. Biddle & Associates, was present regarding Report PSD- 016 -11 - draft plan of subdivision and rezoning applications. Mr. Annaert was present representing the applicant. He stated that he is in support of the recommendations in Report PSD- 016 -11. Mr. Annaert informed the Committee that this has been a long process and includes many reports. As a result, he stated that he believes all the reports have been done and should satisfy all the concerns of the stakeholders. Mr. Annaert stated that the Erosion Assessment Report was prepared by experts and concluded that it is not expected that the development with the storm water retention pond will exacerbate the existing condition. He added that the report had undergone a Peer Review by the Conservation Authority and municipal staff. Mr. Annaert informed the Committee that the Storm Water Assessment Report addresses current concerns. He stated that the implementation of the Storm Water Management Plan is expected to divert the water and discharge it into the creek without any negative impact on downstream lands. RECESS Resolution #GPA- 170 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the Committee recess for 10 minutes. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 11:37 a.m. DELEGATIONS - CONTINUED Ron Richards, R.G. Richards & Associates, was present regarding Report PSD- 017 -11, a proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment to permit the development of a food store and two smaller buildings at 680 Longworth Avenue, Bowmanville. Mr. Richards stated they were in agreement with Report PSD- 017 -11 and he requested a two week deferral of this application. Kerry Meydam was present regarding Report PSD- 016 -11- draft plan of subdivision and rezoning applications. Ms. Meydam was present to inform the Committee that she is concerned about the movement of the wetland habitat, which she was not sure was in keeping with the 1996 Minutes of Settlement. She has concerns with regard to the high water table. Ms. Meydam stated that one of the Totten Sims Hubicki reports noted that the storm water management ponds should not be located on high ground water tables. She agrees with the area residents who have concerns with storm water and ponding. Ms. Meydam asked that the wording in the agreement be such that it will hold the developers responsible for any negative impact including well interference (including the ongoing costs of hooking up to municipal water systems), ponding, and erosion control. 7- 4 -31 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 She stated that she is also concerned about the removal of pocket wetlands in favour of development. Ms. Meydam also informed the Committee that she has concerns about moving the compensatory amphibian wetlands as future developments may further impact them again. She asked whether there will be monitoring after these wetlands have been moved. Ms. Meydam thanked the Planning Staff for their work on the issue. She stated that she feels that environmental concerns should take precedence over development. Ms. Meydam stated that item #56 of the Conditions of Draft Approval refers to a requirement for a chain link fence around the storm water management (open space block), to be 1.5m high. She expressed her concern that this fence would not be high enough to protect children from easily climbing over. In addition, Ms. Meydam stated that she hopes the Municipality does not allow houses to back onto the streets and main roads (but rather they should front on them). Katrina Metzner was called, but was not present. Councillor Novak chaired this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC MEETING There were no Public Meetings. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT TWO (2) PROPOSED DRAFT PLANS OF SUBDIVISION AND TWO (2) ZONING BY- LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS TO PERMIT A MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OWNER: KINGSBERRY PROPERTIES (1317870 ONTARIO LIMITED) & WILLIAM TONNO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Resolution #GPA- 171 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD- 016 -11 be received; THAT the application for the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, submitted by Kingsberry Properties to permit the development of 70 residential units be approved, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 5 to Report PSD- 016 -11; THAT the Zoning By -law Amendment application submitted by Kingsberry Properties be approved as contained in Attachment 6 to Report PSD- 016 -11; 4 -32 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 THAT the By -law authorizing the entering into a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner of Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T -90003 and the Municipality of Clarington be approved as contained in Attachment 7 to Report PSD- 016 -11; THAT the application for the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, submitted by William Tonno Construction Ltd. to permit the development of 77 residential units be approved, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 8 to Report PSD- 016 -11; THAT the Zoning By -law Amendment application submitted by William Tonno Construction Ltd. be approved as contained in Attachment 9 to Report PSD- 016 -11; THAT the By -law authorizing the entering into a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner of Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T -89055 and the Municipality of Clarington be approved as contained in Attachment 10 to Report PSD- 016 -11; THAT the Region of Durham Planning Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD- 016 -11 and Council's decision; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 016 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED AS AMENDED (See following motion) Resolution #GPA- 172 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT the foregoing resolution #GPA- 171 -11 be amended to add the following paragraph: THAT a requirement be added for a 1.2m high farm fence to be installed between the subject lands and the abutting properties to the west north of the stormwater pond. CARRIED The foregoing resolution #GPA- 171 -11 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. 4 -33 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD STORE OF 2,829M2 AND TWO SMALLER BUILDINGS OF 783M2 AND 185M2 RESPECTIVELY FOR RETAIL /SERVICE COMMERCIAL USES — 680 LONGWORTH AVENUE, BOWMANVILLE APPLICANT: 1804603 ONTARIO INC. Councillor Hooper declared a pecuniary interest with respect to Report PSD- 017 -11 as he owns property in downtown Bowmanville, which may be impacted by the proposed development. Councillor Hooper left the room and did not participate in discussions and voting on this matter. Resolution #GPA- 173 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report PSD- 017 -11 be referred to the March 21, 2011 General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting. CARRIED Councillor Hooper returned to the meeting. GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES (2011 UPDATE) Resolution #GPA- 174 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report PSD- 018 -11 be received; THAT the General Architectural Control Guidelines (2011 Update), prepared by John G. Williams, Architect be adopted; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 018 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED -10- 4 -34 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 ALTER THE AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 175 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the agenda be altered to allow Ms. Katrina Metzner to speak as a delegation, at this time, regarding Report PSD- 019 -11. CARRIED DELEGATIONS - CONTINUED Ms. Katrina Metzner, Halminen Homes, was present on behalf of Halminen Homes regarding Report PSD- 019 -11. Ms. Metzner advised that they are in support of the Report. She thanked staff for working with Halminen Homes and advised that she was available to answer any questions that the Committee might have. REPORTS - CONTINUED PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT INCREASED GARAGE WIDTHS; INCREASED GARAGE PROJECTIONS; AND, INCREASED LOT COVERAGE ON LOTS WITH ONE STOREY DWELLINGS — COURTICE APPLICANT: HALMINEN HOMES Resolution #G PA- 176 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD- 019 -11 be received; THAT the rezoning application submitted by Halminen Homes be approved, in part, and that the proposed Zoning By -law contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD- 019 -11 be passed; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD - 019 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED - 11 - 4 -35 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 2010 ANNUAL REPORT ON APPLICATIONS FOR PLANS OF SUBDIVISION AND PLANS OF CONDOMINIUM Resolution #GPA- 177 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD- 020 -11 be received; and THAT the Region of Durham Planning Department be forwarded a copy of Report PSD- 020 -11 and Council's decision. CARRIED APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF PART LOT CONTROL APPLICANT: CARRINGTON HOMES (COURTICE) LIMITED Resolution #GPA- 178 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report PSD- 021 -11 be received; THAT the request for Removal of Part Lot Control with respect to Lots 68, 69, 73, 80, 81 and 83 of Plan 40M -2364 be approved and that the Part Lot Control By -law contained in Attachment 2 of Report PSD -021 -11 be passed pursuant to Section 50 (7.1) of the Planning Act; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 021 -11 and any delegations and the Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED REMOVAL OF HOLDING (H) SYMBOL APPLICANT: 1557366 ONTARIO INC. Resolution #GPA- 179 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD- 022 -11 be received; THAT the application submitted on behalf of 1557366 Ontario Inc., to remove a Holding (H) Symbol be approved and that the By -law, contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD - 022-11 be passed; and -12- 4 -36 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 022 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED SOLAR ENERGY PROJECTS IN URBAN VALLEYLANDS Councillor Neal declared a pecuniary interest with respect to Report PSD- 023 -11 as he had previously legally represented a delegate on this matter. Councillor Neal left the room and did not participate in discussions and voting on this matter. Resolution #GPA- 180 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Traill Part 1 Part 2 THAT Report PSD- 023 -11 be received; THAT FIT Fund Solar Corporation be advised that Clarington does not support their current proposal for a Class 3 Solar Project in the Soper Creek valleylands and that they be encouraged to meet with staff to consider alternate locations in Clarington for a solar energy project or projects; THAT the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, FIT Fund Solar Corporation and all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 023 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision; and WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington supports the responsible expansion of renewable energy as a means of placing Ontario on a more sustainable path for the future; WHEREAS municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe are subject to the Growth Plan which encourages the efficient use of land and infrastructure and greater densities; WHEREAS unlike Class 1 and Class 2 solar installations, Class 3 ground - mounted solar installations greater than 12 kW may require a significant land area and would be contrary to the policies of The Provincial Growth Plan for the efficient use of serviced land and the mandated density of development; -13- 4 -37 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 WHEREAS urban valleylands are key ecological features that need protection from development and should be the focus of restoration efforts to enhance the ecological attributes and value to the community as outdoor amenity areas, particularly as communities are intensified; WHEREAS Regulation 359/09, as amended, provides for consideration of a renewable energy project within natural heritage features, including within a significant valleyland or within 120 m of a significant valleyland if supported by mitigation measures in an environmental impact study prepared by the proponent; WHEREAS consideration of Class 3 solar facilities in urban valleylands will provide an incentive for developers to retain valleyland areas and could limit their dedication to municipalities as Open Space lands in the future; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Renewable Energy Facilitation Office,. FIT Fund Solar Corporation, and CLOCA be advised that the Municipality of Clarington does not support the consideration of Class 3 solar facilities in urban valleyland areas; and THAT this resolution be forwarded to all other municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and M.P.P. John O'Toole. CARRIED Councillor Neal returned to the meeting. FINE PARTICULATE MATTER AND AIR QUALITY BY -LAW — REQUEST FOR REPORT Resolution #GPA -181 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper WHEREAS the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada have gathered research and prepared reports on fine particulate matter and its serious harm to human health, but have not as of yet passed air regulations that focus on fine particulate matter, evaluate ambient conditions together with new emissions, assess the human and public health impacts of such emissions or limit cumulative concentrations; AND WHEREAS fine particulate matter PM2.5 is typically regulated by Provincial and Federal governments, and within their mandated responsibilities; -14- 4 -38 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario in November of 2010 acknowledged that there is a policy gap that needs to be examined with respect to domestic sources of primary PM2.5; AND WHEREAS the review the Ontario Ministry of Environment is proceeding with will examine the effectiveness of the current provincial policy framework in addressing PM2.5; other aspects such as cumulative effects are also under review. The results of these reviews will take a minimum of fifteen (15 months); AND WHEREAS s.11(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended ( "the Act "), permits municipalities to pass by -laws respecting the health, safety and well -being of persons; AND WHEREAS s.128 of the Act permits municipalities to prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of council, are, or could become, or cause public nuisances; AND WHEREAS for Clarington to proceed with the drafting and implementation of an Air Quality By -law under the Municipal Act, Council should be aware of: • The costs to retain a consultant to help develop guidance documents for general assessment and air modeling prior to drafting a by -law, • The costs to determine a baseline, sources of emissions of health risk air pollutants and an atmospheric dispersion model of the airshed, • Future budget implications including additional enforcement staffing, peer reviewers, air quality modellers, potential education and outreach programs to support by -law implementation and data management, • The potential implications on existing industries in Clarington and the potential impact on economic development and the attraction of prospective industries /employers; and • The potential duplication between a specific By -law and the Provincial Review that is underway NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Staff be authorized to prepare a report outlining the above noted items for presentation to the March 21, 2011 General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting. CARRIED ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. -15- 4 -39 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 RECESS Resolution #GPA- 182 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the Committee recess for 1 hour. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 1:33 p.m. Councillor Woo chaired this portion of the meeting. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT TENDER NO. CL2010 -23 DRIVEWAY TIE -INS — AMENDMENT Resolution #GPA- 183 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report OPD- 002 -11 be received for information and confirmation of funding for additional work. CARRIED SPORTS FIELD USER FEES Resolution #GPA- 184 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report OPD- 003 -11 be received; THAT the user fee rates as set out in Attachment 1 of Report OPD- 003 -11 be approved for the 2011 season; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report OPD- 003 -11 be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED -16- 4 -40 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. Councillor Neal chaired this portion of the meeting. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2011 COMMUNITY GRANT REQUESTS Resolution #GPA- 185 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report CSD- 004 -11 be received; THAT Council consider all submitted grant requests; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report CSD- 004 -11 be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED (See following motions) BOWMANVILLE ECOLOGY GARDEN Resolution #GPA- 186 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -01, Bowmanville Ecology Garden, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED BOWMANVILLE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY Resolution #GPA- 187 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -02, Bowmanville Horticultural Society, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED -17- 4 -41 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 COURTICE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY Resolution #GPA- 188 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -03, Courtice Horticultural Society, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED NEWCASTLE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY Resolution #GPA- 189 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -04, Newcastle Horticultural Society, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED ORONO HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY Resolution #GPA- 190 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -05, Orono Horticultural Society, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED BOWMANVILLE GARDEN ALLOTMENTS Resolution #GPA- 191 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Grant Application #11 -06, Bowmanville Garden Allotments, be denied, as they do not meet the eligibility requirements of the program. CARRIED 4 -42 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 CLARINGTON FARMERS' MARKET Resolution #GPA- 192 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Grant Application #11 -07, Clarington Farmers' Market, be denied. CARRIED BOWMANVILLE SANTA CLAUS PARADE Resolution #GPA- 193 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Grant Application #11 -08, Bowmanville Santa Claus Parade, be approved in the amount of $2,000.00. CARRIED NEWCASTLE SANTA CLAUS PARADE Resolution #GPA- 194 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Grant Application #11 -09, Newcastle Santa Claus Parade, be approved in the amount of $2,000.00. CARRIED CLARINGTON MARKETING MINDS Resolution #GPA- 195 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Grant Application #11 -10, Clarington Marketing Minds, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED -19- 4 -43 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 MUSIC NIGHT IN THE PARK Resolution #GPA- 196 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Grant Application #11 -11, Music Night in the Park, be approved in the amount of $750.00. CARRIED NEWCASTLE CONCERTS Resolution #GPA- 197 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -12, Newcastle Concerts, be approved in the amount of $750.00. CARRIED NEWCASTLE ART SHOW Resolution #GPA- 198 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT Grant Application #11 -13, Newcastle Art Show, be approved in the amount of $1,000.00. CARRIED NEWCASTLE VILLAGE & DISTRICT HISTORICAL SOCIETY Resolution #GPA- 199 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -14, Newcastle Village & District Historical Society, be approved in the amount of $1,500.00. CARRIED -20- 4 -44 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVANCY OF ONTARIO CLARINGTON BRANCH Resolution #GPA- 200 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Grant Application #11 -15, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario Clarington Branch, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED BROWNSDALE COMMUNITY CENTRE Resolution #GPA- 201 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Grant Application #11 -16, Brownsdale Community Centre, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED HAMPTON HALL Resolution #GPA- 202 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -17, Hampton Hall, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED KENDAL COMMUNITY CENTRE Resolution #GPA- 203 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -18, Kendal Community Centre, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED -21- 4 -45 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 NEWTONVILLE HALL Resolution #GPA- 204 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -19, Newtonville Hall, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED ORONO TOWN HALL Resolution #GPA- 205 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT Grant Application #11 -20, Orono Town Hall, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED SOLINA COMMUNITY CENTRE Resolution #GPA- 206 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -21, Solina Community Centre, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED TYRONE COMMUNITY HALL Resolution #GPA- 207 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -22, Tyrone Community Hall, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED Wx� 4 -46 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 NEWCASTLE ARENA Resolution #GPA- 208 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -23, Newcastle Arena, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED CLARINGTON NEW HORIZONS BAND Resolution #GPA- 209 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -24, Clarington New Horizons Band, be approved in the amount of $750.00. CARRIED CLARINGTON CONCERT BAND Resolution #GPA- 210 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -25, Clarington Concert Band, be approved in the amount of $750.00. CARRIED DURHAM GIRL'S CHOIR Resolution #GPA- 211 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -26, Durham Girl's Choir, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED -23- 4 -47 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 CLARINGTON ARTS AND MUSIC FESTIVAL Resolution #GPA- 212 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT Grant Application #11 -27, Clarington Arts and Music Festival, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED DRIFTWOOD THEATRE Resolution #GPA- 213 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Grant Application #11 -28, Driftwood Theatre, be approved in the amount of $500.00. CARRIED CLARINGTON MINOR LACROSSE ASSOCIATION Resolution #GPA -214 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Grant Application #11 -29, Clarington Minor Lacrosse Association, be denied. CARRIED CLARINGTON SWIM CLUB Resolution #GPA- 215 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -30, Clarington Swim Club, be approved in the amount of $1,000.00. CARRIED -24- 4 -48 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 COURTICE KIDS MULTISPORTS SERIES Resolution #GPA- 216 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Grant Application #11 -31, Courtice Kids Multisports Series, be approved in the amount of $1,000.00. CARRIED NEWCASTLE SKATING CLUB Resolution #GPA- 217 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -32, Newcastle Skating Club, be approved in the amount of $1,500.00. CARRIED ORONO FIGURE SKATING CLUB Resolution #GPA- 218 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -33, Orono Figure Skating Club, be approved in the amount of $1,500.00. CARRIED CLARINGTON TOROS ATOM AAA Resolution #GPA- 219 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Grant Application #11 -34, Clarington Toros Atom AAA, be approved for a one- time grant in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED -25- 4 -49 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 ORONO AMATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION Resolution #GPA- 220 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Grant Application #11 -35, Orono Amateur Athletic Association, be approved in the amount of $2,500.00. CARRIED SOPER VALLEY MODEL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION Resolution #GPA- 221 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -36, Soper Valley Model Railroad Association, be denied. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA- 222 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Grant Application #11 -36, Soper Valley Model Railroad Association, be approved in the amount of $750.00. CARRIED BIG BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF CLARINGTON Resolution #GPA- 223 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Grant Application #11 -37, Big Brothers and Sisters of Clarington, be approved in the amount of $2,000.00. CARRIED -26- 4 -50 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 DISTRESS CENTRE DURHAM Resolution #GPA- 224 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -38, Distress Centre Durham, be approved in the amount of $1,000.00. CARRIED FEED THE NEED IN DURHAM Resolution #GPA- 225 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT Grant Application #11 -39, Feed the Need in Durham, be approved for a one -time grant in the amount of $2,000.00. CARRIED THE GATHERING PLACE Resolution #GPA- 226 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Grant Application #11 -40, The Gathering Place, be approved in the amount of $5,000.00. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA- 227 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Grant Application #11 -40, The Gathering Place, be approved in the amount of $2,000.00. CARRIED -27- 4 -51 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PETERBOROUGH Resolution #GPA- 228 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -41, Learning Disabilities Association of Peterborough, be approved in the amount of $750.00. CARRIED THE PARTICIPATION HOUSE PROJECT (DURHAM REGION) Resolution #GPA - 229 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Grant Application #11 -42, The Participation House Project (Durham Region), be denied, as the Community Grant Program is not intended to provide funding to organizations that provide services or programs that are the responsibility of another level of government. CARRIED Councillor Partner chaired this portion of the meeting. CLERK'S DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Resolution #GPA- 230 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report CLD- 008 -11 be received; and THAT John Murray Bate be appointed to the Committee of Adjustment. CARRIED sm 4 -52 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 AMENDMENTS TO PROPERTY STANDARDS BY -LAW 2007 -070 Resolution #GPA- 231 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report CLD- 009 -11 be received; and THAT the By -law to amend Property Standards By -law 2007 -070, attached to Report CLD- 009 -11, as Attachment 1, be approved. CARRIED Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. EXTERNAL AGENCIES — REQUEST FOR REPORT Resolution #GPA- 232 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT staff be requested to review and report as to whether or not Clarington's external agencies (i.e. Boards of Council) are adhering to the Municipality of Clarington's procurement policies, (i.e. By -law 2010 -012), Clarington's Code of Ethics, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and any other related policies. MOTION LOST FINANCE DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. -29- 4 -53 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. OTHER BUSINESS REQUEST TO PERFORM SPECIFIC CIVIL MARRIAGE SERVICE OUTSIDE OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS Resolution #GPA- 233 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo WHEREAS on December 13, 2004, Council passed By -law 2004 -253 to "opt in" to providing civil marriage services; AND WHEREAS the authority to provide the civil marriage services extended to those services held Monday to Friday in the Municipal Administrative Centre only; AND WHEREAS the fee for civil marriages was set at $250 to cover the cost of staff time and use of the Municipal Administrative Centre; AND WHEREAS the Municipal Clerk has received requests to perform civil marriage services outside of the parameters set by By -law 2004 -253; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON THAT the Municipal Clerk be authorized to perform civil marriage services as follows: Saturday, August 13, 2011 at Isaiah Tubbs Resort, Picton Saturday, August 27, 2011 at Parkwood Estates, Oshawa Friday, September 23, 2011 at Bloom Field, Newcastle THAT the $250 fee be waived in these instances; and THAT the appropriate by -law be forwarded to Council. CARRIED Ic1i1111 4 -54 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes February 28, 2011 NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS ON A FIRE TRUCK — REQUEST FOR REPORT Resolution #GPA- 234 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the Director of Emergency Services be requested to prepare an information report to provide the implications of meeting the minimum of four firefighters on a fire truck; and THAT this report be prepared for the March 10, 2011 Special Council meeting to discuss the Strategic Plan. CARRIED COMMUNICATIONS There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT Resolution #GPA- 235 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the meeting adjourn at 2:51 p.m. MAYOR CARRIED -31 - DEPUTY CLERK 4 -55 DRAFT LIST OF DELEGATIONS GPA Meeting: March 21, 2011 (a) Lou Devuono, Regarding the Heroes Highway Ride (b) Ron Richards, R.G. Richards & Associates, Regarding Report PSD- 017 -11, a Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment to Permit the Development of a Food Store of 2,829m2 and Two Smaller Buildings of 783m2 and 185m' Respectively for Retail /Service Commercial Uses — 680 Longworth Avenue, Bowmanville (c) Gary Jeffrey, Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC), Regarding the AACC Annual Report for 2010 (d) Kim Gavine, Executive Director, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, Regarding Eight Different Reports which the Foundation is working on Regarding the Effectiveness of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Foundation 4 -1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING BUILDING CODE ACT Take notice that on Monday March 21, 2011, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting pursuant to The Building Code Act, regarding proposed amendments and increase to fees in the Building By -Law 2005 -145, as amended. It is proposed that enactment of the Building By -Law by Council would occur on Monday, March 28, 2011. Council is required under The Building Code Act, to hold at least one public meeting to allow the public the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed amendments and fees increase in the building by -law and related staff reports. All interested parties are invited to attend the public meeting on: DATE: MONDAY MARCH 21, 2011 TIME: 9:30 A.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE, 40 TEMPERANCE ST., BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO Written submissions are invited and should be directed to the Municipal Clerk no later than Wednesday, March 23, 2011. Written comments received prior to the meeting and submissions made at the public meeting will be considered by Council prior to the enactment of a new building by -law. Information concerning the proposed Amendments to By -Law 2005- 145, as amended is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday in the Engineering Services, Building Branch, 3rd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario. Inquiries should be directed to Rick Pigeon, Chief Building Official at 905 - 623 -3379 extension 2303. 7 -1 PUBLIC MEETING CORPORATION OF THE REPORT # PSD- 025-11 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON DUNBURY DEVELOPMENT L ■�f 11 / JVl /ir\ / ■1)lr NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING (COURTICE) LTD. Leading the Way DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY: DUNBURY DEVELOPMENTS (COURTICE) LTD. AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON ZONING BY -LAW The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider a proposed Zoning By -law Amendment, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. APPLICATION DETAILS The proposed Zoning By -law Amendment submitted by Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Ltd. would permit the development of a six bay Master Mechanic commercial building behind the existing Shoeless Joe's Restaurant in Courtice. TAKE NOTICE that the'application has been deemed complete so that it can be circulated and reviewed. " The subject property is located at 1419 Durham Highway 2 in Courtice as shown on reverse. Planning File Nos_: ZBA 2011- 0001(X -Ref.: SPA 2011 =0001) PUBLIC MEETING The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make comments, identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development. The public meeting -will be held on: DATE: MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2011 TIME: 9:30 a.m. PLACE: "Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Municipal Administrative. Centre, 40 Temperance St, Bowmanville, Ontario ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal r-epresentation either in, support of or in opposition to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting commences. If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make 'a deputation to Council at their meeting on Monday March 28, 2011, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you .wish to appear before Council, you must register with the Clerks' Department by the Wednesday noon, March 23, 2011 to have your name appear in the Agenda. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? If you wish to. make a written submission or if you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the adoption of the proposed Zoning By -law Amendment, you must submit a written request to the Clerk's Department, 2nd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 G 3A6. Additional information relating to the proposal is available for. inspection between 8:30 a.m..and 4:30 p.m. at.the Planning Services Department, 3rd f=loor, 40 Terriperance Street, Bowmanville,'Ontario L1C 3A6, or by calling ' Lisa Backus. at : (905) '623 -3379 extension 2413 or' by e-mail at Ibackus cl.clarington.net. APPEAL If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make writter submissions to the Municipality of Clarington Planning Services Department before the proposec Official Plan Amendment is adopted, the person:. i) 'is not entitled to appeal the decision of Clarington Council to the Ontario Municipal Board; and ii) the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal. Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds tc add the person or public body' as -a party. Dat at t e Municipality of Clarington this 14'' day of February 2011. David J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P_P. 40 Temperance Street Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario Municipality of Clarington "t'tC 3A6 7 -2 i w Property Location Map (Courtice) Nt O DURHAM HIGFlWAY2 N d- r to r f r Subject Site � LO N CY) r i i N i I t r O T— C 00 Cfl ,�. O N FOXHL/Nr r R.9 1L O O Co CO �� ZBA 2011400.1 Zoning By -law Amendment CY) r O. O T-1 r. �81 r�Qt' iV Owner: Dunbury Developments. 46 i w 1 n arm Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution M By -law #: Report #: PSD- 025 -11 File #: ZBA 2011 -0001 Subject: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX -BAY MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR GARAGE APPLICANT: DUNBURY DEVELOPMENTS (COURTICE) LIMITED RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 025 -11 be received; 2. THAT the rezoning application submitted by Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Limited continue to be processed by staff and that a further report be prepared following the receipt of all outstanding agency comments; and 3. THAT the interested parties listed in Report PSD- 025 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: D'avidj/Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services LB /COS /av /df March 16, 2011 Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 8 -1 REPORT NO.: PSD- 025 -11 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant/Owner: Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Limited 1.3 Proposal: To develop a six -bay motor vehicle repair garage (Master Mechanic). 1.4 Area: 0.52 ha (1.28 acres) 1.5 Location: 1419 Durham Highway 2, Courtice PAGE 2 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On December 24th, 2010, Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Limited submitted an application for rezoning to permit the construction of a six -bay motor vehicle repair garage (Master Mechanic). The repair garage will be located south of, but on the same lot as the existing Shoeless Joe's Restaurant in Courtice. 2.2 On November 10th, 2010, Staff held a Pre - consultation Meeting with the Applicant, the proposed Master Mechanic franchise owner, a Master Mechanic representative, the builder and Engineering Services. Preliminary comments from the Region of Durham 8 -2 REPORT NO.: PSD- 025 -11 PAGE 3 Works Department and CLOCA were provided to the applicant at the pre - consultation meeting. FIGURE 1 Proposed Master Mechanic south of the existing Shoeless Joe's Restaurant. 8 -3 REPORT NO.: PSD -025 -11 PAGE 4 2.3 The Shoeless Joe's Restaurant received site plan approval in 2009 and opened to the public in March 2010. Through this site plan approval a private access easement (7m wide) running from east to west near the rear (south end) of the property was created to facilitate traffic movement by a common, private laneway system shared by multiple owners between Townline Road and Darlington Boulevard. The need for the private laneway was established by the Courtice West Shopping District Secondary Plan and the approximate location is indicated on the Land Use Map for this Secondary Plan. 2.4 In support of the application for rezoning, the applicant has submitted a Noise Study, a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment and a Planning Rational report which included a parking commentary. 3.0 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 A Shoeless Joe's restaurant is located on the northern half of the site. The restaurant and parking area is approximately one metre higher than the commercial properties on either side. The proposed Master Mechanic building will be approximately 2.5 metres higher than the residential properties to the south. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Restaurant and other retail commercial South - Residential East - Retail /commercial West - Retail /commercial 4.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The purpose of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is to promote efficient land use and development patterns which accommodate a range of uses (including commercial uses) to the extent that new uses do not create harmful impacts upon both public health and the natural environment (air quality, ground water, flora and fauna).These PPS goals are to be achieved in a cost - effective manner which minimizes land consumption and servicing costs. The Provincial Policy Statement identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth and promotes intensification (the development of a property at a higher density than currently exists) of vacant and underutilized properties. One of the intended results of intensification is to create opportunities for a diversified mix of services in all communities which will support the long -term needs of both existing and future residents and businesses. 8 -4 REPORT NO.: PSD- 025 -11 PAG E 5 Although this application is not an example of urban intensification, it will result in the build -out of the balance of the site. The proposed development will not result in new infrastructure costs to the Municipality (as it will be connected to existing services), nor is not expected to present a negative impact on public health or the natural environment. Therefore, the proposed development does not appear to conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement. 4.2 Provincial Growth Plan The Provincial Growth Plan (Growth Plan) directs new growth to built -up areas where sufficient capacity exists to accommodate this growth in a compact and efficient form. The Growth Plan also instructs economic development to be promoted through the provision of a mix of employment uses and a diversified economic base to meet long- term needs of both existing and future businesses. In order to achieve this goal a range and choice of suitable sites for employment uses must be maintained. Based on the reasons listed above, this application does not appear to conflict with the Provincial Growth Plan. 5.0 OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject property "Living Areas" with the "Regional Corridor" overlay. Regional Corridors are to be developed as mixed -use areas, which include residential, commercial and service areas with higher densities, supporting higher order transit services and featuring a high degree of pedestrian oriented design. Auto Repair garages are permitted within this designation. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The land use schedule of the Clarington Official Plan designates the property as the "Courtice West Shopping District" (CWSD). A Secondary Plan has been prepared for this area. The CWSD is intended to be a focal point of activity. It is recognized in the Official Plan as the western gateway to the Municipality. The goal for this area is to provide an integrated mix of shopping, personal and business service, office and residential and commercial uses for Courtice. Within the CWSD Secondary Plan the subject property is further designated "General Commercial ". This designation recognizes the existing strip malls, vacant lands and single detached dwellings. The permitted uses for these lands include: retail, personal service and office uses recreational and cultural uses residential dwellings above the first floor 8 -5 REPORT NO.: PSD- 025 -11 PAGE 6 • community facilities The CWSD Secondary Plan contains urban design policies to be applied to any new development or redevelopment project. This includes the integration of the development to create or to contribute to the image and character of this identified gateway area. The CWSD Secondary Plan provides for an integrated system of private laneways to facilitate movement of traffic and pedestrians between adjoining commercial properties. As part of the Shoeless Joe's development that was previously approved in 2010, the 7 metre north -side and east -west private laneway was established. One of the special studies identified as part of the Official Plan Review is the preparation of the Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan. This Secondary Plan is intended to provide policy direction including urban design and zoning policies for the lands fronting onto Durham Highway 2 from Townline Road in the west to the future Highway 407 link in the east. Upon adoption, the Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan will replace the CWSD Secondary Plan. The Courtice Main Street Study — Master Development Report provides an overall framework for redevelopment that supports intensification and transit goals. Within the interim phase (2010 -2020) it is intended that the existing uses within the Courtice West Gateway Precinct will remain and that no new automotive, fast food drive through or industrial /manufacturing uses be permitted. The long term plan (2020 -2031) is for this area to transform into a mixed use environment retaining its commercial uses with residential spaces above. At the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting on September 13, 2010, the Master Development Plan was approved in principle and staff was directed to prepare a Secondary Plan for inclusion in the Clarington Official Plan and the necessary Zoning By -law to implement the Courtice Main Street Master Development Plan. 6.0 ZONING BY -LAW 6.1 Zoning By -law 84 -63 zones the subject lands General Commercial Exception (C1 -18). This zone permits the development of a variety of uses including eating establishments, retail commercial, theatres and medical /dental clinics. The proposed Master Mechanic business type is defined in the Zoning By -law as a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. A Motor Vehicle Repair Garages is defined as: "a building or structure where the exclusive service performed or executed on motor vehicles for compensation, major and minor mechanical repairs or similar use and in conjunction with which there may be a towing service and motor vehicle rentals for the convenience of the customer while the motor vehicle is being repaired but shall not include the sale of fuels or any other use or activity otherwise defined or classified in this By -law." . REPORT NO.: PSD- 025 -11 PAGE 7 Generally, Zoning By -law 84 -63 only permits a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage within the Service Station Commercial C6 and C7 zones and the industrial zones being Light Industrial (M1) and General Industrial (M2). The applicant is requesting that a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage be permitted, by exception, in the General Commercial (Cl) Zone. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject site and a public meeting notice sign was installed on the property. As of the writing of this report, Staff have received one written submission in objection to the application. This neighbouring resident is concerned about the following: • Visual impact of the three bays from both the main floor living area and the upstairs bedrooms • Anticipated decrease in property values • The proposed use will impact how they can use their backyard • Noise from the vehicles both early in the morning and in the evening, from the power tools and delivery trucks • Hazardous materials they will use in bulk, including spillage • Traffic • Parking, including overnight vehicles, and • Private rear laneway, including noise, exhaust and lights 8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 8.1 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority ( CLOCA) has advised that, in principle, they have no objection to the introduction of a motor vehicle repair garage use. However, CLOCA has stated that until they have had the opportunity to review an updated Stormwater Management Report, they cannot offer their endorsement on the size of the proposed development on this site. 8.2 The Durham Regional Works Department has also requested an updated Stormwater Management Report. Upon receipt of a favourable Stormwater Management Report, the Durham Regional Works Department has stated that they have no objection to this proposal. 8.3 At the time of the writing of this report, Staff have not yet received comments from the Region of Durham Planning Department. 9.0 STAFF COMMENTS 9.1 Engineering Services The Engineering Services Department has expressed concerns with the stormwater REPORT NO.: PSD -025 -11 PAGE 8 runoff from the subject site. In order to be satisfied that all issues related to stormwater can be addressed for the proposed development, the Engineering Services Department has requested that a Stormwater Management Report be submitted which demonstrates no impact to adjacent properties. 9.2 Planning Services The Applicant's proposal can be divided into two components: the appropriateness of a motor vehicle repair garage at this location and the appropriateness of this use at the scale proposed (6 repair bays = 363 m2 /3,900 ft2) Use Stand -alone motor vehicle repair garages have historically been located in specially zoned commercial areas and industrial areas in Clarington. Despite this, these uses can also be found operating as components of motor vehicle sales establishments (car dealerships) and as components of large- format commercial uses (i.e. Canadian Tire). There is a mixture of uses in the immediate area including motor vehicle fuel bars. However, fuel bars are quite different from a motor vehicle repair garage that has the potential for significant amounts of noise and the potential for the overnight storage of vehicles. It is also important to distinguish that the applicant's proposal does not include the introduction of a motor vehicle body shop which is separately defined within Zoning By- law 84 -63. Scale In addition to the outstanding information for the on -site stormwater controls, Staff are continuing to review the anticipated functionality of the Applicant's proposal given the limited developable area of the site. As such, Staff are in discussion with the Applicant on how the following basic site operation items can be addressed: • Access easements (driveways) • Accessibility issues — parking spaces and sidewalk size • Refuse storage • Snow storage • Overall number of parking spaces • Loading area • Building design • Noise attenuation Separately, each of these issues may be minor, but given the number and inter- relationship of these issues, Staff will require sufficient time to complete a comprehensive review of the Applicant's proposal. REPORT NO.: PSD- 025 -11 10.0 CONCLUSIONS PAGE 9 10.1 The Applicant is seeking permission to introduce a new use (motor vehicle repair garage) onto the subject site at a specific size and scale (6 repair bays = 363 m2 /3,900 ft2) . The impacts of the intended use, at the scale proposed, have not been fully evaluated. Further information from the applicant is necessary in order to ensure that all reasonable impacts on neighbouring residents and business owners have been mitigated. 10.2 The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements for a Public Meeting under the Planning Act, and taking into consideration all of the agency and Staff comments received, it is respectfully recommended that this report continue to be reviewed by Staff for the preparation of a subsequent report. Staff Contact: Lisa Backus Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Phyllis Milburn Missy Miller Shannon Newman Marcel Provenzano Battista Vendittelli Tiffany Wilbur 1.11 I 0 -1 0 X CD v 0 �D o0 03 N N V1 � Property Location Ma Courtice r- N �- N, 00 DURHAM H/GHw AY 2 T_ LO �— �— Subject Site I LO N ti C`7 d' M N � � s y�y � g 8 ti N ) € 3 O N O O O W ZBA 2011 -0001 CO O Zoning By -law Amendment O O FOXHUNT TR O Co �Cb AIL O O Q�� Owner: Dunbury Developments 46 81 45, -1 0 X CD v 0 �D o0 03 N N V1 � Leading the Way PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution M By -law #: N/A Report #: PSD- 026 -11 File #: A2011 -0001 to A2011 -0003 Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2011 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 026 -11 be received; and, 2. THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on March 3, 2011 for applications A2011 -0001 to A2011 -0003, and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. Submitted by: David I Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services MM /CP /av March 11, 2011 61 Reviewed by: � r _`" 2) Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 E .IMF REPORT NO.: PSD- 026 -11 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS PAGE 2 1.1 All applications received by the Municipality for minor variance are scheduled for a hearing within 30 days of being received by the Secretary- Treasurer. The purpose of the minor variance applications and the Committee's decisions are detailed in Attachment 1. The decisions of the Committee are summarized below. DECISION OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR MARCH 3, 2011 Application Number Staff Recommendation Decision of Committee A2011 -0001 Approval Approved A2011 -0002 Approval Approved A2011 -0003 Table Tabled 1.2 Application A2011 -0001 was filed to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 45 %. The application was filed by the applicant following a request made by a potential purchaser to construct a single storey home on a lot which was designed to be slightly narrower than other lots, due to an adjacent protected feature (wood lot/va I ley), and therefore has less lot area to accommodate a larger dwelling footprint. The application was first heard on January 20, 2011, and was tabled by the Committee. Additional information which was brought forward by the applicant suggested that the 45% lot coverage as requested would not allow for the construction of an attached deck. The application was re- circulated to recognize the increase in lot coverage from 40% to 47.5% and an increase in projection of the attached deck into the required rear yard from 1.5 metres to 3 metres. The approval of the application will not result in a loss of privacy as the lot backs onto a wooded area and it will not affect the property drainage on the subject site or surrounding properties. Therefore Staff's recommendation was to approve the application. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 1.3 Application A2011 -0002 was filed to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling by reducing the minimum required exterior side yard setback from 6 metres to 5.8 metres. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 1.4 Application A2011 -0003 was filed to permit the construction of an accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted floor area for accessory buildings from 90 square metres to 208.5 square metres. The applicant identified a need 8 -12 REPORT NO.: PSD- 026 -11 PAGE 3 for an additional accessory building on the property to store leisure vehicles and grounds keeping equipment. Currently there exists a two- storey detached garage on the property which is currently being used for vehicle storage on the ground floor and personal storage on the second storey. A number of concerns were raised by Staff and by nearby residents with respect to the proposed location of the accessory building, and also the design of the building. The subject property, at 175 Liberty Street North, has been identified as a Primary Cultural Heritage Resource within the Municipality's Cultural Heritage Resource Inventory. The proposed structure did not appear to fit in with the existing heritage character of the property, and proposed a significant increase to the permitted accessory building floor area. Staff recommended that the application be tabled pending further discussions with the applicant to discuss alternative options. Committee concurred with Staff and tabled the application until the next scheduled Committee of Adjustment Hearing. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 Staff reviewed the Committee's decisions for applications A2011 -0001 and A2011 -0002 and are satisfied that they are in conformity with both Official Plan policies, consistent with the intent of the Zoning By -law, are .minor in nature and desirable. 2.2 Council's concurrence with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment for applications A2011 -0001 to A2011 -0003 inclusive is required in order to afford Staff official status before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of any decision of the Committee of Adjustment. Staff Contact: Mitch Morawetz Attachments: Attachment 1 - Periodic Report for the Committee of Adjustment (March 3, 2011) 8 -13 Attachment 1 to Report PSD- 026 -11 1' ceaat »g me way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: H & H BUILDING CORPORATION OWNER: HALMINEN BUILDING CORP. PROPERTY LOCATION: 44 JANE AVENUE, COURTICE PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 3 FORMER TOWN OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2011 -0001 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 47.5% AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROJECTION OF AN UNENCLOSED ATTACHED DECK INTO A REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 1.5 METRES TO 3 METRES. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 47.5% AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROJECTION OF AN UNENCLOSED ATTACHED DECK INTO A REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 1.5 METRES TO 3 METRES, AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY -LAW, IS MINOR IN NATURE AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: March 3, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: March 23, 2011 8 -14 Leadi�ag the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: 673666 ONTARIO LIMITED /CITY HOMES OWNER: HALLOWAY HOLDINGS LIMITED PROPERTY LOCATION: 70 HOCKLEY AVENUE, BOWMANVILLE PART LOT 13, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN OF BOWMANVILLE FILE NO.: A2011 -0002 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 6 METRES TO 5.8 METRES. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 6 METRES TO 5.8 METRES, AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY -LAW, IS MINOR IN NATURE AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: March 3, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: March 23, 2011 8 -15 • 1 � n Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: GUY LANTEIGNE OWNER: GUY LANTEIGNE PROPERTY LOCATION: 175 LIBERTY STREET NORTH, BOWMANVILLE PART LOT 10, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN OF BOWMANVILLE FILE NO.: A2011 -0003 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES FROM 90 SQUARE METRES TO 208.5 SQUARE METRES. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DATE OF DECISION: March 3, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: March 23, 2011 8 -16 • arm n Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A Report #: PSD- 027 -11 File #s: PLN 23.2.7, PLN 23.2.5 Subject: GO EXTENSION TO BOWMANVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 027 -11 be received; 2. THAT Council endorse the staff comments noted in Section 3.0 of this Report as the Municipality's comments on the Oshawa to Bowmanville Rail Service Expansion and Rail Maintenance Facility Environmental Assessment Study Report dated January 2011; 3. THAT the Municipality of Clarington support the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Report to extend the GO Train Service to Bowmanville, with the understanding that the comments contained in this report will be satisfactorily addressed prior to the conclusion of the EA approval process; 4. THAT the Municipality of Clarington request the Province and Metrolinx Board to move forward with the implementation of expansion of the GO train service to Bowmanville as soon as possible by completing the Transit Project Assessment Process, detailed design and constructions with all necessary funding earmarked at an early stage in GO Transit's Ten Year Capital Plan; 5. That staff be authorized to approach GO /Metrolinx to negotiate a cost sharing agreement for the Green Road grade separation; and 6. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 027 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 8 -17 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 Submitted : b by: — " Reviewed Y Davi . Crome, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning Services COS /DJ /sn /df /ah 16 March 2011 mm PAGE 2 %Alin Wu, hief Administrative Officer REPORT NO.: PSD -027 -11 PAGE 3 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 GO Transit (Metrolinx) has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Preliminary Design Study for the expansion of the GO train service from Oshawa to Bowmanville, including a new rail maintenance facility in Whitby. The Study was carried out in accordance with Ontario's Transit Project Assessment Process. The study reviewed potential sites for new stations and train facilities, options for connecting the CN Railway corridor with the CP Railway corridor, and also identified improvements to the existing railway line. The Report recommends the following improvements: Extended service for the Lakeshore East corridor between Oshawa and Bowmanville along the CP Rail Line; Improved service with new layover facility in Clarington and maintenance facility in Whitby; and Opportunity to add up to five potential new GO stations of which two would be in Clarington. The 30 -day review period for the EA Project Report ended on February 28, 2011. The Planning Services and Engineering Services Departments prepared consolidated comments that were forwarded to the EA Project Leader of GO Transit and AECOM, the Consultant. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the background to this project; with information regarding the recommendations of the EA Report and request Council to endorse the comments submitted by Staff as contained in Section 4.0 of this report. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Planning for GO Rail Service to Clarington In December 1993, GO Transit completed an EA report titled "GO Train Service Expansion Program- Oshawa West to Oshawa East Study ". This study considered expansion of the GO train service to the east side of Oshawa with a proposed station in the vicinity of the Holiday Inn on Bloor Street near Grandview Street. The EA also provided for a rail yard in Courtice for the storage and maintenance of trains in off -peak hours. The Municipality carried out a feasibility study titled Go Station Location Study. This Study was completed in May 1994. The consultants for the Municipality undertook a comparative analysis of different sites in Bowmanville along the CP Rail corridor that would be suitable for a GO Station. The study determined that the Martin Road West Site would be the preferred location. The study also looked at an intermediate station in Courtice and recommended a location northwest of the intersection of Courtice Road and the CPR corridor. • REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 2.2 Clarington Official Plan PAGE 4 The GO Station feasibility study in 1994 took place while the current Official Plan for Clarington was being prepared. As a result, the GO location study recommendations were included in the Official Plan. The Clarington Official Plan as adopted in 1996 by the Municipality and approved by the Region of Durham included the designations for two GO train stations, one in south Courtice and one in the Bowmanville West Town Centre Area along the CP Rail line corridor. These designations are also reflected in the Regional Official Plan. The locations are in the Official Plan's Land Use map for Bowmanville and Transportation Map for Courtice. 2.3 Acguisition of Land in Bowmanville by GO Transit In 2004, the GO Board approved the purchase of 13.5 acres north and south of the rail corridor in the Bowmanville West Town Centre area for the future GO Station. In 2006, GO developed the northern part for a Park and Ride facility. 2.4 MoveOntario 2020 Program unveiled Prior to the Provincial elections in June 2007, the Premier of Ontario unveiled the program MoveOntario 2020 that would have the largest investment in public transit in Canada. The Number 4 project outlined by the Premier in the MoveOntario 2020 program is the GO Lakeshore East rail line extension from Oshawa to Bowmanville. In March of 2007, as part of the MoveOntario 2020, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario announced a new initiative, Public Transit Capital Trust 2008. The program is designed to support the role public transit plays "in easing traffic congestion in urban areas and contributing to cleaner air and lower greenhouse gas emissions ". In the announcement, both the Prime Minister and the Premier indicated that one of the goals of this program would be to "accelerate the extension of the GO Transit line from Lakeshore East to Bowmanville ". The Provincial government assigned the implementation of the MoveOntario 2020 program to the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority (GTTA) now known as Metrolinx. On November 28, 2008, and in order to implement MoveOntario 2020, the Metrolinx Board of Directors adopted the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Plan has two phases one for the next 15 years and the second one with a longer time horizon of 25 years. The Oshawa - Bowmanville expansion is included within the 15 year plan. In April 2008, the GO Board authorized a feasibility Study for the Oshawa East Service Extension and New Rail Maintenance Facility. The study was to consider extending the service from the existing Oshawa GO Station to 8 -20 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 PAGE 5 Bowmanville by analyzing the options of either using the CPR or CN corridors. The feasibility study concluded the CPR corridor to be the most suitable option to extend rail services to Bowmanville. 2.5 Announcement of EA to extend GO train services to Bowmanville On June 25th of 2008, the Provincial Minister of Transportation announced a new six -month environmental assessment process to fast track transit projects. As part of the announcement GO Transit stated that the first two projects to proceed under the new rules would be GO Train service to Milton and the extension of GO Train service from Oshawa to Bowmanville. Following the project initiation in April 2009, the consultants, AECOM, held a Pre - notice of Commencement meeting with the Municipality on August 12, 2009. During 2009 and 2010, Public Open Houses and Public Information Centres were advertised and held in Whitby, Oshawa, and Clarington. The Environmental Assessment Study for the GO expansion to Bowmanville was finalized early January 2011, and the Study has now concluded with a final public consultation stage for comments that closed on February 28, 2011. The discussion in Section 3 affects the comments submitted by staff at that time. 3.0 DISCUSSION 3.1 The Environmental Assessment Study recommends the expansion along the CP line, two GO stations, and a layover facility at Rundle Road. The recommendations from the report for Clarington are: Peak Train Service to Clarington Between the Ritson Road GO Station site and the Martin Road GO Station site, one (1) additional track will be built to meet the condition of having the two (2) train services separated and not in conflict with each other. To achieve this and to protect this plan, tracks will generally be built to the south side of the existing CPR line. A new station will be established at Courtice Road and a terminus station in Bowmanville at the intersection of Regional Road 57 and the CPR corridor. This terminus station and rail track back to the east side of the Highway 2 Bridge (King Street) will be the end of additional track building for this peak period of service. In the future as full service plans are warranted, a second new track will be required from the Ritson Road GO Station site to the Martin Road GO Station site to accommodate the extension of full daily train service to Bowmanville. The extension of GO Train Service to Clarington also requires the establishment of a train layover site near the end of service, to park trains overnight and facilitate minor maintenance. This project has selected a site adjacent to the rail corridor between Solina Road and Rundle Road. It is planned that this site will 8 -21 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 PAGE 6 start service with rail infrastructure to store four (4) or five (5) trains overnight to meet the initial peak period service plan to start service from the Martin Road GO Station site. To provide enough track capacity to move trains between this layover site and the end of service terminus at Bowmanville at the same time as revenue train service runs between Bowmanville and Union Station, a service track will need to be provided to link these two (2) sites. This will add a second new track between these two (2). Courtice Road GO Station Site (Darlington GO Station): This station site, referred to as Darlington GO Station, is located between the main downtown areas of Oshawa and Bowmanville in an area that is planned to develop over the next few years and with direct access to Highway 401. As many riders of the GO system come from communities farther to the east, this station will provide them with a convenient and direct access point to the system. It will enable riders from the east to utilize Highway 401 to this point and give them direct access to this station location and entrance to the GO train system. The main station facilities will be located to the north of the CPR corridor. This will include a station building and parking facilities along with a bus access point and "Kiss and Ride" facilities. At track side GO Transit will install a pedestrian tunnel to access a south side Station platform. Parking facilities include 1,100 spaces with opportunities for future parking expansion to the west of the proposed parking lot. Initially this will be a side platform but as train service grows and full service develops this platform will expand into an island platform to service two way train traffic along the south side of the corridor. Darlington (Courtice) train station — preliminary site plan PME I ! � �tl!iiHitl'n±iiNln♦urNrr � r�mtt>Rn'trtrnrri'in � 'h !) ! � �� ��kriurr�!rrf'ttNrN't<I4H��' .rilit!r>♦'$I!!f�!rtNirfNi[] � p �,,,u^`""� 1 ( *Ail „I+rltilQhlh7 [N�rH!iit'rW}Iii� - f SCALE -,I I I' i1' t�!' �iiil //�1uu1'IftLLlT�lirl�tli.ti�i! .ri711'tl�t,� 1�,}����� 1 J o to IN ■ • -.� ' �.... , ±�, I nom• � i � r � i — 1 FLAT 4 8 -22 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 Martin Road GO Station Sites j0w*qWviIIe GO Station) PAGE 7 At present this station consists of a GO bus terminal and an 80 car parking lot on the north side of the rail corridor, which services GO ridership and provides GO patrons with bus service to the GO train system at the present terminus in Oshawa. With the extension of train service this station will be redeveloped into both a train and transit hub for both the GO System and local transit. It will be referred to as the Bowmanville GO Station. On the north side of the corridor, GO Transit will redevelop the land to accommodate a bus terminal along with a "Kiss and Ride" facility and 80 parking spaces. This bus terminal will enable municipal and regional transit to access the train station and interchange patrons at the facility. On the south side of the rail corridor GO Transit will develop a large parking facility along with "Kiss and Ride" features and expansion capability as the demand at this terminus station grows. This station will initially provide a south side island platform between the mainline and the south service track. As train service grows into full service the south service track will be upgraded into a south mainline. GO Transit will work with the community to ensure that general pedestrian crossing of the rail corridor will be directed safely across its grade separated pedestrian crossing. Within the southern portion of the station site, there will be an additional 770 parking spaces. Bowmanville GO station — preliminary site plan pwm. AN =�, ooF�nonl a t ---- �i1fTt�iU ITfRITTT� �, eytr LOCp KW MD 100E TUNDMIEL rwl�ala76� Fa FCFM p�N� «'ii a+kl' ujIfil'4llH4I�+�i{�tjfi> FYIIA�E F'EAESTAIW I 'yQlii�il �CQ ' �tTI17flllillliil lT[7 • . , �7H tor�f INlllf3' F�' .' Ar 8 -23 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 Rundle Road Layover Facility Site PAGE 8 The train layover site recommended for this extension of train service sits adjacent to the CPR corridor along the south side between Rundle Road and Solina Road. It will initially be developed to provide for five (5) 12 -car GO Trains to be parked. Each train will be stored in the train yard and plugged into electrical service and the engines will be turned off when the train is in storage. Each morning the trains will be started up and warmed prior to being put into service. From this location these trains will normally move east to the Bowmanville GO Station site to begin revenue service into Union Station. At the end of the day trains will return patrons to Bowmanville in revenue service and upon completion of this service, move as equipment service back to the Rundle Road Layover Facility. During the initial service plan these trains will be given light maintenance at this site. The cleaning up of garbage, some cleaning of the interior of the train as needed, minor parts replacement etc. will be handled at this site. Train fuelling will also be provided at this facility. As train service expands, this facility will fill out to its full plan, with a train yard capable of handling eight (8) trains for storage. In addition, a Progressive Maintenance (PM) building capable of housing two (2) 12 -car trains and engine side by side inside may be added. This PM Bay will provide the ability to undertake regulatory inspections of each train as required. As a result of these regulatory inspections some minor maintenance, fuelling and repair will be undertaken. This will also enable other quick repairs to be undertaken during the same inspection period. As GO Transit train service grows throughout the system, it will become increasingly difficult to cycle equipment to major maintenance facilities for the required regulatory inspections. Hence GO Transit has planned that all of its layover facilities will have the capability to undertake these inspections on the required frequencies and follow up with the immediate light repairs required. Should more demanding and time consuming repairs be required then the trains will be moved to the main repair shops for this work to be undertaken. Rundle Road train layover site — preliminary site plan 8 -24 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 Next Steps PAGE 9 The information of GO Transit provided in their website for this project outlines the next steps in the Environmental Assessment review process as follows: Following the 30 -day public review period for the Environmental Project Report that ended on February 28, the Minister of the Environment will have 35 days to consider whether the transit project may have a negative impact on a matter of provincial importance that relates to the natural environment or has cultural heritage value or interest; or, a constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty right. Before the Minister acts, the Minister is required to consider any objections that may have been submitted during the 30 -day review period. Whether there is an objection or not, if the Minister acts within the 35 -day period, one of three notices may be issued to the proponent: A notice to proceed with the transit project as planned in its Environmental Project Report; A notice that requires the proponent to take further steps, which may include further study or consultation; or, A notice allowing the proponent to proceed with the transit project subject to conditions. If the Minister does not act within the 35 -day period, the transit project may proceed as planned in the proponent's Environmental Project Report. However, it is expected that the Minister will exercise his /her discretion to act and will give a notice to a proponent for each transit project that follows the transit project assessment process. Following the Minister's review, the Province of Ontario will determine support for the project and timelines for expansion. 4.0 STAFF COMMENTS 4.1 Financial costs The EA Project Report does not address the financial aspect of this project. All elements of the rail expansion including land acquisition, design, construction and improvements /reconstruction of existing infrastructure will be made at Metrolinx's /Go Transit's expense. 8 -25 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 4.2 Level Crossings PAGE 10 The report does not address improvements to level crossings on local roads of which there are seven in Clarington. Improvements will undoubtedly be required at these crossings which must be appropriate for the increased exposure in each case. 4.3 Green Road /CPR Grade Separation and Reconstruction of Green Road Table 4.4- Proposed Structural Improvements within the Project Limits identifies the Green Rd. Trestle /CPR Crossing and states "others to rebuild to protect for four tracks (1 north, 2 south of existing)" and further notes, under Structural Works Required, "none ". The Municipality was prepared to make improvements to the Green Road /CPR grade separation to provide for the reconstruction of Green Rd. through this structure. Design work was well advanced with input and concurrence from CPR. This project was put on hold with the announcement of the GO Rail Expansion. Any works, including land acquisition, design and construction, required to accommodate additional tracks will be constructed by and at the expense of GO Transit in conjunction with accommodating a reconstructed Green Road. Further discussion among the Municipality, Metrolinx and CPR regarding cost sharing will be required. 4.4 Access to the proposed Courtice Station Section 4.4.2.3 outlines the Traffic Impacts at the proposed Courtice Road station (in the absence of a finalized Traffic Impact Study) and states that "the access road [west off Courtice Road] to the proposed site will fail from a traffic perspective "; and signalization is recommended. The section further states that "it is further noted that access may be additionally improved once the future ROW immediately north of the proposed station site is constructed." The Municipality has consistently commented to GO Transit and their consultant that the east/west collector depicted in the Clarington Official Plan must be constructed by GO Transit at their expense. As stated by the proponent's consultant, ingress, egress and traffic movement within the site will be significantly improved by the construction of the east/west collector road. There may be an opportunity to cost share with adjacent land owners, but that is the prerogative of GO Transit to pursue that option. 4.5 Traffic Impact Studies Clarington commented on the Traffic Impact Studies for each of the Courtice GO Station and the Bowmanville GO Station. There were a significant number of comments on each of these reports, and fundamental issues were identified. To date the consultant and /or GO have not responded to these issues. Table E4 -3: Summary of GO Transit Service Expansion Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures (and later in the main report) states, under Traffic Impacts, "based on 8 -26 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 PAGE 11 the completed traffic studies, several recommendations have been put forward ... such recommendations will be further developed during the detail design stage." It is staff's view that traffic impacts should be completely analysed and resolved prior to the detail design stage. Further, the Traffic Impact Study should be expanded to include the proposed train lay -over site at Rundle Rd. as well as an assessment of the condition of the roads leading to that facility. 4.6 Proposed Bowmanville GO station site The future station site is situated partly inside and adjacent to the Bowmanville West Town Centre. The Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan encourages the development of the centre as a transit node by encouraging high quality streetscaping, provision of walkways and linkages, and the development of structured parking facilities in partnership with private land owners. Furthermore, the site is located within the Built Boundary established through the Growth Plan which requires more compact development. The development of a diverse mix of land uses and land use patterns through high quality urban and energy- efficient design is more desirable than what is depicted on the concept layout plans contained in the study. Details of how these Growth Plan objectives will be impacted and potentially addressed should be contained in the final report. 4.7 Growth Plan Conform ity /Emplo yment Area Density The proposed GO Station site in Courtice (with 1100 parking spaces at grade) and the layover site on Rundle Road remove a considerable amount of lands designated for employment uses. In addition, the Bowmanville GO Station site provides for 850 parking spaces at grade. We understand that through the process of implementation, MetroLinx will work with the Municipality and the Province to ensure that the proposed GO Station sites develop over time to the mix of uses and densities contemplated in the Province's Growth Plan. There should be some attempt to address the gap between Provincial Policy and the proposed infrastructure plan. 4.8 Highway 407 East Link Table 4.4 does not identify any grade separation works to accommodate the future Highway 407 east link. 4.9 Project Phasing Given the magnitude of the project there is concern that it will be completed in phases and chronologically from west to east. Certain time lapses between phases would necessarily have impacts particularly on movement of people, the 8 -27 REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 PAGE 12 road system, infrastructure, parking and associated budgetary decisions. Although an EA is not a project implementation document it is important to avoid a situation similar to the turmoil associated with the decision to stage the 407 East expansion and to address the implications of a possible staging /phasing of this project. Appropriate funds need to be secured for the entire project. 4.10 Noise Attenuation of Rundle Road Layover Facilitv The Rundle Road layover facility is located in an industrial area near Highway 401. Noise studies indicate that there would be a very significant noise impact at this location and proposed 5m berms. The Municipality would be very concerned to ensure that this is appropriately addressed in the detailed design phase. 4.11 Noise Attenuation in Residential Areas Clarington will be very concerned to see that noise and vibration impacts are appropriately mitigated, particularly through the area around the Bowmanville GO Rail Station. 4.12 Electrification of GO Rail Line The report identifies air quality impacts, particularly around station sites, due to the increased motor vehicle and bus trips and the diesel powered trains. It also indicates that ambient air concentrations make up the greater share. Some of the predicted cumulative risks exceeded the benchmarks but in comparison with not building the rail extension, the risks would be "very small ". Air quality issues are a concern of the Municipality. The early use of the Tier 4 diesel locomotives and preferably the electrification of the rail line should be pursued earlier. 4.13 Planning Approvals Since the station sites and layover site on Rundle Road are regarded as public uses, GO Transit is not required to rezone the respective properties to permit the proposed developments. However GO Rail will be required to obtain site plan approval from the Municipality and to satisfy the Municipality with respect to possible impacts related to the environment, surrounding land uses and road system and other concerns as determined by the Municipality. 4.14 Municipality's Secondary Plan Study for Courtice Employment Area The Municipality is undertaking a Secondary Plan Study for the Courtice Employment Area and will address in more detail the anticipated inter- relationship between the GO Rail site and the surrounding land uses. REPORT NO.: PSD- 027 -11 4.15 Other detail /technical comments PAGE 13 Other technical comments /remarks on the EA report i.e. directional errors and minor omissions have already been forwarded to the consultant and GO Transit. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 The EA report recommendations implement Council's past position of using the CP line to bring the GO Train service into the Bowmanville West Town Centre. In addition, the EA report reaffirms the location of the GO stations in Courtice and Bowmanville as adopted by Council in the Clarington Official Plan. 5.2 The Municipality will be under pressure to move on capital expenditures sooner than the GO expansion to Bowmanville; one example would be the Green Road overpass required to alleviate the traffic resulting from the additional commercial development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre (e.g. Wal -Mart, new Canadian Tire). To do this, the Municipality would like to start negotiations with GO /Metrolinx to identify these capital projects and negotiate a contribution and /or cost sharing agreement when necessary. 5.3 It is clear from the above - mentioned comments in Section 4.0 that that there are a number of outstanding issues that were identified and need to be addressed prior to the finalization of this phase of the project, before the commencement of the detailed design stage. 5.4 Staff is looking forward to working with the GO /Metrolinx to ensure that these matters are satisfactorily addressed and to partake in the implementation phases. Council will be apprised as the project progresses. Staff Contact: Dean Jacobs Attachments: Attachment 1: Executive Summary: Oshawa to Bowmanville Rail Service Expansion and Rail Maintenance Facility Environmental Assessment Study Report dated January 2011 Interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Andreaz Grammenz, EA Project Leader, GO Transit Alan MacDougall, Senior Railway Project Manager, AECOM Durham Region, Transportation Infrastructure Durham Region, Planning • Oshawa To Bowmanville Rail Service Expansion And Rail Maintenance Facility ,I Transit Project Assessment Process Environmental Assessment Study Environmental Project Report Volume 1— Main Report January 2011 o L ACOM duft;u W `° A D...,— ,, -('D -, )L!Nx.. ;31 D C v 00 o� N 3 -;4CD AECOM Executive Summary EA Introduction E.1.1 Purpose of the Transit Project GO Transit provides inter - regional and Inter - municipal rail and bus transit service to passengers over long distances and is currently Ontario's only interregional public transit system that links Toronto with the surrounding regions of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Effective and expanded public transit Infrastructure will: • Provide much needed new capacity in the transit systems In Ontario's urban centres; • Manage traffic congestion, making it easier and faster to get people and goods where they need to go; and ensuring Ontario and Canada's economies remain competitive; • Reduce Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions; cut smog and provide cleaner air to breathe; and • Support sustainable urban development that leads to stronger, healthier communities and a higher quality of life (Transit Priority Statement, 2009). As such, the purpose of this transit project Is to provide the required infrastructure improvements to address the aforementioned transit benefits as well as to address the existing and future projected ridership demand requirements to/from Durham Region. Further to a recently completed Feasibility Study by Melrolinx for the Oshawa East track extension and new rail maintenance facility (April, 2009), the need was confirmed to expand rail services by twinning the existing Canadian Pacific Rail (CPR) line and to identify possible locations to build new GO stations, layover sites as well as a rail maintenance facility yard ( AECOM, 2009). E.1.1.1 The Project As noted in Figure E1 -1, Metrolinx Is proposing to expand GO rail services from 500 m west of Brock Street in the Town of Whitby to 500 m east of Regional Road 42 /Dadinglon- Clarke Townline Road in the Municipality of Clarington. As such, the approximately 25 km long Project Limits will occur in the Regional Municipality of Durham (upper -tier municipality) and the Town of Whitby, the City of Oshawa and the Municipality of Clarington (lower -tier municipalities). Figure Et- 1Project Limits mvx warn' 4 . i�{anas o.www uu+e:.vnaeunMmon - '-.:. '•Rqr t `�. BIG 9 °awruxva� Created by the Government of Ontario in 2008, Metrolinx addresses the urgent need to F Improve and integrate transportation within the GTHA, Including Durham Region. Under the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act (2008), Metrolinx was established to create a long -tern strategic plan for an integrated, multi- modal, regional transportation system, which promotes the integration of local transit systems with each . other as well as with the GO Transit system. To this end, on November 28, 2008, the Metrolinx Board of Directors adopted the first Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) uxE axr•ao called The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and meynounx - - — - PROJECT LIMITS The site map above (Figure E1 -1) Illustrates the locations of each of the proposed GO facilities. A maintenance facility yard is proposed within the Town of Whitby, immediately south of Victoria Street, east of South Blair Street, west of Thickson Road, in the area of Hopkins Street, and north of the Canadian National Rail (CNR) line. Future GO services will be realigned from the CNR line to the CPR line via a Highway 401 bridge crossing. A GO station is being proposed south of the existing CPR main line, west of Thornton Road In the City of Oshawa and will be serviced by the proposed highway crossing. Three (3) additional GO stations are proposed through the remainder of the Project Limits with a fourth site identified for a future potential station. One (1) of which is located in Central Oshawa, bounded by south of Olive Avenue, east of Albert Street, west of Rltson Road, and north of First Street. The remaining proposed stations are located In the Municipality of Clarington. One station Is proposed south of Bloor Street, east of Trulls Road, west of Courtice Road, and north of the CPR. An additional station, located in Bowmanville Is being proposed south of Highway 2, west of Martin Road, and will be located on both sides of the CPR line. The fourth site, Identified for a future potential station, is located east of Bloor Street and south of Grandview Drive South. In addition, a train layover facility is also being proposed within the Municipality of Clarington, south of Baseline Road, east of Solina Road, west of Rundle Road, and south of the CPR line. It is noted that that first phase of expansion will provide all day service to Central Oshawa, with a.m. and p.m. peak service to Bowmanville with the ultimate plan to have all day service to Bowmanville when demand warrants. E.1.2 Background THE E.1.2.1 The Big Move BIG MOVE Created by the Government of Ontario in 2008, Metrolinx addresses the urgent need to F Improve and integrate transportation within the GTHA, Including Durham Region. Under the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act (2008), Metrolinx was established to create a long -tern strategic plan for an integrated, multi- modal, regional transportation system, which promotes the integration of local transit systems with each . other as well as with the GO Transit system. To this end, on November 28, 2008, the Metrolinx Board of Directors adopted the first Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 19 called The Big Move: Transforming Transportation in the Greater Toronto and meynounx - - — - Hamilton Area (GTHA). In the first 15 years of the RTP's Implementation, significant Improvements will be made to the GTHA's transportation system. To facilitate such Improvements, a priority list has been developed on key regional projects that will result in substantial capacity increases, bring new rapid transit services to underserved areas throughout the region, and Improve regional connectivity. Improvements to existing GO Rail services and the extension of GO Rail service to Bowmanville within the Municipality of Clarington are noted as a top transit pdodty. Through the extension of rapid transit, the communities located at the periphery of the GTHA will be given a viable alternative to driving and opportunities to shorten auto trips and facilitate in the reduction of congested roadways. ES -1 W j 00 'r AECOM E.1.2.2 MoveOntario 2020 In June 2007, the Ontario government announced MoveOntario 2020, a multi-year $17.5 billion rapid transit action plan for the GTHA that will build 902 km of new or improved rapid transit. Through the MoveOntario 2020 initiative, the government announced a list of 52 rapid transit Improvements and expansion projects, including the GO Lakeshore East rail line extension from Oshawa to Bowmanville. The plan calls for 66% of the projects to be completed by 2015, and 95% to be completed by 2020. In this capacity, Metrollnx will hold the responsibility for evaluating, prioritizing and recommending an implementation action plan and alterations to the MoveOntario 2020 project list, which will come from the RTP. E.1.2.3Municipal Transportation Policies Durham Region Transit Long -Term Transit Strategy (March 2010) The Long -Tenn Transit Strategy,(LTTS) Is a comprehensive plan that identifies transportation /transit challenges and opportunities within Durham Region. Completed In March 2010, the LTTS considers multi -modal transportation alternatives as they relate to, and impact transit with an overall vision statement to create an adaptive, safe, reliable, accessible, desirable transit system that shapes and connects Durham Region, and beyond in an economically environmentally sustainable manner. Through a detailed analysis of the alternative solutions, the report recommends that to best address the current problems with Durham transit service, the Region should protect for Long -Term Regional Rapid Transit Network for 2031 and beyond. It was concluded that this approach provides the best long-term, environmentally sustainable solution to help manage the Region's future growth and transportation needs as this recommendation consists of conventional and higher -order transit services. The Recommended Regional Road Transit Network Beyond 2031 illustrates a 'GO Line' extension from the CNR to the CPR Line with five (5) stations throughout the Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa, and Bowmanville. The Illustrated Downtown Oshawa GO Station is also labelled as a 'Metrollnx Gateway Hub'. Durham Region Transportation Master Plan (November 2005), The Durham Region Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is a strategic planning document that was established to develop the transportation needs for the next 20 years and beyond. With anticipated growth, the Region wilt face several challenges in providing a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system (Durham, 2005). It is noted that the community has embraced a shift towards greater use of transit, pedestrian and cycling facilities and that the changes In modal usage have been accomplished by policies that encourage higher order transit facilities linking centres within Durham and other urbanized areas in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The Transit Priority Network within the TMP illustrates the Project Limits for this assignment as a'Commuter Rail' along the CNR Corridor (t.e„ existing services) as well as a 'Future Transportation Corridor, which includes the CNR to CPR Crossing and extends east beyond the Project Limits In the Municipality of Clarington (i.e., expansion of GO services to Bowmanville). 'Transportation Centres' within the 'Future Transportation Corridor have been considered as part of this EA Study, and would serve to fadlitate transfers between different modes of travel between transit services and feature passenger amenity areas and facilities. The TMP includes a recommendation action requesting GO Transit to expand commuter rail service through Oshawa along the CPR Belleville subdivision (Region of Durham, 2005). Other recommendations include Introducing measures that make public transportation more attractive, improve inter - regional connections and conduct feasibility studies to examine the use of the CPR Belleville subdivision. Town of Whitby Transportation Master Plan (June 2010) The Town of Whitby TMP was designed to Integrate both Regional and Provincial transportation and environmental planning, policies and requirements into a transportation framework for 6 Town (Town of Whitby, 2010). The Plan has been developed to be effective, accessible, integrated, multi- modal, balanced, sensitive, optimized, affordable, sustainable, and coordinated in order to support long -term growth and provide for efficient movement of people and goods to areas within and beyond the municipal limits. The TMP discusses the GO Transit East Extension from Oshawa to Bowmanville. It is noted that service Is planned to be expanded and enhanced, which will. better enable the Region to achieve transit mode share objectives and reductions in auto usage. The Planned Transit Network Improvements illustrates a Metrolinx/GO Transit 'Potential Commuter Rail' Line crossing Highway 401 within and beyond the Town's Municipal Limits with a 'GO Train Station' at Thornton Road. Municipality of Clarington Transportation Master Plan (Forthcoming) The Municipality of Clarington is in the process of developing a Transportation and Infrastructure Master Plan that will include and a strategic assessment of transportation and infrastructure issues and requirements. This will assist in identifying current Issues and establishing a baseline for comparison with future conditions (Municipality of Clarington Website, 2010). There is no TMP available at the time this study was undertaken. E.1.3 Environmental Assessment Process E.1.3.1 Ontario Regulation 231/08 In order to accelerate the delivery of critical transit expansion projects, the Province of Ontario has passed a new regulation for transit projects to ensure a streamlined decision- making process to allow for such projects to move forward quickly. As such, this study Is being carried out under the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) as prescribed in Ontario Regulation 231108, Transit Projects and Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Undertakings (June, 2006). The regulation defines a transit project as, "an enterprise or activity that is the planning, designing, establishing, constructing, operating, changing or retiring of (1) facility or service that ... is used exclusively for the transportation of passengers by bus or rail, or (it) anything that Is ancillary to a facility or service ... and that is used to support or facilitate the transportation of passengers by bus or rail..." This TPAP process is a proponent - driven, self- assessment process and does not require that a particular project be approved by the Minister of the Environment before proceeding. The process commences with a specific transit project and the regulation does not require proponents to look at the rationale and planning alternatives or alternative solutions to public transit nor to the particular transit project (MOE, 2009). The process allows for an assessment of potential ES -2 AECOM environmental impacts to be completed within six (6) months. Although these projects are primarily proponent driven, the regulation provides a framework for focused consultation and objection processes. It'Is noted that the Minister of the Environment may take action on any transit project If there is a potential for negative impacts on a matter of provincial importance that relates to the natural environment or has a cultural heritage value or interest, or on a constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty right (MOE, 2009). E.1.3.2 Federal Environmental Assessment Process In addition to complying with Ontario Regulation 231108, this project may-also comply with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). A federal EA is triggered under Section 5 of the CEAA If a federal authority proposes a project, grants money to a project, grants Interest in land for a project, or exercises Its regulatory duty In relation to a project. E.2 Consultation Record Consultation is mandatory for all projects that are subject to Ontario Regulation 231108, as this process requires meaningful consultation with persons that are considered to have an Interest in the transit project. Ongoing consultation throughout the transit project allows the project team to: • Property identify, inform or notify persons, that Include those potentially affected by the transit project; Identify and assess the range of potential environmental impacts of the transit project; and • Respond to the concerns of Interested persons, including adjacent property owners and others who may be affected by some aspect of the project (MOE, 2009). E.2.1 Pre -Notice of Commencement E.2.1.1 Regulatory Agencies As noted in TableE2 -1, an extensive list of regulatory agencies was established to facilitate with project input and notification. Members of the project team scheduled pre - notice of commencement meetings with relevant government agencies/municipalities with jurisdiction or an Interest related to this transit project. These meetings allowed the project team to introduce the transit project to government agencies and to seek additional input on transit related issues, Including environmental awareness and planning Issues. In addition, a Stakeholder Technical Advisory Committee was formed to discuss additional project related issues. TableE2 -1 Regulatory Agency Contact Llst �l 7 Ministry of Culture) Ontario Realty Corporation ProV!hclell • Committee on the Status of Species at Risk In • Agencies Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario • Ministry of Tourism • Energy and Infrastructure Ontario • Ministry of Transportation • Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs • Ontario Federation of Agriculture • Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs • Ontario Heritage Trust • Ministry of Tourism and Culture (formerly the • Ontario Provincial Police �l 7 Ministry of Culture) Ontario Realty Corporation • Ministry of Environment • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Pederal Agencies • Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada • Environment Canada • Canada Post • Fisheries and Oceans Canada • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency • Health Canada • Canadian National Railway Heritage Canada Foundation • Canadian Pacific Railway • Indian and Northern Affairs Canada • Canadian Transportation Agency • Parks Canada • Committee on the Status of Endangered • Transport Canada Wildlife in Canada • Municipal VIA Rail Canada Agencies • Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority • Regional Municipality of Durham (Council, Clerk, (CLOCA) Emergency Services, Transit, Police, Works and • City of Oshawa (Council, Clerk, Fire, Planning, Water & Sanitary Sewer) Development Services, Planning) • Town of Whitby (Council, Clerk, Fire, Planning, • Municipality of Clarington (Council, Clerk, Engineering) Operations, Fire, Economic Development, Planning, Engineering Aboriginal Communities • Aldervllle First Nation • Hiawatha First Nation • Chippewas of Beausoleil Island First Nation • Huron - Wendat First Nation • Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation • Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation • Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation • Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation • Curve Lake First Nation • key Moose Deer Point First Nation Stakeholders • Architectural Conservancy of Ontario — • Hydro One Inc. Clarington • Member of Provincial Parliament • Bell Canada Oshawa Historical Society • Clarington Heritage Committee • Oshawa Municipal Airport • Durham Catholic District School Board • Port of Oshawa • Durham College Rogers Cable Durham Region • Durham District School Board • Service Oshawa • Enbridge Gas Distributions • Trans Canada Pipeline Ltd. • Heritage Oshawa • Veridlan — Clarington Hydro • Heritage Whitby • Whitby Hydro Energy Services ES-3 00 AECOM E.2.1.2Aboriginal Communities Early consultation with Aboriginal communities is a critical part of any transit related project. As per Ontario Regulation 231 108, consultation with Aboriginal communities Is Intended to facilitate the identification of a constitutionally protected Aboriginal or treaty right that may be impacted by a transit project, and is thus considered a matter of Provincial Interest (MOE, 2009). A letter requesting a list of agencies that can assist in Identifying Aboriginal communities was sent to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch on October 2, 2009. In response, the MOE recommended the project team contact representatives from the following department listed below from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) as well as from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). As such, a letter requesting a list of Aboriginal communities was sent to applicable agency representatives on November 27, 2009. Based on information received from INAC in conjunction with additional MOE recommendations, a letter was mailed to ten (10) Aboriginal communities on July 23, 2010, who may have a potential Interest in the study. The intent of the letter was to notify the communities of the project, and to request in writing, the nature of their Interest and /or activities within or near the Project Limits. E.2.1.3 Public Open Houses Metrolinx convened three (3) public Open Houses within the Project Limits to inform the public as well as regulatory agencies about the transit project and to receive preliminary input and comments from interested and /or potentially affected parties. The public Open Houses were scheduled from June 16 to June 18, 2009, within the Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa, and Municipality of Clarington. Various methods were used to notify Interested parties of the Open Houses and invite them to attend and participate. Direct notification letters were mailed out In advance of the Open Houses to applicable regulatory agencies, including municipalities on June 3, 2009. In addition, a Notice of Public Open House was published in local newspapers. The purpose of these public Open Houses was to introduce the project and the new transit study process to landowners, municipal and provincial representatives, and other interested and /or potentially affected stakeholders. The Open Houses provided an informal drop4n centre setting whereby participants could view the display boards containing Information about the project, and speak one- on-one with GO Transit and /or AECOM project team representatives. It is estimated that approximately 100 participants attended the three (3) Open Houses. Participants included regulatory agencies, Councillors, nearby residents, landowners as well as development companies. Most participants were satisfied with the findings of the Feasibility Study as it was well thought out and covered many aspects of the project. However, some participants noted that thiss Study should have expanded on methodologies adopted by other Countries. A few participants expressed their concerns with the preferred methods of expanding GO services on the CPR line as opposed to the CNR line; however most participants were pleased with the expansion of GO services from Oshawa to Bowmanville and have argued that this is a long overdue initiative. Suggestions were made to electrify this line to facilitate with the overall reduction of emissions from the proposed undertaking and to adopt methods already implemented by other Countries. Moreover, some residents expressed noise, traffic, as well as future parking concerns with the proposed GO facilities. Following the public Open Houses, a number of additional comments were received primarily through an exchange of emails. Additional members of the public requested to be added to the study mailing list, and provided Insightful Input on the proposed GO service expansion. E.2.2 Formal Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP) - Notice of Commencement E.2.2.1 Regulatory Agencies The list of regulatory agencies generated during the pro-Notice of Commencement stage of the EA was also used to provide agencies with the Notice of Study Commencement and Public Information Centres (PICs) and to facilitate project input. Agencies added to the contact list since the pre - Notice of Commencement phase Include the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, Industry Canada, municipal libraries, and the. Durham Region Health Department. E.2.2.2Abodginal Communities Consultation with Aboriginal communities that began during the pre -Notice of Commencement phase of the project has continued into the formal TPAP process as well. On September 24, 2010, a letter was sent to INAC and MAA agency representatives inquiring about claims within the Project Limits. Notification letters were also sent to several Aboriginal communities informing of the project and consultation opportunities.. Details of communications with aboriginal communities are provided in Appendix A and B or the Environmental Project Report (EPR), Volume 2. E.2.2.3 Public Information Centres The Notice of Study Commencement included an invitation to participate in the formal consultation period of the study. The project team employed several methods to notify the public and agencies of the study and invite them to attend and participate In the PICs. The various methods used are as follows: • Notice of Study Commencement and PICs sent by direct mall on Friday September 24, 2010 to regulatory agencies, the public mailing list (from the pre -Notice of Commencement phase), and property owners within 30 m of the CPR line and within 120 m of proposed station sites; • Notice of Study Commencement and PICs sent by email on Thursday September 30, 2010 to regulatory agencies and members of the public who provided email addresses during the pre - Notice of Commencement phase; • Notice of Study Commencement and PICs published in local newspapers ( Clarington This Week, Oshawa This Week and Whitby This Week) on Thursday September 30 and Friday October 1, 2010; • Study information and PIC invitation published on the GO Transit website on Friday October 1, 2010; • Study information and PIC Invitation distributed via the GO Transit E -News system to Lakeshore East customers on Friday October 1, Wednesday October 6 and Tuesday October 12, 2010 after the PM rush; and • Study information and PIC invitation published on the Transit Toronto blog on Monday October 4, 2010. GO Transit held three (3) PICs on October 7, 13 and 15, 2010 in the Municipality of Clarington, City of Oshawa and Town of Whitby, respectively. The purpose of the PICs was to present the preferred future expansion options based on public and agency input collected during the pre -Notice of Commencement phase and gather feedback on the preferred plan. It Is estimated that approximately 300 participants attended the three (3) PICs; however, 278 officially signed the attendance register, including 103 in Bowmanville, 102 in Oshawa and 73 in Whitby. Such attendees included nearby ES-4 AECOM residents, landowners, developers, regulatory agencies, municipal staff, Councillors and one Mayor. A summary of comments received at the PICs Is provided below. Most respondents were supportive of the proposal to expand GO Transit rail service from Oshawa to Bowmanville. However, several respondents had specific concerns related to increased traffic and parking issues as a result of the proposed stations, especially at the Thornton Road, Ritson Road and Martin Road GO Stations. Some participants noted concerns with the preferred rail corridor, which recommends using the CPR line instead of the CNR line. Other respondents Identified issues about noise and vibration as well as safety concerns. Participants raised specific concerns related to these topics while recognizing the need for expanded GO Transit service to Bowmanville. E.3 Environmental Conditions E.3.1 Natural Environment Figure E3 -1 illustrates the natural environmental features within the Project Limits. E.3.1.1 Physiography, Geology and Topography The Project Limits are directly situated within one (1) geological formation known as the Lindsay Formation. This formation, which is part of the Simcoe Group, is described as a nodular to black laminated limestone (Armstrong and Dodge, 2007). The Project Limits are situated within one (1) physiographic region known as the Iroquois Plain. The Iroquois Plain extends around the western part of Lake Ontario, from the Niagara River to the Trent River, a distance of approximately 305 km. Due to topographic features of the plain, the coarse sandy soil Is not very productive and is predominately covered by cedar thicket. With the exception of the dry sandy terrace north of Oshawa, the physiographic characteristics of this Plain are generally a mosaic of till plains, drumlins, and areas of silty lacustdne deposits (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The topography within the Project Limits are generally described as gently increasing in elevation from the proposed East Rail Maintenance Facility (ERMF) at the western limits of the study area to the eastern limits at the Martin Road Station. E.3.1.2Soils and Agricultural Capability The proposed GO facilities will Impact approximately nine (9) soil types within the Project Limits. The proposed track Wrining will Impact additional soil types within the existing CNR/CPR line Right -of -Way (ROW). Agricultural The Drainage (ATD) Information obtained from OMAFRA Identifies several random and systematic the drainage areas within the Project Limits. Most agricultural land uses and tile drainage areas are adjacent -to the CPR line and have been built outside of the CPR ROW. E.3.1.3 Drainage and StormwaterManagement The Project Limits are entirely situated'within the jurisdiction of the Central Lake Ontario, Conservation Authodly ( CLOCA). There are nine (9) watersheds situated within the Project Limits and within each watershed there are several watercourse crossings that traverse the Project Limits. The proposed project will traverse . approximately 13 watercourse crossings along the CNR line and the CPR line. Additional information received from CLOCA Identifies that the CNR line to CPR line Highway 401 crossing Is directly situated within the Corbett Creek 100 -Year Floodplain, as per the Corbett Creek Floodplain Mapping, 2005. To this end, a Corbett Creek Watershed Flood Study was W i completed as part of this assignment. The purpose of this study is to establish the existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of Corbett Creek within the Project Limits, assess the potential impacts of the proposed connecting tracking on flooding in Corbett Creek, as well as evaluate alternatives to mitigate any potential flooding Impacts. E.3.1.4 Groundwater Resources The Influence of subsurface materials on groundwater movement necessitates a description of the geology within the Project Limits. The existing.CP rail corridor is primarily located In the Newmarket Till'. The Newmarket Till was deposited initially into standing water by a Late Wisconsinan advance of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. It is laterally extensive within the Greater Toronto Area and extends across the entire Project Limits. The Newmarket Till has a distinct and consistent Iithology' and is dense, stony, sandy silt diamidon, ranging in thickness from about 5 to 50 m. It occurs as beds 3 to 5 m thick, locally separated by stone lines and sandy interbeds that are 1 to 5 in thick'. Most drumlins within the Study Area, Including those In the Bowmanvllle area, are composed of Newmarket Till (older documents refer to „the Newmarket 1111 as the Bowmanville Till, although this term is no longer In use). The hydrogeological significance of the Newmarket Till Is that It separates the major underlying aquifers from the permeable Oak Ridges Moraine sediments. E.3.1.5Fisheries Resources Secondary background Information received from CLOCA as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Indicates that there are nine (9) watersheds and several fish species present within the Project Limits along the CNR to CPR line. In addition, the project team undertook environmental field work and prepared a Natural Environmental Conditions Report as part of this study. It is noted that the East Rail Maintenance Facility (ERMF) site as well as the CNR to CPR line crossing over Highway 401 will directly traverse Pringle Creek and Corbett Creek respectively. The remaining 11 watercourse crossings within the Project Limits will be directly traversed by the track twinning along the CPR line. Fish species data was received from monitoring stations closest to the rail line, and proposed GO facilities. Thus, there is a likelihood of additional fish species observations within each watercourse, outside of the Project Limits. Existing aquatic features within the Project Limits were assessed by reviewing existing data and conducting site investigations in 2009. Existing data included CLOCA fish sampling, Oshawa Creek Aquatic Resources Management Plan and the Bowmanville /Soper Creek Watershed Aquatic Resource Management Plan. Aquatic habitat assessments were not made at all watercourse crossings. • Data collected in field investigations conducted by AECOM included general physical habitat, water quality and representative photographs. Ecological field investigations were undertaken along the preferred plan on July 301h, August 41h, August 12th, August 18th and October 29'h, 2009. E.3.1.6 Vegetation Field investigation methods used to describe the terrestrial communities Included a combination of Rapid Ecological Land Classification (ELC) delineation following those guidelines outlined by the MNR (Lee et a/, 2009) for the description of vegetation communities over 0.5 he in size, and a comprehensive floral species list. Where metland ' 407 East — Environmental Assessment Rep'ott ' Sharp at al.., 1999 ' Ibid ES-5 i AECOM communities occur, wetland delineation according to the Ontario Welland Evaluation System for Southern Ontario (3'" edition) was utilized to confirm/revise wetland boundaries. Ecological field investigations were undertaken by AECOM along the preferred plan area on July 30", August 41h, August 12rh, August 18rh and October 29Th, 2009. A Permission to Enter (PTE) agreement was forwarded to 14 land parcel owners to conduct field visits at the proposed facility sites. Field visits revealed a variety of terrestrial features on proposed facility and station sites, including agrkwltural fields, thickets, meadows, tree stands, hedgerows, unevaluated wetlands, PSWs, woodlands, and mowed lawns. E.3.1.7 Wildlife Resident wildlife within the study area dominantly consists of a composition of species able to adapt to a human I influenced environment considering the proximity to major cities and transportation networks. The study area consists of two core habitat areas, the Oak Ridges Moraine to the north and Lake Ontario to the south. Additionally, large expanses of habitat associated with the former Lake Iroquois shoreline and beach have been designated as PSWs. Watercourse systems link these core areas, offering important wildlife corridors. In some areas, these corridor links are marginal due to urban modifications, which have constrained the ability for wildlife movement; however, creek corridors are still utilized by wildlife in the area. A total of 80 federally and provincially significant species have been reported within the study area, according to CLOCA records and the NHIC database. Of these species, there are 47 bird species, 24 plant species, and nine (9) other wildlife species. Most of these species are not associated with the preferred plan. The Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) has recorded 162 bird species as possibly, probably or confirmed to be breeding within survey squares that overlap the study area. Of these, habitat for 98 species is not found within or near the preferred sites. A total of 66 species have habitat that is marginally suitable to suitable for breeding within or near the preferred sites where three.(3) are listed as Threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). ES-6 77. W WIMA. A 1W pf_4 iZ kJ) '�J k, ? r J�l t Natural Environmental Fitalureswithl. he 'D� LIA it 1-i o'WO_-Lk Project Limits Proposed Maintenance Facility Proposed Station. t F.t.. Potential Station K' Proposed Layover sod Highway Crossingrrfack Twinning Pt.po EnvironmentallyflormithmAme's ki Wooded Are.. 0 -It- M E.cl.gica I Am.. E. 4 4 T cvklyj 6i, 0 I N1141 5, it '�a N�l Fig. b N.t.Mt.131i2n(vlmnmamtal features within the Project Limits Proposed Maintenance Facility Proposed Station 7� FulUm Potential Station Proposed Layover f'; 0 i 00 AECOM E.3.1.8Spectes at Risk A review of applicable background information sources was conducted to determine the potential presence of Species at Risk within and in proximity to the Project Limits. This entailed accessing and reviewing the following website registries to provide a framework for the field investigations: MNR Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database' for rare, threatened and endangered species; MNR Biodiversity Explorer; COSEWIC' database; Environment Canada's Species at Risk Registry for species protected by federal legislation called the Species at Risk Act (SARA); and Conservation Ontario 2010 Aquatic Species at Risk. There are 23 rare species listed In the MNR NHIC database for NTS Map Sheet 30 M /15, which geographically covers the Project Limits. However, further review of the database indicates five (5) of the 23 species listed within NTS Map Sheet 30 M/15 have a mapped range within the Project Limits. The MNR also recently Introduced the Biodiversity Explorer, which is an online source for authoritative conservation Information on over 15,000 plants and animals and over 450 ecological communities in Ontario (Biodiversity Explorer Website, 2009). A search of rare species was conducted through the selection of 11on squares within the Project Limits. The results of the selected squares did not include any of the above noted species as identified on the MNR's NHIC website. However, one (1) taxon group was noted within the spatial boundary, known as Ants, Bees, Wasps and Sawflies, specifically a Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis). No additional ranking information was available for this species. The Conservation Ontado 2010 Aquatic Species at Risk website Identifies aquatic Species at Risk by each Conservation Authority (CA) in Ontario. Interactive maps were reviewed to determine the potential presence of aquatic Species at Risk within the Project Limits. As noted within the Distribution of Fish Species at Risk Mapping, none of the above mentioned watercourse crossings are labelled as Species at Risk (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). E.3.1.9 Wetland Habitat Evaluated wetlands are those that have been assessed using,the Ontario Weiland Evaluation System protocols developed by the MNR. Those that have a score of greater than 600 points or 250 points within the Special Features section are considered provincially significant. For those wetlands that do not reach these scores, they are considered non - provincially significant. However, these wetlands may be considered locally significant in some municipalities. Fourteen evaluated wetland systems occur within four (4) kilometres of the study area. Of these, 12 are considered Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW). These wetlands are for the most part located along or near stream systems of Lake Ontado and are considered riverine wetland systems. PSWs that may potentially be affected by the expansion of rail service include Whitby Harbour PSW Complex and Corbett Creek Coastal PSW Complex. There are a number of unevaluated wetlands of various sizes within and adjacent to the study area. Those that are Identified within a given distance of a, preferred site should be further examined at the detail design phase. Additional Information received by the MNR has delineated a portion of lands adjacent to Corbett Creek immediately south of ' The NHIC compiles, maintains and provides Wormation on rare, threatened and endangered species and spaces In Ontario. This Information Is stored In a central repository containing a computerked database, map riles and an information library, which an, accessible for conservallon appffcations, land -a planning, park management, etc. The NHIC webste makes this information —liable through the lxemet. ' COSEWIC Is mandated to assess and designate wildlife specks that an, considered to be in danger ofbecoming extinct In Canada. Highway 401 as a Significant Ecological Area. Such areas are classified as unevaluated wetlands that warrant special consideration by the MNR, excluding Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), parks, and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). E.3.1.10 Designated Natural Heritage Features Designated natural heritage features include ESAs, ANSis, Conservation Areas and select municipal parks. An ESA is a natural area identified by a CA or municipality as an area that fulfills certain criteria for sensitivity or ecological significance. There is one (1) PSW known as the Whitby Harbour Welland Complex, which is located on the south side of the CNR line, immediately south of the ERMF site. In 1977, CLOCA undertook an environmental sensitivity mapping study to Identify areas of sensitivity within its jurisdiction (Gartner Lee, 1978). To this end, a number of the above mentioned watercourse crossings were deemed environmentally sensitive: Pringle Creek Valley, Whitby Harbour ESA, Corbett Creek Valley, Oshawa- Goodman Creek Valleys, Harmony Creek Valley, Farewell Creek Valley to Beach, Robinson Creek Valley, Tooley Creek Valley and Darlington Creek. ANSIs are areas of land or water that represent significant geological (earth science) and /or biological (life science) features, and are known to have a high value for conservation, scientific study, and education. Nine (9) ANSI's occur within three (3) kilometres of the study area. Conservation areas within the vicinity of the Project Limits are owned and managed by CLOCA or the municipality. Some of these serve various recreational functions, while others have limited access in order to protect environmentally . sensitive features. The City of Oshawa purchased Cedar Valley and Harmony Valley Conservation Areas from CLOCA in 2004, now named Cedar Valley Park and Harmony Valley Park respectively. Master Plans were prepared for each park In order to define a vision and management plan for the areas. The primary goal for Cedar Valley Park is to' "preserve existing natural systems and ecology ", while the main focus for Harmony Valley Park is to "preserve significant natural heritage systems, and provide varied recreation opportunities" (Marshall Macklin Monaghan, 2006, May 8s: 2006, May 6b). E.3.1.11 Air Quality An air quality assessment was completed to predict the potential air quality impacts of the GO Transit expansion in Durham Region. The objective of the assessment was to provide a comparison of the air quality impacts resulting from the proposed expansion to an established future baseline and evaluate how the proposed expansion may potentially affect air quality In the study area. The emissions of potential concern are nitrogen oxides (NO,), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (S02) and particulate matter (PM). Select Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions were also assessed and include acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3- butadiene, and formaldehyde. A general estimate of the baseline ambient air quality was made using publicly available historical air quality data from ambient air quality monitoring stations within Ontario. As part of the methodology, hourly and annual ambient concentrations of air quality emissions (PM25, NOx, S02 and CO) were obtained from the Toronto West.monitoring station as this station portrays considerably higher ambient results due to its proximity to high density traffic corridors. Ambient air monitodng for VOCs is less common and the available monitoring stations were not close to the study area. ES-6 AECOM Thus, the MOE's Hamilton Downtown monitoring station was chosen for ambient background Benzene and 1,3- Butadiene concentrations with additional VOC data obtained from the Windsor West monitoring station. It is noted that the monitoring stations at which these values were obtained are located in areas that are more urban and Industrial than the location of many of the proposed GO stations, and may have higher contaminant concentrations than the area of interest. In addition to the above, future traffic maps, plans and reports were reviewed to build the road networks and links around the proposed GO facilities. Sensitive receptor locations were evaluated and extracted from secondary sources . and field investigations. Using the traffic information, representative emissions rates were developed for vehicular flow using MOBILE 6.2. The collected data and generated vehicular emission rates were used in an air dispersion model known as CAL3QHCR. The main Inputs required for the model Include, a base map of road network, the location of receptors and road segments, vehicle exhaust emission factors (i.e., g/VmT) for the road segments, the overall peak hourly traffic flow in each area, traffic signal timing used to calculate Idle times and length of traffic queuing; and one year (2000) of meteorological data. The CAL3QHCR model was run using urban settings as outlined in the US EPA document Guideline on Air Quality Models. The gaseous contaminants such as CO, S02, N0, and VOCs were modelled using the CO option, while the particulate contaminants used the PM option. Presented results are based on a 1 hr, 8 hr, 24 hr and annual averaging time to facilitate comparison to the applicable guidelines. The maximum concentration predicted by CAL3QHCR is considered conservative as the maximum emission factors and peak traffic flow are used for all hours of the one -year modeling period when in reality the actual emission factors and traffic flow are frequently less (not peak). Further Information pertaining to the air quality assessment, including approach, methodology, data collection, analysis, and an assessment of results Is included in Appendix E of this, report. E.3.1.12 Contaminated Properties Given that the Project Limits exhibit a long history of CNR and CPR freight services, sources of potential contamination Including possible spills and /or leaks of oils, metals, arsenic, solvents and other petroleum product (t.e., fuels, lubricants, etc.) may exist from moving freight and/or rail equipment. Review of Schedule C — Environmental Management in the Town of Whitby's Official Plan Indicates a former waste disposal site Immediately south of the ERMF site on the south side of the CNR line. In addition, review of Schedule D — Environmental Management within the City of Oshawa's Official Plan indicates a Waste Disposal Assessment Area approximately 100 m south of the CPR line on the east side of Ritson Road. Review of the Ministry of Environment and Energy Waste Disposal Site Inventory (1991) indicates the presence of a dosed waste disposal site location (Site No. X 7102) in the City of Oshawa on the south side of Gibb Street, immediately east of Nassau Street and north of the CPR ROW. This waste disposal site was dosed In 1921 and was classified as an AS site, which included municipal/domestic waste in an urban setting (MOEE, 1991). 1 :1 E.3.2 Socto Economic Environment E.3.2.1 Provincial Planning Policies Since 2001, the Province of Ontario has approved a series of initiatives, Statutes and Plans that have profoundly changed the way planning and development is to occur within Ontario. As such, the Project Limits are situated within a number of provincial planning policy areas, as described below. The Ontario Planning Act (2006) sets out the ground rules for land use planning in Ontario and describes how land uses may be controlled, and who may control them. Pursuant to the Planning Act, the Province of Ontario is the primary planning authority In Ontario. The Planning Act enables the Province to delegate some of its planning authority to the upper -tier municipalities (e.g., counties and regionalidistrict municipalities, as well as planning boards) while retaining control through the approval process. Municipalities must conform to approved policies of the Provincial government and Its agencies. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) Is the complementary policy document to the Planning Act. Issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act, the PPS provides direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, and promotes the provincial "policy -led" planning system that recognizes and addresses the complex inter - relationship among environmental, economic and sodal factors in land use planning (MMAH, 2005). The new PPS took effect on March 1, 2005, and provides for enhanced protection of the environment by identifying the significance of the natural heritage system and water resources, including natural hazards and water quality, air quality and energy use. The new policies also provide for intensiflcatlons and brownflelds development to ensure the maximum use of sewer, water and energy systems, roads and transit. It also provides for more transit - friendly land -use patterns using intensification and more compact, higher density development, as a means of bringing more people closer to the transit routes (MMAH, 2005). In recognition of the Greater Golden Horseshoe's (GGH)' distinction as one of the fastest growing regions in North America, Bill 136, the Places to Grow Act, 2005 received Royal Assent on June 13, 2005 (MPIR, 2006). The Act provides the legal framework necessary to Implement the Government of Ontario's vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in the GGH to the year 2031. The Act enables the government to plan for population growth, economic expansion and the protection of the environment, agricultural lands and other valuable resources In a coordinated and strategic way (MPIR, 2006). The Growth Plan envisages Increasing intensification of the existing built -up area, with a focus on "urban growth centres, intensification corridors, major transit station areas, brownfield sites, and greyflelds" (MPIR, 2006). The GTHA Is one of the fastest growing regions in North America, as it is the destination of choice for many people looking to relocate from other parts of Canada and around the world because of its high quality of life and economic opportunities. The Growth Plan designates the Regional Municipality of Durham as an 'Inner Ring'. Moreover, Downtown Oshawa is mapped within Schedule 4 of the Plan as an Urban Growth Centre, which by 2031 or eariier, will achieve a minimum growth density target of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. Review of Schedule 3 — Distribution of Population R Employment for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2001 -2031 identifies Durham Region as reaching a s The GGH includes the cities or Toronto, Hamilton and Kawarthe Lakes, the regional municipalities or Halton, Peet, York, Durham, Waterloo and Niagara and the counties of Haldimand, Brant, Wellington, DuHenn, Sirimcoe, Northumbedand and Peterborough (MPIR, 2006). ES -9 AECOM population of 660,000 by 2011, 810,000 by 2021 and 960,000 by 2031. Similarly, employment within the Region is projected at 260,000 by 2011, 310,000 by 2021 and 350,000 by 2031. E.3.2.2 Regional Setting, Economy and Population Durham Region is situated in the highly developed and populated economic centre of Ontario, known as the Golden Horseshoe that stretches from Oshawa to Niagara Falls. The Region Is located immediately east of the City of Toronto within the GTA and is comprised of an area approximately 2,590 km' (Durham Region Website, 2009). Termed an 'emerging power' within the GTA, Durham Region focuses Its economic growth on several key sectors including advanced Manufactudng, agd- business, energy, film, and tourism. The Town of Whitby Is ranked as the 10'h fastest growing community In Canada and Is recognized as Durham's Business Centre. Traditionally, Whitby and Oshawa have been home to a wide range of companies In the automotive, energy, information technology, manufacturing, health and government services sectors. The communities are now moving away from manufacturing to a more diverse economic base. The Municipality of Clarington includes farming communities and the hamlets of Courtice, Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono. One of the Region's largest employers, Ontario Power Generation's Darlington Nuclear Generating Station', Is located in Clarington, and the new Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant was recently constructed (Durham Annual Report, 2008), E.3.2.3 Municipal Existing and Future Land Uses The existing land uses within the Project Limits are primarily commercialfindustrial in the Town of Whitby, urban /residential with some open space recreational and commercial land uses in the City of Oshawa, and rural/agricultural with some light commerciallindustrial uses In the Municipality of Clarington. There are few sporadic residential dwellings throughout this portion of Clarington; however, there are some two - storey detached residential units In Bowmanville at the eastern edges of the Project Limits. The Regional Municipality of Durham, Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and Municipality of Clarington have each developed Official Plans in accordance with provincial guidelines. The purpose of policies within these Plans is to guide and manage future growth, establish policies that enhance quality of life, and to promote environmental, economic and social sustalnability in each municipality. Durham Region Official Plan designations at the proposed facilities Include: Employment Areas ERMF, CNR to CPR Crossing, Thornton Road Station, Courtice Road Station, and Rundle Road Layover; Living Areas — CNR to CPR Crossing, Ritson Road Station and Martin Road Station; and Regional Centres — Ritson Road Station and Martin Road Station. In addition, the Durham Region Official Plan indicates the presence of a future GO Rail connection from the CNR line to the CPR line and identifies the Courtice Road and Martin Road GO Station Sites as future GO Stations. The Town of Whitby Official Plan designates the ERMF and CNR to CPR Crossing as Prestige Industrial, Hazard Land and General Industrial lands. The CNR to CPR Crossing is also within the City of Oshawa, and Is designated as Industrial and Special Purpose Commercial under the City of Oshawa Official Plan. This Plan also designates the Thornton Road GO Station Site as Industrial and the Ritson Road GO Station Site as Residential. The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan designates the Courtice Road GO Station Site as Prestige Employment Area, the Rundle Road Layover Facility as Light Industrial Area and the Martin Road GO Station Site as Town Centre and Urban Residential. The Municipality of Clarington Secondary Plan also identifies the Martin Road site as a Future GO Station Site with a Pedestrian Walkway. E.3.2.4Aboriginal Interests Aboriginal peoples are important participants In the study process. Representatives from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (MAA) as well as from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) were contacted in request of a list of Aboriginal communities that may have an interest in this project. Information obtained from the INAC coupled with suggestions from the MOE regarding potentially impacted aboriginal communities identified several aboriginal communities of potential interest. As a result, the following Aboriginal communities were contacted as part of this study: • Alderville First Nation • Hiawatha First Nation • Chippewas of Beausoleil Island First Nation • Huron - Wendat First Nation • Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation • Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation • Chippewas of Rama Indian Band • Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation • Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation • Moose Deer Point First Nation • Curve Lake First Nation E.3.2.5 Noise and Vibration . An Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment was prepared to assess the existing environmental noise and vibration conditions within the Project Limits and to estimate the noise and vibration impact generated by the proposed undertaking. Eight (8) noise and vibration monitoring locations were situated throughout the Project Limits to facilitate In determining the existing noise levels as a baseline assessment to facilitate the analysis. The noise and vibration assessment was carried out in accordance with the MOEE/GO Transit Draft Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment, which was developed by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) and GO Transit. The noise impact generated by the proposed rail service including the noise impact generated by the proposed four (4) GO Stations were predicted to fall within the acceptable noise impact limit. In addition the vibration impact of GO Transit commuter trains was assessed and predicted to fall within the acceptable vibration impact limit. However, the noise Impact generated by the proposed Rundle Road Layover Facility and the proposed ERMF were predicted to exceed the applicable noise Impact limits. Thus, noise mitigation measures must be considered, based on administrative, operational, economic and technical feasibility, as detailed in Section 4.4.2.1. E.3.2.6 Navigable Waterways Under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, approval must be obtained prior to any construction or works within designated navigable waters. Given the number of watercourse crossings within the Project Limits, a letter to Transport Canada was established to confirm the presence of navigable waterways within the Project Limits. Navigable watercourses will be identified through use of Transport Canada's screening process for navigability and through continued discussions with Navigable Water staff at Transport Canada. ES -10 AECOM E.3.2.7 Existing Traffic Characteristics Existing traffic characteristics were considered as part of four (4) overall traffic Impact studies within and adjacent to those lands proposed for future GO Transit Stations. The traffic Impact studies show that most Intersections within the vicinity of the proposed GO Station sites are operating at a Level of Service (LOS) 'C' or better, except those near the Ritson Road GO Station, which operate at LOS'D' lo'F'. E.3.2.8 Existing Businesses It Is recognized that the proposed expansion of GO services may impact/displace some existing business operations within the Project Limits as some lands are required for site facilities. A list of known businesses and /or establishments within the Project Limits that may be.directly impacted by the proposed extension are as follows: • East Rail Maintenance Facility — car dealership; • CNR to CPR Crossing Site — Mini Storage, Hotel, Rental Centre, agricultural farmland (leased for corn production), commercial /residential unit, and Discount Department Store and Smart Centre; • Thornton Road GO Station Site — Bathe & McLellan Building Material; • Ritson Road GO Station Site — derelict Knob Hill Farms, Glass Works, Works Oshawa Plant Management, and Electric Company; • Courtice Road GO Station Site — agricultural farmland Qeased for com production), Lumber, Kitchen & Bath Centre, Truck & Trailer business, Powers Auto Transport and Welding; • Rundle Road Layover Facility Site — agricultural farmland (leased for cash crops), Collision and Millwork; and • Martin Road GO Station Site — Aspen Springs Community Sales Centre, Discount Department/Hardware Stores, Shoe store, Optical business and restaurant. E.3.3 Cultural Environment E.3.3.1 Built Heritage There are two (2) built heritage features within proximity to the proposed works, but neither is being Impacted. The first is a home on the southeast corner of Victoria Street and South Blair Avenue and the second is the former Knob Hill Farm on Front Street, both ofwhich are being maintained. E.3.3.2Archaeological Resources A Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment was conducted by Timmins Marietta Heritage Consultants Inc. (TMHC) within the Project Limits, including the proposed facility and station sites as well as the Highway 401 crossing. The Stage 1 background review gathered information about known and potential cultural heritage resources based on the area's physical characteristics, historic maps, relevant documents, land use history, the provincial archaeological database and a preliminary field reconnaissance. This review Indicated that the Project Limits and each of the seven (7) proposed construction properties had potential for First Peoples and /or historic era archaeological resources. Therefore, a Stage 2 field assessment was conducted, which involved a combined pedestrian and test pit archaeological assessment, using a five (5) metre Interval. During the Stage 2 assessment, no archaeological material was noted at any of the proposed facility sites except for the Thomlon Road GO Station site. At this location, a total of 293 artifacts were recovered, including structural remains, table and kitchen ceramics, animal remains, metal hardware, bottle and container glass, personal items, and miscellaneous items. The site was deemed potentially significant and was recommended for Stage 3 testing, which was carded out in the fall of 2009. Since that time, the layout of the proposed Station site was changed to completely avoid the archaeological site area so it will be completely protected from impact. It is noted that the Stage 2 assessment for the Rundle Road Layover Site has not yet been completed. Permission to access some of the parcels within the property was not granted during this study. This work will be carried out prior to construction. E.3.4 Transportation In Durham Region, GO Transit rail services, currently extends from Union Station in Toronto to the Oshawa GO Station along the Lakeshore East Line. The existing Oshawa GO Station has 2,424 parking spaces and is located at 915 Bloor Street West. It Is shared with VIA Rail trains running from Toronto to Ottawa and Montreal. Existing rail infrastructure In the Project Limits has two (2) freight lines (CNR and CPR) and the two (2) aforementioned passenger /commuter services. Rail Infrastructure Is subdivided Into three (3) zones. Zone 1 is from east of Brock Street to west of the proposed Highway 401 crossing along the CNR line. This zone includes GOMA trains and CNR freight. Zone 2 Is from east of the Highway 401 crossing to west of the Ritson Road GO Station site, which only includes CPR freight. Zone 3 includes existing CPR freight services from east of the Ritson Road GO Station site to west of Bragg Road. The CNR and CPR lines traverse a number of regional and local roads within the Project Limits, including Victoria Street, Hopkins Street, Consumers Drive and Gibb Street. Environmental Study Reports have recently or will soon be completed for each of these roads, which have /will document suggested infrastructure Improvements. Bus services within the Project Limits are provided by Durham Region Transit (DRT) and GO Transit. DRT Is an Integrated transit system that provides service within the three (3) municipalities within the Project Limits as well as access to other areas of Durham Region and the GTA. DRT and GO Bus Services provide transportation within and adjacent to each of the proposed GO facilities. This further promotes the respective municipal transportation master planning documents to establish an Inter - connected public transit system within and beyond the Region's limits. EA Recommended Transit Project E.4.1 Alternatives Considered E.4.1.1 Feasibility Study (Pre -EA Planning Alternatives) The use of the CPR versus CNR line and possible station and maintenance facility sites as illustrated in Figure E4 -1 were assessed through an in -depth analysis using evaluation criteria coupled with consultation with municipalities, CLOCA, the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) and CNR/CPR. The evaluation of possible facilities was ranked In order of preference as noted in Table E4 -1. ES -11 i 00 AECOM Table E4 -1. Evaluation Ranking for the Potential GO Station Sites Possible • Facility Site 1�oilklng CNR Possible Station Sites CNR Possible Maintenance Facility Sites R8nkihg 17I —(O—bourne Road crossing Courtice Road) 1 CN 5 (East of Martin Road) 1 CN 2 (Crosses Bennett Road) 12 CN 2 (Courtice Road) 2 CPR Possible Station Sites' CN 3 and 4 (West and East of Martin Road) 3 CP 5 (Martin Road) 1 CN 6 (East of Martin Road) 4 CP 6 (Lambs Road) 2 CN 1 (Bloor Street) 5 CP 4 (Courtice Road) 3 CP 2 and 3 (Bloor Street/Rltson Road) 4 CP 1 Stevenson Road 5 CPR Possible Maintenance Facility Sites CP 2 (Rundle Road) 1 CP 3 (Providence Road) 2 CP 1 (Prestonvale Road) 13 The results from these evaluations were then considered as part of the overall CNR/CPR rail corridor evaluation, which was separately assessed with pre - defined evaluation criteria, which is further documented in Table E4.2. In I consideration of the above analysis/evaluations and discussions with regulatory agencies, it was determined that the CPR corridor best presents overall service to the community (AECOM, 2009). In addition, the route selection study recommended the CPR line based on: • Enabling communities to further provincial goals of land use intensification and long range transit integration; Best in meeting municipal transportation and land use planning goals/objectives; Best at offering ability for residents to use transit between home and train; and • Best in aiding communities in revitalizing central areas. As a separate undertaking, GO Transit retained Hatch Mott MacDonald to conduct a Feasibility Study for a new rail maintenance facility. As noted in the June 2009 report, the study was Initiated to consider a new facility along the Lakeshore East corridor between Union Station and the existing Oshawa GO Station. GO Transit's existing rail maintenance facility at the Willowbrook Yard has reached operational capacity with no room for further expansion. In consideration of seven (7) sites, Site 'G' within the Town of Whitby was chosen as the preferred alternative. All alternatives were screened from a list of evaluation criteria Including available property, property characteristics, proximity to Union Station, compatible land use /zoning, Infrastructure impacts/upgrades, functional sustainability, impact on neighbouring areas, social Impacts, and environmental impacts (Hatch Mott. MacDonald, 2009). E.4.1.2 Design Alternatives Through ongoing consultation with respective regulatory agencies, extensive Input was obtained to confirm the recommended transit projecL During the early phases of this study (i.e., pre Notice of Commencement), six (6) alternative GO Station sites were presented as alternatives to regulatory agencies, municipalities and the public to seek Input on alternative station sites within the preferred CPR corridor. It Is noted that regulatory agency preference given to these sites was considered with respect to provincial/municipal land use planning policies, environmental issues, as well as socio- economic considerations and technical analysis of each site. The alternative GO Station sites that were evaluated are: • Stevenson Road (Oshawa) — not carried forward due to environmental concerns, proximity to built up areas and commercial land uses, and access and size constraints. • Ritson Road (Oshawa) — carried forward because of good access and space for parking, proximity to downtown, planned rapid transit corridors, and the reuse of a derelict property. • Bloor Street (Oshawa) — carried forward as a future potential site with long -term potential as an eastern gateway to Oshawa to be developed when other stations reach capacity. • Courtice Road (Clarington) — carried forward because of minimal environmental concerns, good access to Highway 401 and facilitates planned future growth In the area. • Martin Road (Clarington) — carried forward because It complements transit development outlined in the Melrolinx RTP, it Is dose to major transportation routes and progressive urban development, and has a low environmental impact. • Lambs Road (Clarington) — not carried forward due to environmental concerns, the bridge over Bowmanvilie Creek, potential noise impacts, and its location outside of the urban boundary. ES -12 AECOM Table E4-2 CNR versus CPR Mainline Advantages and Disadvantages ES -13 Advahlagos Disadvantages Disadvantages Station Sites - - Does not a station sites • Facilitates station site development Station Terminus Sites - Does not facilitate station terminus sites - Supports station terminus sites Municipal Support Is not preferred by municipalities Munid alifies support this option Socio- Economic Impacts _ Has slightly fewer direct residential Impacts _ - Impacts more commercial properties - Has fewer Impacts to commercial areas - Has more potential to impact residences, but impacts can Does not meet community planning objectives Meets community planning objectives be mitigated where warranted Does not create community Improvements Provides good potential for community Improvements - Transit availability Proximity Impacts Less potential for visual, noise and vibration Impacts to Slightly more potential for visual, noise and vibration residences impacts to residences, but changes to views are minimal since existing rail corridor Is being twinned and noise impacts can be mitigated where warranted Impact on Future Land Use - Does not support future residential or commercial - Facilitates. better intensification of residential and Intensification commercial land uses Does not fit Into community Fits better Into community Patron Access/Egress Does not offer good regional access for local transit or - Provides good regional access for local transit and automotive traffic automotive traffic . - Does not offer good local access for cyclists or - Provides good local access for cyclists and pedestrians pedestrians Road and Traffic Impacts _ Less traffic Impact on secondary roads - Greater traffic Impact on main roads - Less traffic Impact on main roads - Slightly greater traffic impact on secondary roads Does not provide adequate number of access points to - Provides good number of access points to stations stations - Enables mobility hub development Does not enable mobility hubs Environmental Impacts More potential for negative Impacts on wildlife associated - Less potential for negative impacts on wildife, further with watercourses and wetlands along northern shoreline upstream of Lake Ontario of Lake Ontario Probable Cost Lower cost for rail corridor infrastructure Higher cost for parking lots Lower cost for paling lots Higher cost for rail corridor Infrastructure Lower cost for property acquisition Higher cost for road works Lower cost for road works Higher cost for property acquisition Logistical Challenges - Eliminates the need for the CNR to CPR connection - More conflicts with VIA operations - Fewer conflicts with VIA operations - Creates challenges with the CNR to CPR connection; Fewer logistical issues for terminal station operations More Impact of a second mainline Less impact of a second mainline however, many of these Issues have already been identified and addressed Issues surrounding terminal station operation Overall Summary Not Preferred because: Preferred because: Does not support station site or terminus site; It enables communities to advance provincial goals of land use intensification and long range transit Integration; Does not facilitate long -tart goals of community Improvement and revitalization; Best in meeting municipal transportation and land use planning goals/objectives; - Does not fit into the surrounding community; and - Best at offering ability for residents to use transit, cycle or walk between home and train station; and Does not offer good access for local transit, automotive traffic cyclists or pedestrians, Best in aiding communities in revitalizing central areas ES -13 00 AECOM IWest Half of Study Area e a i f ^ p,RVM f , _' . +�,'•, -.'ewe ''•r Figure E4-1 Potential GO Transit Station, Layover and Highway 401 Crossing Alternatives Considered East Half of Study.Area � � l -3 AECOM Similar to the evaluation of alternative GO Station sites, consultation with respective regulatory agendes / municipalities was also conducted to seek Input on alternative layover sites. Three (3) alternative GO layover sites were presented as alternatives to confirm/augment the preferred recommended project. The Alternative GO Layover sites that were evaluated are: • Prestonvale Road (Clarington) — not carried forward primarily due to property /business Impacts. • Rundle Road (Clarington) — recommended to be cabled forward as the site best suited for the area, although It was moved from the north to the south side of the CPR line in order to minimize impacts to existing and proposed commerdal/Induslrial areas. • Providence Road (Clarington) — not carried forward since it is designated for future residential land uses as well as nuisance concerns with residents and special interest groups. Three (3) alternatives for the CNR to CPR line track connections to cross Highway 401 were presented at the first round of public Open Houses in June 2009. • Alternative A Connection (elevated crossing of Highway 401) — carried 7orward primarily because it enables CPR to continue to use its General Motors (GM) Spur line to the south without potential for future Interruptions. • Alternative B Connection (subway crossing of Highway 401) — not carried forward due to significant disruption go Highway 401 traffic during construction and very expensive to deal with parking arrangements during construction. • Alternative C Connection (elevated crossing of Highway 401) — not carried forward primarily because of the potential to Impact use of the CPR GM Spur line. E.4.2 Description of the Recommended Transit Project This project consists of two (2) major elements. The first is the establishment of a major rail maintenance fadllty at the west end of the Project Limits. The second element Is the extension of GO Train Service on the GO Transit Lakeshore East corridor from Oshawa to Clarington. Both of these elements will enable GO Transit to expand Its service on the Lakeshore East corridor and position them to meet the growth in commuter rail service throughout its service area with the addition of a second major rail maintenance facility to care for the growth in rail equipment to meet this demand. E.4.2.1 East Rail Maintenance Facility The East Rail Maintenance Facility (ERMF) will be designed to Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards by utilizing environmentally friendly building practices during design and construction. This facility will be developed to significantly Increase GO Transit's ability to handle the rail equipment maintenance requirements for the future. Initially GO Transit established one such rail equipment maintenance facility In Etobicoke. With the present and future plans for expansion of the GO train system, it Is now necessary to establish a second maintenance facility. The location of this site enables GO Transit to develop a balanced approach to rail equipment maintenance. In addition, GO Transit will be In a better position to manage the regulated inspections and maintenance on the entire train fleet once these two facilities are in operation. This facility will cover approximately 30 he of land and will employ approximately 300 people in many types of work from heavy mechanics to cleaning staff to train operators and other types of work. The design of this facility will enable .p Ull GO Transit to rebuild its engines and coaches, paint Its equipment, wash Its equipment on a regular basis, undertake regulated Inspections and light maintenance and repair, and repair and replace train wheels. The facility will have stores for supplies and office space for the, management of this facility. Trains will be fuelled here and approximately 18, 12- car train sets Atli be able to be stored here and put onto electrical land lines and turned off when not in use. From this rail yard, locomotives will be started and the trains sent into revenue service. This will enable train operators or crews to start and end their day from the crew center In this facility. The rail infrastructure to support all of this activity will stretch from Victoria Road In the west to Thickson Road In the east. As part of the design for this facility, GO Transit has undertaken measures to provide a rail/road grade separation at South Blair Road. This railway bridge will accommodate the entire existing track requirements across this road as well as two (2) tracks associated with this facility s Fall yard. The new grade separation at South Blair Road will improve existing conditions and eliminate the need for train whistles at the current at grade crossing. In addition the preferred plan includes removing the existing structure on Hopkins Street (over the existing rail line) and building a new access road to the existing businesses at the end of the street. The new access point will require a laneway to be constructed that connects the business area with South Blair Road, south of the rail maintenance facility site and rail corridor. GO Transit is working closely with the Region of Durham and the Town of Whitby to make sure the proposed road connections are compatible with the local road network and land uses in the immediate vicinity and designed to meet munidpal standards. If during detailed design additional land Is required for any aspect of this facility and its road Impacts, GO Transit will work with the land owners affected to resolve the matter satisfactorily. The rail maintenance facility site will be re- graded to enable the train yard to be built below the entrance points in a dished fashion. This will allow the safety feature of ensuring the rail equipment will be contained within the facility and the buildings can be established at much the same level so the rail equipment can access them as required. E.4.2.2Train Service Extension to Clarington To meet the requirements of extending GO Train Service to Clarington, additional track capacity will be necessary at each step of service growth. The initial train service extension plan will consist of running full dally train service to the Ritson Road GO Station and extending the peak hour trains further to the Martin Road GO Station. This will generally require two (2) tracks worth of capacity to handle the full service plan with one (1) track worth of capacity over the remaining section for Phase I. Phase II will be Implemented at such a time when full service to Bowmanviile is warranted. This will be over and above the existing amount of track capadly within the CPR corridor. A second condition is that the freight and commuter train service must not Interfere with each other during normal operation. In this way, the tracks within the CPR corridor will be delineated so that the tracks to the north of the track infrastructure will be used primadly by freight train service and the tracks to the south will be used primarily by the commuter rail service. E.4.2.3 Full Train Service Requirement to Ritson Road GO Station Site To achieve this service plan, GO Transit plans to terminate its train service operation at the existing Oshawa GO Station and relocate it to the new full service terminus station at Ritson Road on the north CP Rail corridor. Two (2) tracks will turn to the north and rise up to cross over the fully planned Victoria Road then over the truck inspection Highway 401 entrance ramp and the Thickson Road Highway 401 entrance ramp. At Highway 401 the double track will continue over the fully planned expanded Highway 401 and Consumers Road to then run along the ridge to the west of ES -15 00 AECOM Corbett Creek. This double mainline will then cross over the planned Champlain Avenue as It turns to the east through the open fields to pass through the new line point GO Station west of Thornton Rd. and passes under Thornton Road leaving the road profile as it Is today. These two (2) tracks will pass between two (2) hydro pylons well below clearance requirements as they approach the CPR/GM Spur at the apex of the Wye configuration. Once these two (2) tracks have passed under the GM Spur, they will then rise to ground level and enter the CPR corridor just to the west of the Stevenson Road overhead bridge. Once within the CPR corridor, these two (2) tracks will pass under the Stevenson Road and Park Road overhead bridges along the south side of the rail corridor adjacent to the existing tracks in the corridor. In addition, the CPR mainline and passing track will be moved north by one (1) track center until they approach the Oshawa Creek bridge. At this location the CPR mainline will return to its original alignment and the two (2) GO Transit tracks will resolve into one (1) track. ' The railway bridge over Oshawa Creek will be expanded by one (1) track along the south side of the existing bridge. Between the Oshawa Creek railway bridge and the east side of the Ritson Road GO Station site, one (1) additional track will be built along the south side of the existing track Through the Ritson Road GO Station site, this second mainline will remain next to the existing mainline. Immediately east of Albert Street, a station track will be built to the south of the new commuter rail track and will divert to the south away from the other tracks to establish an Island platform between these tracks where the Ritson Street GO Station will be established. This station track will extend from Albert Street to west of Wilson Street and serve as a staging track for the full train service arriving and departing from this station. The development of the double mainline over Highway 401 and through the field then under the GM Spur before entering the CPR corridor will facilitate the separation of freight and commuter train service. CPR freight service will operate on the northern side of the track structure and will not be affectedpy the movements of the commuter service. As the CPR freight service needs to access and egress the GM Spur, the commuter service will pass under their activities and not impact their service to the GM complex south of the CNR corridor. For the rest of the CPR corridor the plan of freight activities to the north side of the track infrastructure and commuter service to the south, will continue and In this way ensure that neither train service will conflict with the other over this territory. E.4.2.4 Peak Train Service to Clarington Between the Ritson Road GO Station site and the Martin Road GO Station site, one (1) additional track will be built to meet the condition of having the two (2) train services separated and not in conflict with each other. To achieve this and to protect this plan, tracks will generally be built to the south side of the existing CPR line. A new station will be established at Courtice Road and a terminus station in Bowmanville at the Intersection of County Road 57 and the CPR corridor. This terminus station and tail track back to the east side of Highway #2 Bridge (King Rd) will be the end of additional track building for this peak period of service. In the future as full service plans are warranted, a second new track will be required from the Ritson Road GO Station site to the Martin Road GO Station site to accommodate the extension of full daily train service to Bowmanville. The extension of GO Train Service to Clarington also requires the establishment of a train layover site near the end of service, to park trains overnight and facilitate minor maintenance. This project has selected a site adjacent to the rail corridor between Solina Road and Rundle Road. It is planned that this site will start service with rail Infrastructure to store four (4) or five (5) trains overnight to meet the Initial peak period service plan to start service from the Martin Road GO Station site. To provide enough track capacity to move trains between this layover site and the end of service terminus at Bowmanville at the same time as revenue train service runs between Bowmanville and Union Station, a service track will need to be provided to link these two (2) sites. This will add a second new track between these two (2) sites. Within the CPR corridor, the additional roadbed for new track Wit generally be built adjacent and contiguous to the existing CPR track bed. As this construction crosses various watercourses, the existing culverts and bridges will be extended in kind by approximately 25 feet to accommodate the roadbed and eventual track system. As required by CLOCA, MNR and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (DFO), GO Transit will provide the required details for each, watercourse crossing and obtain appropriate approvals were required to proceed. E.4.2.5 GO Train Stations The extension of GO Train Service from Oshawa to Bowmanville will be developed with the associated four (4) new GO Train Stations to be opened upon the opening of this new extended train service. In addition, one (1) potential future GO Train Station is proposed to be opened when demand warrants the need for the additional station. Each station location was selected to provide communities (i.e., Whitby, Oshawa and Bowmanville) with a convenient point of connection with the GO train system. Site locations were selected to balance the service to the present and future communities and enable greater linkages between transit systems which will ensure greater possibility for people to use transit to their advantage and link directly and easily to the rest of the GTHA through the services of GO Transit. Each station will provide grade separated pedestrian access to the train platform and will enable full accessibility flow between the station grounds and the trains, following the accessibility policy of GO Transit. In general, each of the four (4) station sites selected will not directly impact watercourses within the area although they Wit require paved parking lots for their parking patrons, station fadlities, walkways and station platforms. The proposed works include stone water management and drainage facilities to ensure that runoff is properly managed. It is noted that during detail design, storm water issues will be addressed within the LEED design work. Thornton Road GO Station Site (Thomton's Comers) The proposed Thornton Road GO Station, referred to as Thornton's Comers, was not considered during the 2009 Feasibility Study. The Town of Whitby recommended that this site be considered as part of this EA given that Consumers Drive will be extended through this area. Whitby planning staff felt that connecting the eastern portion of Whitby and the western portion of the City of Oshawa could provide better service. This station site Is located on Thornton Road just south of the CPR rail corridor. With the establishment of this station, GO Transit will relocate its present Oshawa Station services to this location. This new station will provide full train service for users from the western portion of Oshawa and the eastern portion of Whitby. Parking will be comparable to that presently supplied at Oshawa GO Station and will offer approximately 1,525 parking spaces with opportunities for future parking expansion to the west of the proposed parking lot. The GO Station will also provide bike shelters, a bus loop and handicapped parking spaces adjacent to the station building. Transit service will be provided along with "Kiss and Ride" capacity. Over time, this station will be serviced by the extension of Consumers Drive from the west and will enable greater service to the area. ES -16 AECOM The existing Oshawa GO Station on the south side of Highway 401 will be phased out of service when the new stations are built and put into service. It will remain as a VIA Station south of Highway 401. Ritson Road GO Station Site (Oshawa GO Station NEW) Located just south of the center of Oshawa, this station, referred to as Oshawa GO Station (NEW), will enable the City to develop an increasing series of linkages between the GO train system and other forms of transit. The proximity of this station to downtown Oshawa has some potential to stimulate redevelopment of the general area. This station will utilize the former rail yard property north of the operated CPR corridor between Front Street and Ritson Road. This north portion of the station grounds will facilitate access from the Gibb /Olive roadway and provide initial bus access to the station along with "Kiss and Ride" facilities and some parking. On the south side of the tracks, GO Transit plans to transform the old Knob Hill Farms site Into its station facility including the majority of parking and some "Kiss and Ride" facilities. There will be approximately 1,228 parking spaces on the south side with opportunities for future parking expansion on the east side of the property. GO Transit plans to work with the City in preserving the oldest building facade section along Front Street as a preservation of a part of the City's history in this area. This station will include a center Island platform and a south side platform next to the station track. GO Transit intends to install two (2) pedestrian tunnels at this station. One (1) will be along the alignment of Front Street and provide dual capacity of enabling pedestrians to continue to use the pedestrian walkway along Front Street and also enable riders to access the west end of the GO Platform and the GO System. The second tunnel will facilitate access to the Island platform from the station grounds and enable patrons with accessibility requirements to move easily between the trains and the parking and bussing areas of this station. Bloor Street GO Station Site (Grandview GO Station) This station site, referred to as Grandview GO Station, has been identified as a future potential station that will be developed when the other stations (i.e., Thomton's Comers and Oshawa NEW) are at or over capacity. It is identified as part of this EA as a future long -term option. Additional studies on addressing impacts of construction at this site will be carried out prior to construction. Courtice Road GO Station Site (Darlington GO Station) This station site, referred to as Darlington GO Station, is located between the main downtown areas of Oshawa and Bowmanville in an area that is planned to develop over the next few years and with direct access to Highway 401. As many riders of the GO system come from communities farther to the east, this station will provide them with a convenient and direct access point to the system. It will enable riders from the east to utilize Highway 401 to this point and give them direct access to this station location and entrance to the GO train system. The main station facilities will be located to the north of the CPR corridor. This will include a station building and parking facilities along with a bus access point and "Kiss and Ride" facilities. At track side GO Transit will install a pedestrian tunnel to access a south side Station platform. Parking facilities include 1,100 spaces with opportunities for future parking expansion to the west of the proposed parking lot. Initially this will be a side plafform but as train service grows and full service develops this platform will expand Into an Island platform to service two way train traffic along the south side of the corridor. Martin Road GO Station Site ( Bowmanville GO Station) At present this station consists of a GO bus terminal on the north side of the rail corridor, which services GO ridership and provides GO patrons with bus service to the GO train system at the present terminus In Oshawa. With the extension of train service this station will be redeveloped Into both a train and transit hub for both the GO System and local transit. It will be referred to as the Bowmanville GO Station. On the north side of the corridor, GO Transit will redevelop the land to accommodate a bus terminal along with a "Kiss and Ride" facility and 80 parking spaces. This bus terminal will enable municipal and regional transit to access the train station and interchange patrons at the facility. On the south side of the rail corridor GO Transit will develop a large parking facility along with "Kiss and Ride" features and expansion capability as the demand at this tennlnus station grows. This station will Initially provide a south side Island platform between the mainline and the south service track. As train service grows into full service the south service track will be upgraded into a south mainline. GO Transit will work with the community to ensure that general pedestrian crossing of the rail corridor will be directed safely across Its grade separated pedestrian crossing. Within the southern portion of the station site, there will be an additional 770 parking spaces. E.4.2.6 Rundle Road Layover Facility Site The train layover site recommended for this extension of train service sits adjacent to the CPR corridor along the south side between Rundle Road and Salina Road. It will initially be developed to provide for five (6) 12 -car GO Trains to be parked. Each train will be stored in the train yard and plugged Into electrical service and the engines will be turned off when the train Is in storage. Each morning the trains will be started up and warmed prior to being put Into service. From this location these trains will normally move east to the Bowmanville GO Station site to begin revenue service Into Union Station. At the end of the day trains will return patrons to Bowmanville in revenue service and upon completion of this service, move as equipment service back to the Rundle Road Layover Facility. During the initial service plan. these trains will be given light maintenance at this site. The cleaning up of garbage, some cleaning of the interior of the train as needed, minor parts replacement etc. will be handled at this site. Train fuelling will also be provided at this facility. As train service expands, this facility will fill out to Its full plan, with a train yard capable of handling eight (8) trains for storage. In addition, a Progressive Maintenance (PM) building capable of housing two (2) 12 -car trains and engine side by side inside may be added. This PM Bay will provide the ability to undertake regulatory Inspections of each train as required. As a result of these regulatory inspections some minor maintenance, fuelling and repair will be undertaken. This will also enable other quick repairs to be undertaken during the same Inspection period. As GO Transit train service grows throughout the system, it will become increasingly difficult to cycle equipment sets to major maintenance facilities for the required regulatory inspections. Therefore GO Transit has planned that all of Its layover facilities will have the capability to undertake these inspections on the required frequencies and follow up with the Immediate light repairs required. Should more demanding and time consuming repairs be required then the trains will be moved to the main repair shops for this work to be undertaken. E.4.2.7 Structural Improvements Given that the above noted facilities and the track twinning will traverse several municipal roads and watercourse crossings, some improvements to the existing bridges within the Project Limits are required to facilitate additional train movement without Interrupting the existing CPR freight services. In addition, some structural Improvements in the form �p ES -17 I� -p J AECOM of concrete box/arch culverts are required over watercourse crossings, including the Corbett Creek Floodplain, which Is situated within lands, proposed for the CNR to CPR line crossing over Highway 401. E.4.2.8 Corbett Creek Watershed Flood Study Given that the proposed Highway 401 CNR to CPR crossing site will traverse Corbett Creek, within its floodplain, the study Included a Corbett Creek Watershed Flood Study. As noted therein, the proposed connecting track will extend from the CNR corridor east of Thickson Road to the CPR corridor west of Stevenson Road: A single large bridge will carry the connecting track over Victoria Street and Highway 401. The connecting track will also traverse the future Consumers Drive, Thornton Road and the CPR spur line east of Thornton Road. The proposed alignment crosses Corbett Creek at three (3) different locations; the first (and most significant) is the crossing south of Victoria Street, which is mostly within the regional storm floodplain. The second crossing is located north of Victoria Street and does not warrant any analysis as it Is located under the proposed bridge that will carry the tracks over Victoria Street and Highway 401. The third crossing occurs west of Thornton Road and north of the future Consumers Drive extension ( AECOM, 2010). In order to prevent the proposed GO connecting track from becoming a restriction to flow in the event that the existing CNR culvert is enlarged, two (2) +/_ 11 m Conspan or equivalent culverts are recommended for the proposed south Corbett Creek crossing south of Highway 401. The proposed connecting track between the CNR corridor and Victoria Street will require 60,000 m' to 90,000 m' of fill in the regional stone floodplain for the embankment, depending on the steepness of the embankment side slopes. This fill volume has the potential to Increase 100year storm flood levels by 0.3 m to 0.45 m, and to increase regional storm flood levels by 0.2 m to 0.3 m. The impact on flood levels can be mitigated if steeper 1 H:1 V side slopes are used for the embankment, and the floodplain on both the east and west sides of Corbett Creek are re- graded to create 60,000 m' of offsetting flood storage. The second East Corbett Creek crossing is located immediately north of Victoria Street. A continuous bridge Is proposed to cross over Victoria Street, East Corbett Creek and Highway 401. No impacts on flooding in East Corbett Creek are anticipated ( AECOM, 2010). The final crossing of East Corbett Creek occurs between the future Consumers Drive extension and the CPR corridor west of Thornton Road..A 9.75 m Conspan or equivalent culvert is recommended at this location to prevent any Impacts on upstream flooding. E.4.3 Implementation and Construction Staging E.4.3.1 Implementation With the approval of this EA, GO Transit will proceed to seek the required funding from the provincial government to undertake the proposed works. When funding Is secured, the next step will be to begin the detail design of the many elements of this project. GO Transit will continue to consult with municipalities, agencies and property owners directly affected by the project during detail design regarding several aspects of the final design Including additional land requirements temporarily and permanently, mitigation of Impacts at watercourses or other sensitive areas, drainage and storm water management, traffic management (long -term and during construction), construction staging, communications with public and other approvals that may be required (i.e., DFO, Navigable 'Waters, Canadian Transportation Agency, etc.). Commitments to address all outstanding issues are described in greater detail in the following sections. E.4.3.2 Construction Staging Overview It is recognized that the construction timing for some of the key elements of this project will require significant time to complete. It is anticipated that the contract for the GO Transit ERMF will start early in the project (i.e., detail design currently planned to start In 2011) and take approximately three (3) years to complete construction. As it is a standalone element it is expected that the completion of this work will finish well before the introduction of the new train service extension to Clarington. Of the other main project elements, It Is expected that building of the new double track roadbed between the GO Transit corridor and the CPR corridor will be initiated first with the associated bridges built in order. Within the CPR corridor, roadbed grading may start in Bowmanville and work its way towards Oshawa since no significant structures are encountered until Farewell and Harmony Creek crossings. The rail carrying structure that needs to be built will have to be in advance of the grading activity. The GO Stations will also need to be initiated as they are complex to develop with buildings, pedestrian tunnels, station platforms with enclosures and canopies on them. Packing facilities and other road works at each station can be coordinated with municipal needs and completed as the stations are completed. Similarly the Layover Facility at Rundle Road will have to be graded and track built to hold the initial five (5) trains along with the fuelling depot and temporary office set up. Once the roadbed and bridges are complete and the station elements around the roadbed are finished, the track construction can commence. and the railway Central Traffic Control System (CTC) can be installed. Once these elements are completed, the new second track ran be put into service and the CTC put Into operation before the start of the new extended commuter train service. E.4.4 Potential Impacts, Mitigation and Monitoring The proposed expansion of GO services from. Oshawa to Bowmanville will result in some natural, socio- economic, cultural, and technical impacts during construction and following construction. Table E4-3 summarizes the potential environmental issues /concems associated with this project, identifies the Impacts during construction, and recommends mitigation measures and prescribed future work/monitoring once the project has been implemented. It is noted that GO Transit will obtain all approvals, where applicable: ES -18 AECOM Table E4-3 Summary of GO Transit Service Expansion Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures ES -19 Mitigation Measures Future Work/Moritodng Factor Environmental Impacts Doing Construction/During Operations Note: GO Transit will obtain all approvals, where applicable. Drainage and Stormwater Potential flooding of the CNR to CPR • No mitigation required to address potential flooding as new structures (culverts and bridges) are . A Stormwater Management Plan will be developed In accordance with CLOCA during the detail Management Highway 401 crossing from a regional storm designed appropriately to handle storm volumes based on CLOCA requirements design phase. The Plan shell detail stormwater management during construction activities as well event. Direct all runoff and overland flows away from working areas and areas of exposed soils. as during operations and. shall Incorporate the MOE's Stormwater Management Planning and • Alterations to existing drainage patterns during Store and handle all oils, lubricants, and other chemicals In accordance with MOE policies and Design Manual (2003). and post - construction. Erosion and sediment other applicable provincial/federal regulations. Further discussions will be held with CLOCA during detail design to confirm approvals required for migration or accidental spills into adjacent Refuel and maintain construction vehicles only In areas designated by the Contract Administrator constructlon /operation adjacent to watercourse features. watercourses (i.e., Pringle Creek and Corbett preferably on a paved, Impermeable surface, and more than 30 m from Pringle Creek, the Whitby Stormwater Management Works inducing oil and grit separators, ponds and combination Best Creek). Harbour PSW Complex, and Corbett Creek Management Practices (BMPs) will be Incorporated Into the design where warranted to facilitate • Increase in impervious surfaces on receiving , A Spill Response Plan shall be In place detailing the procedures to be followed in the unlikely with water quality within the CLOCA watersheds. watercourses following implementation of the event a spill were to occur. The Plan shall be developed In accordance with p p applicable legislation, •Alternatives for managing stormwater at Corbett Creek, (nduding Investigating the feasibility of proposed plan. and shall require a Spill Containment Kit consisting of, at least, absorbent materials to Initially Introducing new culverts under CN rail corridor to be explored with landowners, GO and CLOCA, contain a spill, as well as protective gear for the handing of hazardous materials. Stormwater management Issues will be addressed within the LEED design work for major • Mulcting and terraseeding of exposed soil. facilities. It Is noted that stormwater plans for stations will follow a treatment train approach, • Placing silt control at catchbasins. Incorporating source controls (i.e., green roof, cisterns; permeable pavement) and the • All culvert works should be Isolated from the watercourse and conducted in the 'dry'. aforementioned end of pipe controls to the extent feasible. • Placing sill fencing adjacent to slopes without sod or seed/mulch. • The stormwater management pond at the ERMF will be designed to achieve the following: • Installing silt fencing, rods check dams, and/or other appropriate ate measures In ditches where (Level 1) water quality control; required in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction Extended detention of the runoff from a 22 mm storm for at least 24 hours; and Control of post - development peak flow rates to pre - development levels for the two (2) year (2008) andlor as specified In Contract Drawings. through 100 year storm events. • Regular maintenance (cleanout) of ditches to minimize sedimentation build -up. The MOE requests that detailed stormwater plans for each proposed GO facility (I.e., ERMF, GO Stations, GO Layover, as well as the Highway 401 crossing) be prepared during detail design In full size drawings showing all of the catchment areas converging Into the Oil and Grit Separators and/or ponds and other areas to drain Into any nelghbouring property without treatment and quantity control after the development. The drawings shall show among other things the 100 -year 1 flood line, future building facilities, land use parameters and land ownership, any water wells, stormwater and other utility pipes, swales and Municipal drains on the roadways and the ultimate received including indication of its size, area and depth. Fisheries . Alteration offish habitat during construction. To ensure the protection of Pringle Creek and Corbett Creek, heavy -duty sediment fencing will be . Fluvial geomorphology studies should be conducted during detail design to assist with crossing • Debris entry to the stream during construction Installed to prohibit sediment from entering the creek Hay bale check dams should also be structure design and channel restoration efforts (e.g., mitigate bank slumping) at Corbett Creek. and in particular fill placement. installed In areas where there Is water conveyance from the surrounding fields. CLOCA has a Level III agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). CLOCA MR review • Indirect construction - related Impacts (e.g., Due to the presence of coldwater species In Pringle Creek and Corbett Creek, In -water works the project in conjunction with the Level ill Agreements as per Section 35(1) of the Fisheries Act. erosion and sediment migration to the strew ns, construction should avoid the period from September 15th to July 1st. Consultation with CLOCA CLOCA will confirm the appropriate liming windows during detail design and will assess all construction debris). and MNR is required, components of the project to determine whether there Is a potential for the project to result In a • A 30 m vegetated buffer is recommended from top of bank to ensure the protection of Pringle Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of fish habitat (HADD) Metrolinx will work with Creek and Corbett Creek. CLOCA to ensure all appropriate mitigative measures are In place. ES -19 I 00 AECOM l ES -20 Mitigation Measures Future Work/Monitoring Factor Environmental Impacts During Constructlon/During Operations Note: GO Transit will obtain all approvals, where applicable. • For areas where the rail tracks potentially cross Pringle Creek or Corbett Creek, culvert options should be ones with an open bottom. There may be restrictions set out by.MNR/CLOCA regarding an acceptable culvert length. This should be further discussed with MNR/CLOCA. Vegetation and Wildlife Decreased accessfavallabllily of forage due to Vegetation clearing zones and vegetation retention zones should be distinctly marked in both the . A re- vegetation plan will be developed for areas disturbed by the proposed works. vegetation clearing and compaction. Contract documents and the physical site itself to minimize the risk of unnecessary or Inadvertent . GO Transit or a pointed agent will be responsible for ensuring that all environmental mitigation and • Clearing and damage of vegetation beyond the vegetation Impacts and avoid incidental impacts as a result of temporary stockpiling, debris design measures are property installed /constructed., Implemented and maintained, and appropriate study area. disposal and access, Works zones will be delineated In the field using construction fencing to contingency, response plans and remedial measures are in place and Implemented if required. minimize the area of disturbance and prevent disturbance of adjacent areas. Melroiinx will obtain applicable approvals relating to tree removals Including trees in designated • Appropriate vegetation clearing techniques (e.g., trees to be felled away from the retained natural hazard lands and park trees, as required. areas) will be used to remove vegetation required for the proposed works). • All exposed surfaces will be re- stabilized and re- vegetated as soon as possible following construction, using an appropriate native seed mix • Flight response/disturbance to avifauna. The Contractor shall not destroy the active nests (nests with eggs or young birds), or wound or kill If vegetatlon clearing cannot be scheduled outside the breeding bird season liming noted above, • Modification or loss of wildlife habitat birds, of species protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and/or Regulations under then GO Transit or a pointed agent will be employed to conduct a nest survey In the area to be • Wildlife susceptibility or mortality due to that Ad. All works will be complete in compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, cleared. The pointed agent Identified by GO shall have completed a university or college education construction activities. • Where feasible, timing constraints will be applied to schedule vegetation clearing and structure in a pertinent environmental discipline and shall have experience and /or training in the • Impacts on wildlife movement. works (where birds may nest on a structure) outside of the breeding bird season (May 1st to July identification of birds and their nests and eggs as well as the assessment and development of 31st). appropriate mitigation measures to address the presence of migratory birds during construction. If • If structure works cannot be scheduled outside the Identified nesting season, ensure that bird active nests of migratory birds are located, then clearing must discontinue until after the breeding nesting preventative measures (such as wire screens or tarps) are Implemented to prevent new bird season (i.e., clearing is allowed August 1st to April 30th). This may Involve delays to allow for nesting prior to May 1st and are maintained until July 31st of the calendar year in which they were fledging. installed. At a minimum, the preventative measures will be Installed at structures where evidence Bird friendly lighting and design will be incorporated where warranted to reduce the potential for of past nesting was observed. These measures will be periodically checked, and maintained as birds to Impact proposed facilities. required, so as not to entrap birds, and removed following construction when no longer needed. GO Transit or a pointed agent will be responsible for ensuring that all environmental mitigation and • Remove 'inactive' nests (previous season, adult birds are not seen flying in and out of) prior to design measures are property Installed/constructed, Implemented and maintained, and appropriate construction, or prior to undertaking the preventative measures outlined above. contingency, response plans and remedial measures are in place and implemented if required. • The bridge structure design will maintain eAsting wildlife movement opportunities. • Any wildlife incidentally encountered during construction will be protected and will not be knowingly harmed. As required, GO Transit or a pointed agent will capture and release any small wildlife (e.g., turtles, amphibians) stranded within the construction zone. • Release fuels and other contaminants into • Temporary vegetation protection fencing should be Installed to protect valley and riparian GO Transit or a pointed agent will be responsible for ensuring that all environmental mitigation and natural areas. vegetation adjacent to work areas. The fencing should be secure and could necessitate the design measures are property Installed/constructed, implemented and maintained, and appropriate • Alterations in drainage patterns (e.g., surface attachment of silt fencing for erosion control, depending on the circumstances within the site. contingency, response plans and remedial measures are in place and Implemented If required. runoff or groundwater flow). • Erosion and sediment control measures will be designed, implemented and maintained throughout construction. This includes Installing sediment and erosion control fencing along the edge of the required working area to protect the edges of all retained natural areas, as well as pro per containment and Tilted of all construction generated sedment whether from dewaterin or soil ES -20 AECOM ES -21 CJ1 Mitigation Measures Future Work/Monitoring Factor Environmental Impacts During - Constructlon/During Operations Note: GO Transit will obtain all approvals, where applicable. exposure from clearing and grubbing). • All construction - related debris will be appropriately contained during construction and cleaned -up and properly disposed of following construction. . AN activity will be controlled so as to prevent entry of any petroleum products, debris or other potential contaminants/deletedous substances, In addition to sediment as outlined above, to natural areas. • No petroleum product storage, maintenance or refuelling of equipment will be conducted within these valleys. A Spills Prevention and Response Plan will be developed by the Contractor and spills cleanup materials will be kept on site at all times. Designated Natural There are no ESAs /ANSis that would be • See mitigative measures above relating to Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat and Drainage and . Should the design require the removal of Isolated wetlands, compensation measures in the form of Heritage Features Impacted by the proposed facilities. Slonnwater Management. wetland enhancement/restoration along the Whitby Harbour PSW Complex would be necessary. • Soil disttlrbance/sedimentation to designated This should be discussed with CLOCA to establish the most appropriate compensation measure. wetland features. It will be demonstrated that there will be no negative Impacts to the Whitby Harbour Wetland • Impacts to unevaluated wetlands as well as the Complex during construction and operation activities. Whitby Harbour PSW Complex. GO Transit or a pointed agent will be responsible for ensuring that all environmental mitigation and design measures are properly installed/constructed, implemented and maintained, and appropriate contingency, response plans and remedial measures are in place and Implemented If required. • CLOCA approval considering that work will be affecting small unevaluated wetland communities and potentially Corbett Creek Coastal Marsh. • The unevaluated wetland communities should be evaluated according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System for Southern Ontario (3rd edition). Air Quality . Increased dust during construction activities Dust control measures and prevention of soils tracking by vehicles and personnel form • The Contract Administrator will ensure that dust control measures in contract are adhered to • Increase in emission factors CO, NOx, S02. construction site, Including wetting of soil with potable water, reduced speeds for on -site vehicles, during construction. PM and VOCs following implementation of the tire washing stations and restricting working areas In high wind conditions will be reviewed for proposed GO facilities. Inclusion in the contract package during detail design. • The local effects of the future build are limited to receptors closest to the proposed stations. The modelled Impact and concentration levels greatly decrease with increasing distance from the stations. Although there is an Increase In local Impacts, contaminant levels on a regional level will decrease due to commuters using the transit expanslon. Furthermore the Future Build 2015 scenario will result in a decrease In the local concentrations of many contaminants such as NOx and Benzene. Human Health Risk , See Air Quality above. See Air Quality above. See Air Quality above. Assessment • Increased diesel emissions arising from the • The most effective approach to Improve local air quality throughout the GO Transit rail system planned expansion. would be the transition to Tier 4- compliant diesel vehicles by GO Transit as well as the continuation of provincial and federal Initiatives that reduce ambient background concentrations of contaminants of concern In the GTA regional alrshed overall. Contaminated Potential for encountering contaminated solis • Construction Contract will Include specifications to deal with contaminated soils In manner that • Contractor will be required to handle all contaminated soils in accordance with MOE standards. ES -21 CJ1 I 00 'r AECOM ( ES -22 Mitigation Measures Future Work/MoNtodng Factor Environmental Impacts During Construction/During Operations Note: 00 Transit will obtain all approvals, where applicable. Properties along existing.CPR red line. satisfies MOE and GO /Metrolinx requirements. • A Soils Management Plan will be developed as part of detail design Q.e., site assessment or construction work). It will Include provisions to characterize soils, determine suitability for proposed site use and address handling and disposal requirements for excess soils during construction. Noise and Vibration , Increased noise levels during construction . It Is recommended that the Contractor disseminate Information to the general public regarding the • Noise and vibration monitoring will be ongoing and such complaints will be dealt with operations that could potentially disrupt planned construction activities, construction duration and project outcome within the Project Limits. appropriately. adjacent residential communities. Procedures should also be developed and Implemented to receive and address noise and /or • Vibration Impacts from construction activities may vary greatly depending on the construction • Increased noise levels following vibration complaints. methods employed and the location of the construction activities. Projects Involving typical low Implementation of the proposed GO facilities The Contractor Is to adhere to the MOE's guidelines associated with construction equipment noise impact construction equipment may be addressed adequately by means of a qualitative beyond acceptable limits at the ERMF and the levels, which are outlined In NPC -115 Construction Equipment. Contractors should also adhere to construction vibration assessment However, projects employing high Impact equipment should be Rundle Road Layover Facility. the Ministry's noise guidelines NPC -118 and NPC -207, as well as any local municipal noise by- addressed by means of a detailed quantitative construction vibration assessment. laws as established by the Town of Whitby, the City of Oshawa, or the Municipality, of Clarington. Where construction will Include high impact vibration activities, a construction vibration • The installation of 5 m high noise barrier walls at the ERMF and the Rundle Road Layover Facility assessment shall be prepared prior to the start of construction to avoid structural damage to ' shall be considered based on administrative, operational, economic and technical feasibility. buildings and underground Infrastructure. • It is recommended that healing, ventilation and air- condtioning (HVAC) equipment be selected Details of noise barriers at ERMF and Rundle Road layover will be confirmed during Detail Design. such that they are no larger in capacity than typical residential units (if feasible). The public address system should be limited during eady morning or night -time hours, and the height and placement of the speakers will be confirmed during detail design and will Include consideration of potential raise impacts, vulnerability to vandalism etc. Notwithstanding the above, the stations should be designed such that noise emitted from stationary sources complies with the requirements of MOE Publication NPC-205 or NPC -232, as applicable. , Business and EcomGiiicimpacts Construction of the facilities may result in traffic • Traffic detouring will be implemented during construction. where applicable to ensure local traffic • A Communication Plan, which includes maintaining contact with regulatory g eg ory agencies, utility delays and may disrupt businesses from (including local traffic from adjacent businesses) Is redirected as best possible to reduce negative companies, and members of the public on the master study mailing list to facilitate in minimizing conducting their daily routines. Impacts to the overall community. additional business and economic impacts during construction, wil be developed during detail • Loss of agricultural lands that are currently Existing farming land leasing agreement terms will be reviewed and construction will be timed to design. being farmed as a result of the proposed GO minimize leasing conflicts where possible. Should additional land conflicts exist as a result of • Any business complaints received during construction will be appropriately investigated and facilities — although these lands are in areas breaching contracts, they will be dealt with during detail design through discussions with GO and resolved In an effective manner. designated for future development property owners. • Nuisance impacts to the adjacent business Additional mitigation related to noise and vibration construction Impacts to adjacent businesses — -- - _ during construction and operations, during and following construction are described above. Traffic Impacts) Increased traffic on local roads as a result of • Metrollnx will work with municipalities .lo develop feasible traffic deloudng/staging during • The Contractor will be required to prepare and submit traffic staging and management plans in construction activities and detouring. construction. consultation with municipalities, emergency services, adjacent businesses, and school bus • Increased traffic during operations as a result • Based on the completed traffic studies, several recommendations have been put forward (e.g., transportation services during detail design. of four (4) new GO Train Stations. signalizing intersections, additional fuming lanes) to Improve LOS characteristics to roads adjacent . The Contractor Is to maintain consultation with regulatory agencies throughout construction and to proposed GO Stations. Such recommendations will be further developed during the detail ensure traffic staging is proceeding according to plan. Should the Contractor decide to deviate design stage. from this plan, the Contractor will be required to prepare and submit a revised plan in consultation ES -22 AECOM ES -23 Mitigation Measures Future Work/MoNtoting Factor Environmental Impacts During Construction/During Operations Note: GO Transit will obtain all approvals, where applicable. with the regulatory agencies. • Metrolinx will continue to work with businesses on Hopkins Street during detail design'to ensure that truck traffic delays are minimal during construction of the ERMF. It Is noted that opportunities for alternate traffic routes that serve the area exist and Metrolinx is committed to facilitating such opportunities where feasible. Property Impacts Loss of property through Implementation of the • Compensation for required properties will be provided at fair market value. Property negotiations will be made during detail design for a total of approximately 23 location proposed plan. . Additional property impacts as a result of the construction activities relating to air quality, noise, properties within the Project Limits. ' • Construction Impacts to adjacent properties not and/or vibration have been addressed elsewhere in this section. • A monitoring program will be Implemented prior to construction and will Include a pre - condition to be acquired. The Contractor will be required to minimize any temporary Impacts caused by construction to survey of existing conditions and areas that warrant special consideration. adjacent properties. Cultural There are outstanding archaeological concerns . Construction should not be allowed to proceed at the proposed Rundle Road Layover Facility site • If construction plans change to Incorporate new areas that were not subject to assessment, Stage Environment for the proposed Rundle Road Layover Facility P P Y Y prior to the completion of the archaeological fieldwork and receipt of Ministry of Tourism and P P1 9 P rY 2 field survey must be carried out prior to construction. In keeping with legislative and policy Y P eP 9 e9 P cY, site access to the site could not be obtained Culture letter of reporting acceptance. stipulations, all construction-related impacts (e.g., machine travel, material storage, servicing and during this study. Stage 3 testing was conducted at the proposed Thornton Road GO Station site in the fall of 2009. earth moving) must be restricted to -areas that were archaeologically assessed and have been • The proposed Thornton Road GO Station site Since that time, the proposed layout for the Station site has been changed to avoid the site Issued construction clearance by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. contained one 19th to 20th century domestic altogether, thus eliminating the need for additional mitigation measures. site and was recommended for Stage 3 testing. Rail, Road, Transit During the structural work, there will be • Detailed traffic staging and management plans will be developed and provided to the Contractor in The Contractor will be required to prepare and submit traffic staging and management plans In Networks roadway delays/detouring measures consultation in applicable regulatory agendas including municipal transportation departments and consultation with municipalities, emergency services, adjacent businesses, and school bust Implemented to ensure construction impacts DRT during detail design transportation services during detail design. are not negatively Impacting motorists. . The Construction Contract will Include requirements regarding access to CP lands during • The Contractor Is to maintain consultation with regulatory agencies throughout construction and • Durham Region Transit (DIRT) potential delays construction. These wilt include items that ensure safety and minimize potential for disruption to ensure traffic staging Is proceeding according to plan. Should the Contractor dedde to deviate around South Blair Street and Thornton Road CPR freight service. from this plan, the Contractor will be required to prepare and submit a revised plan In consultation from construction of grade separations. with the regulatory agencies. • The rail corridor will be structured to make sure that the freight activity operates along the north side of the rail infrastructure and Is not designed to conflict with the commuter system during normal operations. - Utilities Disruption of utilities where they cross the rail Utility crossings of the rail corridor will need to be protected for at least the length of the load MetrclinxlGO will work with affected utility companies to address all impacts in agreement with corridor. bearing area or overhead length. This will require a full discussion with the owners and checking affected parties, including CPR that they meet the requirements under their crossing agreement with the railway. • For new sections of roadway this protection will need to be provided prior to building the new grade. • For all overhead utilities a verification with their correct clearance above the new track will be undertaken and those that need will have to be raised according with their crossing agreements with CPR. If there exist special situations GO Transit will work with the providing utility to develop a plan that will ensure that this crossing meets the protections required and at the cost of whom. ES -23 OD AECOM EX Other Approvals Required The following sections outline the conventional municipal, provincial, and federal approvals required for the Implementation of this type of project. In some cases, approvals may be required for land development and In other cases for the proposed Infrastructure improvements. The relevance of the approvals will be confirmed in future study phases, when design details are confirmed and further impact analysis work is completed. Additional approval requirements may be identified in the future. Table E5 -1 Identifies approvals that may be required for the construction of a transit project. It is noted that GO Transit will obtain all approvals, where applicable: Table E5 -1 Potentially Required Appro vals • Planning approvals through the Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and Municipality of Clarington; • Building approvals for station works and the East Rail Maintenance Facility (ERMF) from the Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and Municipality of Clarington; • Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority ( CLOCA) approval forwork within a regulated area; • Approval for stormwater management in accordance with the Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and CLOCA requirements; • Sewer discharge approvals in accordance with the Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and CLOCA requirements; • Municipal Noise By-law exemptions; • Official Plan Amendment, Town of Whitby and City of Oshawa; • Rezoning Amendment, Town of Whitby and City of Oshawa; • Urban Design Guidelines, Town of Whitby and City of Oshawa; • Site Plan Approval, Town of Whitby and City of Oshawa; • Tree - Cutting Approval, Town of Whitby and City of Oshawa; and • Alterations to Heritage Properties. Town of Whitbv'and City of Oshawa_ • Permit to Take Water will be required from the MOE if dewatering or diversion of flow from any of the watercourses by means of active pumping in excess of 50,000 litres per day will result from construction activities; • Ministry of Tourism and Culture (formedy the Ministry of Culture) sign-off on proposed archaeological assessment documentation and agreement with findings of the additional documentation to be completed for heritage features; • In accordance with Ontario Regulation 231108 a notice to proceed must be obtained from the Minister of the Environment before the oroiect can oroceed to Implementation, • Fisheries Act Authorization from DFO; • Railway Safety Act from Transport Canada; and • Navigable Waters Protection Act approval from Transport Canada for water crossings at navigable waters. EX Monitoring and Future Commitments E.6.1 Impact Monitoring Impact monitoring Is a necessary continuation of the construction and operational application of the Oshawa to Bowmanvllle Rail Service Expansion and Rail Maintenance Facility. It is designed to evaluate the need to review or update the EPR, Detailed Design, etc., or to trigger the implementation of contingency plans that may include remedial measures needed to achieve the project goals and objectives. A monitoring plan shall be prepared In accordance with Subsection 9(2)(8) of Ontario Regulation 231108. The objectives of the monitoring plan are to: augment existing Information and databases; determine the accuracy of impact predictions and effectiveness of environmental protection measures; ensure compliance with federal, provincial and local legislation and regulations; and ensure that EA commitments, plans and programs are carried out as planned. In order to ensure EA commitments, plans and programs including prescribed mitigation are carried out as planned, project implementation monitoring will be documented on a seasonal basis for one (1) year after Initial service commencement to document the degree of implementation of prescribed measures. E.6.2 Operational Compliancelimpact Monitoring GO Transit has standard procedures for spills management, accidents or malfunctions and track Inspection. These procedures will be followed during the operations phase. For monitoring of the natural and social environment the following steps should be Incorporated: Monitoring must be aimed at fulfilling one or more objectives, be subject to analysis and lead to potential actions; • Monitoring should be for identifying problems, establishing a background reference, and' evaluating the effectiveness of controls; • Technology performance monitoring should be to confirm that the facility operates as designed, if not, determine if remedial design Improvements are needed, or if It needs maintenance. This will assist in improving future designs; • A monitoring program should be directed at connecting impact analysis with technology performance assessment; • The strategy should recognize and incorporate existing monitoring programs, and • Reporting on results and appropriate follow -up action is a key component that fulfils due diligence expectations. E.6.3 Future Commitments Commitments to future work identified in this report will be completed prior to construction and consultation with stakeholders will occur as appropriate. Additional communications with government and non - government stakeholders will be required during detail design and construction. Meetings and discussions will be held during detail design with government agencies (e.g., CLOCA, MOE, MNR) to obtain'requlred approvals. All municipalities will be contacted to finalize details concerning proposed alterations to municipal roads and road structures as well as municipal utilities. They will be kept apprised of proposed project staging and mitigation details as they are further developed during the design process. They will also be kept informed of progress as construction procedures. ES -24 Clarin n �e�,nghewaY� REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A Report #: PSD- 028 -11 File #: PLN 17.1.5 Subject: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON DRAFTING AND IMPLEMENTING AN AIR QUALITY BY -LAW RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 028 -11 be received; 2. THAT The Municipality through the GTA Clean Air Council monitor the progress being made by the Ministry of Environment on the cumulative impact assessment, PM2.5 policy framework, and development of components of the Comprehensive Air Management System (CAMS); 3. THAT the Region of Durham Health Department be requested to become more involved in air quality issues, especially as they relate to health issues, on a Region wide basis; 4. THAT if Council determines that air quality improvement should be identified as a priority in the Strategic Business Plan, the issue be referred to the 2012 budget for municipal initiatives; and 5. THAT all interested parties listed in PSD- 028 -11 be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: = f Reviewed by: Davi, JfCrome MCIP, RPP F anklin Wu, Direc or of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer FL /df /sn 16 March 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 8 -55 REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 1.0 PURPOSE PAGE 2 1.1 At the General Purpose and Administration Meeting of February 28th, 2011 a resolution (Attachment 1) was passed requesting information on the implications of drafting and implementing an Air Quality By -law under the Municipal Act. More specifically Staff were asked to report back on: • The costs to retain a consultant to help develop guidance documents for general assessment and air modeling prior to drafting a by -law; • The costs to determine a baseline, sources of emissions of health risk air pollutants and an atmospheric dispersion model of the airshed; • Future budget implications for additional enforcement staffing, peer reviewers, air quality modelers; potential education and outreach programs to support by -law implementation and data management; • The potential implications on existing industries in Clarington and the potential impact on economic development and the attraction of prospective industries/ employers; • The potential duplication between a Clarington specific by -law and the Provincial Review that is underway; and • An estimate of generated revenue if the Municipality were to engage in the trading of carbon credits. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Staff provided Report PSD- 088 -10 (Attachment 2) in June 2010 which included background information on the consultation requirements necessary prior to implementing an air quality by -law and the issues surrounding enforcement. Council accepted the information report. The background information remains relevant, including Section 7, Other Initiatives. 2.2 Particulate matter (PM) is the general term used for a mixture of solid particulates and liquid droplets in the air. It is characterized according to size mainly because of the different health effects associated with particles of different diameters. PM2.5 or respirable particulates can penetrate the respiratory system further than larger particulates. Sources of PM are primarily formed from chemical reactions to the atmosphere through fuel combustion (motor vehicles, power generation, industrial facilities, residential sources) see Attachment 3. To produce fine particulate matter, precursors such as nitrogen oxides, ammonia, sulphur dioxide and /or volatile organic compounds are emitted into the air and through atmospheric mixing or chemical transformation, or both participate into fine airborne matter. 2.3 As noted above, there are four major sources of fine particulate matter - industry, vehicular traffic (including resuspended road dust), residential and miscellaneous (dry cleaning,.fuel marketing, pesticide and fertilizer applications). The use of dispersion modelling helps predict contaminant concentrations and define the various source sectors for ambient air quality. About 50 -70% comes from the vehicles and 25 -35% from industrial operations. REPORT NO.: PSD -028 -11 PAGE 3 2.4 During the air quality assessment for the Energy from Waste Facility, the baseline assessment provided information about the local air quality. The MOE Oshawa station has monitored PM2.5 since 2001. The maximum daily average concentration measured at the MOE Oshawa station is 2007 was 38 ug /m3 (migrograms per cubic metre) while the average concentration was 6.8 ug /m3. Based on the baseline studies it was evident that the local airshed is compromised; however, the PM2.5 levels are slightly below the Canada Wide Standards. 2.5 In comparison, the annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 for Oshawa and Oakville are similar but less than those for Windsor, Hamilton and Sarnia. Since 2003, there has been a 27 percent decrease in composite annual means. Overall, provincial PM2.5 emissions have decreased approximately 32 percent from 1999 to 2008. Reductions have occurred in industrial processes emissions by 50 percent and the phase -in of new vehicles /engines has shown a gradual decrease in transportation related emissions. 2.6 Local airsheds are not well- defined. Unlike watersheds which divide along a height of land, airsheds are influenced by wind patterns, which in Clarington are typically from the west, micro - climatic effects'Which cause wind patterns to shift, urban heat islands, large bodies of water and large areas of natural cover (e.g. Long Sault and Ganaraska Forests). 2.7 Some local governments have chosen to respond to issues within their local airshed by undertaking actions which are known to have benefit and are within the local government control. Examples are the actions taken by Toronto, Hamilton and Sudbury which are highlighted in the Environmental Commissioner's Report of March 2010 (http: / /eco.on.ca /enq /uploads /en-q pdfs/ 2010 / Air% 20Monitoring %20in %20Local %20Airsh eds.pdf). 2.8 In policy development there are two approaches, which are colloquially known as the "carrot" or the "stick ". "Carrots" involve incentives like grants /loans, best management practices and education programs. "Sticks" involve regulation and penalties to achieve results. Typically when an issue is identified, the background information and a fulsome understanding of the implications are well understood prior to determining which approach or combination thereof is going to be employed. 3.0 PROCESS AND TIMELINES 3.1 The basis for Oakville's air quality by -law was a multi -year study that was commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment on the Clarkson Airshed (CAS) in 2000. This multi- year study was carried out in three parts. Part I, carried out between 2001 and 2002 identified major sources of targeted pollutants. Part II, carried out between 2003 and 2005, was a 22 -month ambient air monitoring program that confirmed, at times, especially during smog events, that the CAS study area represents a "taxed" or compromised area with respect to respirable particulate matter (PM2.5). EZf] REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 PAGE 4 Part III, carried out between 2006 and 2008, focused on major sources of targeted industrial pollutants. The study involved complete emission inventories and air dispersion modelling. The findings were submitted to MOE. Regional modelling was then carried out to evaluate the contribution of these sources to the air quality in the area of the airshed. 3.2 In November 2009, the Minister of Environment appointed an Air Quality Task Force (1 member) to work with a Community Advisory Committee (14 members) called the Southwest Greater Toronto Air Quality Task Force, established in September 2009. With a six month timeframe the task force was given a mandate to produce an Action Plan (recommendations) to improve air quality and manage air pollution impacts in the Oakville - Clarkson Airshed. A local municipal by -law was not part of the recommendations, rather the study sought to prevent a patchwork of by -laws and standards across Ontario. 3.3 In advance of the report from the Air Quality Task Force in June 2010, the Town of Oakville passed a by -law that attempts to regulate the emission of fine PM. They did so relying upon the powers given to municipalities under the Municipal Act, 2001 to regulate the "health, safety and welfare of persons" and "public nuisances ". Oakville staff are of the opinion that while it was helpful to have the results of the three -part (2000 -2008) MOE Clarkson Airshed Study (baseline air quality assessment), there may be sufficient air quality data to establish a baseline for most areas of the province. Whether sufficient air quality data has been collected for the local Clarington airshed will require further investigation. 3.4 In November 2010, the Ministry of Environment, based on the resolutions, letters and work of the Oakville and Burlington Councils plus members of the public and within the context of the results of a decade of study of the Oakville - Clarkson Airshed and the Environmental Commissioner's Report (Attachment 4), initiated a review of the current (provincial) policy framework addressing PM2,5. This review will include an assessment of the need to revise the policy approach to direct emissions of PM2.5. The Review Decisions Summary (Attachment 5) contains the reasoning for the review and how particulate matter is currently regulated by both the federal and provincial governments. 3.5 The Ministry of the Environment is in the process of reviewing the provincial policy framework - -see Sections 5.3 through 5.8 below. 4.0 RETENTION OF QUALIFIED EXPERTISE 4.1 Air quality is not an area of expertise that the existing municipal staff has as a specialty. Air quality comments and issues that have been raised and addressed as part of environmental assessments have been part of the peer review consultant's responsibilities. 4.2 The health aspects of air emissions are typically an area of expertise that lower tier municipalities do not have as a specialty. The Region of Durham Health Department lead, manage and deliver public health programs and services for the Region. However, the current mandate of the Regional Health Department does not including the monitoring 8 -58 REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 PAGE 5 or assessing of air emissions and hence they have limited or no in -house scientific or technical expertise in this regard. 4.3 There is considerable scientific evidence of serious impacts to human health associated with exposure to fine particulate matter. Understanding when, where and how people are exposed to fine particulate matter and /or "precursor pollutants ", namely substances which, when emitted into the air, produce fine particulate matters is challenging. Medical expertise would have to be retained as part of the consulting team. 4.4 It would be necessary to retain a consulting team to study the existing conditions of the airshed and develop guidance documents for general assessment and air modeling to draft an enforceable by -law. In the case of Oakville this study included three subject matter experts being: environmental law, health impacts from air quality, and air quality modeling. Part of the baseline information included sources of emissions of health risk air pollutants, an atmospheric dispersion model showing what is happening in the affected airshed, collection of information on the industries that have been issued approvals under the Environmental Protection Act, or more specifically Certificates of Approval (CofA) for air. 4.5 The development of Oakville's guidance documents cost in the order of $130,000. This does not include the Staff time that was spent in developing the by -law and administering the process. For the public consultation portion of the process a facilitator was hired for $15,000 to assist with consultation. In addition, a contract staff person was hired (see section 7.2) initially to assist with drafting the by -law and then moving into outreach/ education and enforcement. 5.0 JURISDICTION 5.1 Regulation of Particulate Matter at a municipal level would have to complement the existing federal and provincial regulation. A local by -law brought in under the Municipal Act, 2001 should not conflict or frustrate the purpose of provincial /federal regulations. The Town of Oakville have indicated that they are "very open to having any materials related to the Health Protection Air Quality By -law used as a basis for by -law development and compliance support by other municipalities ". 5.2 In Ontario, industries obtain Certificates of Approval based on the Environmental Standards set out by MOE, such as the A7 Guidelines for air quality. Industries, such as St. Mary's Cement, Ontario Power Generation and other major industries in Clarington are required to meet or exceed the standards established when they obtain their CofA. Also major emitters, like those listed, provide their emissions data to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. Many of these industries have continuous improvement programs in place and are working on the upgrading and reduction of air emissions on a continuous basis. 5.3 In March 2010 the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario released a Brief Review: Using Air Monitoring as a Tool to Assess & Address Local Airsheds & Micro - Environments in Ontario. This report provided a summary of the Province's Role, Ministry-Led Local Air Monitoring Projects, Municipality -Led Local Air Monitoring • REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 PAGE 6 Programs and provided recommendations. In summation, the executive summary (Attachment 4) noted that there are overlapping interests and expertise that need to be united. Health departments (Regional Government) have responsibility for protecting the health of citizens within their communities; planning departments within regional and local municipalities have responsibility for long -range and current planning decisions within their jurisdictions; and MOE has expertise in the assessment and management of air quality issues, legislative authority for air quality issues related to point sources, and legislative authority for the environmental assessment processes that are applied to major projects including those applied to the transportation sector. 5.4 On October 20, 2010 the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) announced a new approach to regionally coordinated airshed management. The regionally coordinated airshed management is part of a national commitment to introduce more ambitious air quality standards and nationally consistent industrial emissions. The Town of Oakville nominated the Oakville - Clarkson airshed as the first pilot area to implement a Comprehensive Air Management System (CAMS). The Town of Oakville is working with the Province, a signatory to the CCME through the Ontario Ministry of Environment to move airzone management forward. 5.5 The results of the Oakville - Clarkson airshed study illustrates how PM2.5 is a complex issue that requires a. comprehensive strategy to address not only industrial emissions but also residential, transportation and trans - boundary sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. 5.6 The Province has undertaken a review of how particulate matter is currently regulated by both the federal and provincial governments. While municipalities can adopt by -laws addressing "health, safety and welfare of persons" and "public nuisances" under the Municipal Act, it may be prudent to wait until the Ministry has completed their review. 5.7 The GTA Clean Air Council, of which Clarington has been a member for some eight years, is monitoring the MOE's review of the cumulative impact assessment, PM2.5 policy framework, and development of components of the Comprehensive Air Management System (CAMS) with airzones. While they are encouraged that the province is reviewing these issues, regulation of PM2.5 has been an issue that the province has been grappling with for many years. It is not clear whether the province will make a decision to regulate emissions of PM2.5 or intends to move into the regulation of direct PM2.5 or integrate cumulative impact assessment into the provincial air approvals process. 5.8 The MOE review will analyze the effectiveness of the current policy framework and assess the need to revise Ontario's approach to PM2.5, including direct PM2.5 emissions from industrial and commercial facilities. The review includes analyzing air monitoring data, literature review and looking at other jurisdictions to make sure the Ministry's approach is effective and provides a high level of protection for Ontarians. The Ministry has been and is conducting ongoing research that will form the basis for the review. The Ministry acknowledges that this is a very comprehensive review and Ministry Staff advise that a draft report is expected to be available for public comment by March 2012. .e REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 PAGE 7 6.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Air Quality is a combination of many factors, there are the contributions of emissions from industrial sources; however, a large percentage of air quality issues come from either vehicle emissions or from beyond our borders. The pollutants being funneled into our airshed from outside sources, even from our immediate neighbour Oshawa, are beyond our control. An air quality by -law would specifically target industrial and commercial entities within Clarington and could be a factor in the expansion or relocation of existing businesses as well as the attraction of new employers to Clarington. 6.2 Oakville's approach has been to work with their Economic Development Department to raise awareness of the by -law within the business community. Oakville's economic development focuses on the types of businesses that Oakville desires and is very sector based: Oakville has over 260 national and international corporate headquarters. The monitoring included in Oakville's by -law is already imposed by either MOE CofA's (Air) or for major emitters the National Pollutant Release Inventory. For emitters that have been operating without CofA's, there has been a side benefit as now they are obtaining the necessary CofA's. 6.3 For new industries the cost of a baseline air study would be incurred regardless, they are required to obtain a CofA. The $25,000 fee Oakville has imposed for major emitters is to cover the peer review costs of $20,000, should the peer review cost less than $20,000 then the remaining monies will be rebated. 7.0 ENFORCEMENT 7.1 Should Council wish to pass an air quality by -law, the key to compliance is by -law enforcement. At noted above Oakville's application fee is intended to cover the administration and peer review costs for the approval of applications from existing and proposed facilities it does not cover enforcement. 7.2 Oakville retained a contract staff position to address outreach, compliance support and serve as the in -house technical expert starting in Aug. 2010. The costs are in the order of $75,000 per year, with an additional $15,000 budgeted in 2011 for outreach and compliance activities, along with participation in all applicable MOE consultations. The outreach /education program includes media notices, direct mailings, and regular workshops. 7.3 Clarington should determine whether it is more beneficial to spend the funds required for enforcement or alternatively provide incentives to businesses, an educational campaign and other measures that work with local emitters. 7.4 Council introduced an Anti - Idling By -law as a clean air initiative in December, 2008. However, its implementation was relatively easy; enforcement occurs on a complaint basis and is easily monitored. With regard to resources, there was limited education (an article in Clarington.net) and one complaint has been received to date. It was found that the individual that the complaint was lodged against was not breaching the by -law. 8 -61 REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 8.0 CARBON OFFSETS (CREDITS) PAGE 8 8.1 A carbon offset is a credit for greenhouse gas reductions achieved by one party that can be purchased and used to compensate (offset) the emissions of another party. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalents and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers and trading platforms. 8.2 It is not clear whether the intention of the resolution is for the Municipality: • To fund the costs of implementing a Air Quality By -law by trading for carbon offsets on improvements on CO2 emissions from it's facilities; • To submit projects to voluntary carbon credit schemes (e.g. Carbonzero) for funding; or • To establish our own Clarington specific "cap and trade" system with the Municipality being the broker for Clarington industries that may want to exceed the Clean Air By- law standards by receiving credits from industries that have made improvements to be significantly under the standards. 8.3 There is no cap and trade system for carbon credits at the present time in Ontario. In May 2009, the Ontario government released a discussion paper on this matter. Ontario has joined the Western Climate Initiative and is in the process of developing a cap and trade system with Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and seven western states in the USA. Information on this issue is provided in Attachment 6. At the present time, enabling legislation has been introduced requiring certain industries to report on their greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation 452/09 would appear to require at least St. Marys Cement, Bowmanville Foundry and the EFW Facility to report on their greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is no system in place for trading to occur at this time. 8.4 At this time, it is unlikely that an Air Quality By -law would include carbon offsets (credits). In terms of revenue that could be generated if the Municipality were to engage in the trading of carbon credits, the following would have to be considered: • If the Municipality were to trade credits (if any) through the improvement of its facilities, these revenues would be used to offset the costs of such improvements; • If the Municipality were to seek funding from a volunteer carbon credit scheme, it would be used for the project itself (tree planting, energy conservation projects, renewable energy project); • It is not feasible for the Municipality to operate it's own cap and trade scheme (e.g. no revenues to offset the costs of the Air Quality By -law). 9.0 COMMENTS 9.1 The issue of air quality is complex involving residential, transportation, agricultural, municipal and industrial sources, many beyond our municipal boundary. REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 PAGE 9 9.2 Staff have only a generalized knowledge of air quality issues and emissions. This report has been prepared to the best of our ability within the timeframe given and without expert resources to assist us. We have consulted with MOE, the Town of Oakville and carried out research and investigation of our own. We have not been able to determine which airshed or airsheds Clarington is part of, or even if this is defined. 9.3 While Clarington has a compromised airshed (as evidenced by the data from the Oshawa air quality monitoring station data), this is true of most of southern Ontario due to the flow of external emissions, the high level of population (heat island, wind dispersion and micro - climatic effects) and economic activity in the area. The Oshawa station is in the middle range for emission levels when compared with others across southern Ontario. 9.4 An Air Quality By -law is only one tool, without proven effectiveness and significant costs for preparation and enforcement. There are many other examples of "carrots" (incentives) or "sticks" (regulations) that the Municipality could employ to improve air quality. The measures taken by Toronto, Sudbury and Hamilton listed in the full report on the website noted for Attachment 4 give a wide range of air quality improvements that can be implemented. 9.5 At a minimum, an Air Quality By -law would likely cost over $125,000 to prepare, enforcement would be in addition. This is composed of: $100,000 for baseline studies and guidance documents, provided enough air quality data exists from the Oshawa MOE monitoring station; $10,000 for preparation of the by -law, using Oakville's as a basis; $15,000 for education and outreach; $75,000 annually for additional staff with specific expertise in air quality, CofA's and health effects. 9.6 It is unknown what an enforcement action would cost but assuming that it is similar to an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing or the recent action with St. Marys where experts are required, it would likely cost at a minimum $150,000 to $500,000, not including Staff time, to uphold the by -law. 9.7 Many Health Departments have undertaken air quality issues as part of their mandate. It would be appropriate for air quality to be addressed on a Regional basis rather than for Clarington on its own. 9.8 If Council wants to improve air quality, there is a large array of potential actions. These should be evaluated to determine which efforts provide the best value for the funds spent. The Municipality is already a member of the GTA Clean Air Council, and has been for the past eight years, more active involvement in the GTA Clean Air Council by political representation would be beneficial. 9.9 Air quality initiatives should be considered as a "new service" and appropriately resourced. 9.10 The Municipality has many opportunities to fund air quality improvements such as: better street sweeping equipment, zoning standards for sensitive land uses (daycares, schools), or providing a grant program (carrot) or by -law (stick) to eliminate emissions from wood - burning fireplaces which are a major source of particulate matter. 8 -63 REPORT NO.: PSD- 028 -11 10.0 CONCLUSIONS PAGE 10 10.1 The Municipality through the GTA Clean Air Council has the opportunity to obtain updates on the progress being made by the Ministry of Environment of the cumulative impact assessment, PM2.5 policy framework, and development of components of the Comprehensive Air Management System (CAMS). Staff should continue to monitor the progress of this policy review and the initiatives of the GTA Clean Air Council. 10.2 For economic development purposes, targeting industrial point source emissions would have impacts on our existing industries and may be perceived as a barrier for new companies to select and locate in Clarington. These issues are usually best addressed by the Regional and Provincial so that there is a level playing field. In addition, to monitoring the provincial regulation advances being made, the Region of Durham should be asked to become more involved in air quality issues, especially as they relate to health issues, on a Region wide basis. 10.3 If Council deems it important to be more active in the area of air quality, it should be identified as a priority in the Strategic Business Plan and the matter referred to the 2012 budget. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid Attachments: Attachment 1- Attachment 2- Attachment 3- Attachment 4- Attachment 5- Attachment 6 - Resolution PSD- 088 -10 Fine Particulate Matter (MOE definition from website) Brief Review: Using Air Monitoring as a Tool to Assess & Address Local Airsheds & Mirco- Environments in Ontario, March 2010, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Full study available at: http: / /eco.on.ca /enq /uploads /enq pdfs/ 2010 / Air %20Monitoring %20in %20Local %20Airsheds.pdf Environment Bill of Rights (EBR) Application for Review, Review Decision Summary, November 15, 2010 Western Climate Initiative - Cap and Trade System Interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Kerry Meydam Jennifer Knox, Martin Vroegh, 8 -64 OPG St. Marys Cement Attachment 1 To PSD- 028 -11 February 28th, 2011 GPA Meeting Moved by Woo, Seconded by Hooper WHEREAS the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada have gathered research and prepared reports on fine particulate matter and its serious harm to human health, but have not as of yet passed air regulations that focus on fine particulate matter, evaluate ambient conditions together with new emissions, assess the human and public health impacts of such emissions or limit cumulative concentrations; WHEREAS fine particulate matter PM2.5 is typically regulated by Provincial and Federal governments, and within their mandated responsibilities; WHEREAS the Province of Ontario. in November of 2010 acknowledged that there is a policy gap that needs to be examined with respect to domestic sources of primary PM2.5. WHEREAS the review the Ontario Ministry of Environment is proceeding with will examine the effectiveness of the current provincial policy framework in addressing PM2.5; other aspects such as cumulative effects are also under review. The results of these reviews will take a minimum of fifteen (15) months; and WHEREAS s. 11 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended ( "the Act "), permits municipalities to pass by -laws respecting the health, safety and well -being of persons; WHEREAS s. 128 of the Act permits municipalities to prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of Council, are or could become or cause public nuisances; WHEREAS for Clarington to proceed with the drafting and implementation of an Air Quality By- law under the Municipal Act, Council should be aware of: • The costs to retain a consultant to help develop guidance documents for general assessment and air modeling prior to drafting a by -law, • the costs to determine a baseline, sources of emissions of health risk air pollutants and an atmospheric dispersion model of the airshed • future budget implications for additional enforcement staffing, peer reviewers, air quality modelers; potential education and outreach programs to support by -law implementation and data management; • the potential implications on existing industries in Clarington and the potential impact on economic development and the attraction of prospective industries /employers; and • the potential duplication between a Clarington specific By -law and the Provincial Review that is underway • An estimate of generated revenue if the Municipality were to engage in the trading of carbon credits NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Staff be authorized to prepare a report outlining the above noted items for presentation to the March 21St GPA meeting. CARRIED fflim Attachment 2 TO PSD- 028 -11 lar.� n Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING. SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: July 5, 2010 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A Report M PSD -088 -10 File #: PLN 17.1.5 Subject: REQUEST FOR AIR QUALITY BY -LAW RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 088 -10 be received for information. Submitted bykyXL Reviewed by: , FCSLA, MCIP Franklin Wu, rec r of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer FUdf 25 June 2010 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 REPORT NO.: PSD- 088 -10 PAGE 2 1.0 'PURPOSE 1.1 At the March 1 st meeting of Council a report was requested: "That Correspondence Item D -10 from Kerry Meydam, with respect to an Air Quality By -law, be referred to staff for a report back within a reasonable timeframe." 1.2 Council was not specific is what aspect of the by -law they were requesting staff to report back on, as such staff are providing an information report on the ramifications of enacting such a by -law. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Air Quality is typically regulated by the Provincial and Federal governments; however there are presently no regulatory standards for fine particulate matter (fine PM) emissions or ambient levels. 2.2 In February of this year, the Town of Oakville passed a by -Caw that attempts to regulate the emission of fine PM. They did so relying upon the powers given to municipalities under the Municipal Act, 2001 to regulate the "health, safety and welfare of persons" and "public nuisances ". These are the same powers that many Ontario municipalities used to adopt by -laws addressing second hand smoke and pesticides. Eventually the patchwork of municipal by -laws throughout Ontario led the Province to address second hand smoke and the use of cosmetic pesticides on a provincial basis. 2.3 The Oakville Air Quality By -law is aimed specifically at protecting the health of Oakville residents from the effects of fine PM by collecting information on emissions from facilities within Oakville and implementing regulatory controls. 2.4 The Region of Durham Health Department leads, manages and delivers public health programs and services for the Region. To date, the Health Department has been the lead agency on health issues and effects as they have the expertise to advise on, and are the legislative authority to impose restrictions on health related issues. 3.0 CONSULTATION REQUIRED FOR AN ENFORCEABLE BY -LAW 3.1 A component of the development of any by -law is consultation with the general public. In this case it would be necessary to consider the implications for residents and existing businesses. A process involving these groups that would adequately address their issues and concerns for the development of a by -law would have to be proposed. The consultation process should be developed such that it could withstand a potential challenge to the by -law. 4.0 RETENTION OF A QUALIFIED CONSULTANT 4.1 Air quality is not an area of expertise that the existing municipal staff has as a specialty. The air quality comments and issues that have been raised and addressed as part of environmental assessments have been part of the peer review consultant's 8 -67 REPORT NO.: PSD- 088 -10 PAGE 3 responsibilities that have been retained by the Municipality. It may also be necessary to retain a consultant to help develop guidance documents for general assessment and air modeling prior to drafting a by -law; to determine a baseline, sources of emissions of health risk air pollutants and an atmospheric dispersion model to map what is happening in the affected airshed is necessary. 5.0 HEALTH ISSUES RELATED TO AIR QUALITY ISSUES 5.1 Air Quality is a combination of many factors, there are the contributions of emissions from industrial sources; however, a large percentage of air quality issues come from either vehicle emissions or from beyond our borders. The pollutants being funneled into our air shed from outside sources are beyond our control. The long -range transport of pollutants from other sources, especially during smog events contribute significantly to the health effects that may or may not appear in residents. 5.2 There is considerable scientific evidence of serious impacts to human heath associated with exposure to fine particulate matter. Understanding when, where and how people are exposed to fine particulate matter and /or "precursor pollutants ", namely substances which, when emitted into the air, produce fine particulate matters is challenging. 6.0 ENFORCEMENT 6,1 Should Council wish to pass an air quality by -law, the by -law would have to be enforced. In the case of Oakville's By -law there is an application fee which is intended to cover the administration and peer review costs for the approval of applications from existing and proposed facilities. 6.2 In addition, there is the possibility that new staffing and budget allocations would be necessary for the enforcement of the by -law, including periodically retaining peer reviewers, air quality modelers and assigning staff to carry out education and outreach to support by -law implementations and data management. 7.0 OTHER INITIATIVES 7.1 The Municipality may have greater impact on air quality issues through other avenues than an air quality by -law such as the implementation of transit initiatives, smart commute programs and other sustainable development measures. 7.2 Since 2003, the Municipality has been a member of the Greater Toronto Area Clean Air Council (GTA CAC). As part of this initiative the Municipality is working with the other member municipalities on air quality issues, participating in the annual Smog Summit, Clean Air Partnership and signing the declaration of actions and commitments. REPORT NO.: PSD- 088 -10 PAGE 4 7.3 The Green Community Strategy and the Municipal Energy Management Plan both of which were endorsed by Council at the June 28th meeting have initiatives within them that will contribute to better air quality when they are implemented. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 Should Council wish staff to draft an air quality by -law based on the health impacts of fine particulate matter, specific direction should be provided for a budget estimate to be obtained for consideration during the 2011 budget deliberations. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid Interested Parties: Kerry Meydam H., 2 .• Fine Particulate Matter To PSD- 028 -11 LIP 24- 3 5 u�. 3 r°. wl�� a h i „` �A ; » 3C x” '�^: ;ir �a�i, � ''^<. `17 ..;�: � . � s°b"�'`C,�, central site I feedback I search I frangais HOME I NEWS I PUBLICATIONS I AIR I LAND I WATER I GENERAL I CONTACT US Air Quality Ontario I Reports and Forecasts I Weather Summary I Taking Action I Information j Historical Data I Smog Advisory Statistics I Pollutant Concentrations (New Feature) Fine Particulate Matter What is fine particulate matter? Particulate matter is characterized according to size - mainly because of the different health effects associated with particles of different diameters. Particulate matter is the general term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets in the air. It includes aerosols, smoke, fumes, dust, ash and pollen. The composition of particulate matter varies with place, season and weather conditions. Fine particulate matter is particulate matter that is 2.5 microns in diameter and less. It is also known as PM2.5 or respirable particles because it penetrates the respiratory system further than larger particles. PM2.5 in Ontario is largely made up of sulphate and nitrate particles, elemental and organic carbon and soil. What are the sources of fine particulate matter? PM2.5 material is primarily formed from chemical reactions in the atmosphere and through fuel combustion (e.g., motor . vehicles, power generation, industrial facilities, residential fire places, wood stoves and agricultural burning). Significant amounts of PM2.5 are carried into Ontario from the U.S. During periods of widespread elevated levels of fine particulate matter, it is estimated that more than 50 percent of Ontario's PM2.5 comes from the U.S. Ontario PM2.5 Emissions by Sector (Emissions from Point /Area /Transportation Sources, 2006 Estimates) Pie Chart Category Percent Residential 34% Mlacallaneau.l Other Ind Praceesae Tranapartatln Transportation 24/ 719 246 Other Industrial 21% Processes Smelters /Primary 12% ;ib„"'ary Raawanifel Metals 129: U% Pulp and Raper s9s Miscellaneous 6% Pulp and Paper 3% I Note: 2006 is the latest complete inventory. Emissions may be revised with updated source /sector information- or emission estimation methodologies as they become available. $ h�tp : / /www.airqualityontario.com/ science /pollutants /particulates.cfm 2/25/2011 Pine Particulate Matter Page 2 of 2 Approximately 34 per cent and 24 per cent of PM2.5 emitted in Ontario in 2006 came from residential and transportation sectors, respectively, while other industrial processes accounted for 21 per cent. Lesser sources of PM2.5 include smelters /primary metals, miscellaneous and, pulp and paper. What are the effects of fine particulate matter? The greatest effect on health is from particles 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Exposure to fine particulate matter has been associated with hospital admissions and several serious health effects, including premature death. People with asthma, cardiovascular or lung disease, as well as children and elderly people, are considered to be the most sensitive to the effects of fine particulate matter. Adverse health effects have been associated with exposure to PM2.5 over both short periods (such as a day) and longer periods (a year or more). Fine particulate matter is also responsible for environmental effects such as corrosion, soiling, damage to vegetation and reduced visibility. The following table shows the health effects of different AQI levels caused by fine particulate matter. Health effects of different Air Quality Index (AQI) levels caused by fine particulate matter Category AQI Pollutant Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Concentration Breakpoints (Ng /m) - 0-15 0 -11 Sensitive populations may want to exercise caution. Very Good 16- 12-22 Sensitive populations may want to exercise caution. Good 31 32- 23-45 People with respiratory disease at some risk. Moderate 49 60- 46-90 People with respiratory disease should limit Poor 99 prolonged exertion; general population at some risk. - 100 or 91 or over Serious respiratory effects even during light physical Very Poor over activity; people with heart disease, the elderly and children at high risk; increased risk for general population. Note: The AQI sub -index for PM2.e is based on a 3 hour running average concentrations. pg /m3 = micrograms per cubic metre. For more information see our list of publications. Disclaimer TA'Ontario This site is maintained by the Government of Ontario, Canada_ © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2011 1 Privacy Policy I Air Quality Ontario RSS IM This information is provided as a public service, but we cannot guarantee that it is current or accurate. Readers should verify the information before acting on it. Disclaimer http : / /www.airqualityontario.com / science /pollutants /particulates.cfin 2/25/20A—" Brief Review: Using Air Monitoring as a Tool to Assess &Address Local Airsheds & Micro - Environments in Ontario Attachment 4 To PSD -028 -11 March 9, 2010 Prepared by Kim Perrotta For the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario � �erro�a &. Associates Emiro=ent Health. Public Policy. 8-72 Executive Summary. 1 This report examines when, where and how air monitoring is currently being used in Ontario as a tool to assess and address local airsheds and/or micro- environments, and when, where and how it could or should be used as a tool to assess air quality impacts and protect human health. This report is based largely on key informant interviews conducted with: • Staff in the in the Air Monitoring & Reporting Section of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE); • Staff in the MOE regional offices that conducted the Clarkson Airshed Study.and the Hamilton Road Dust Study; • Staff in the three Ontario municipalities that are assessing their local airsheds with-, airshed modelling. and monitoring tools; • Participants in industry-led and partnership -led air monitoring projects; and • Staff in six public health units that are active on air quality issues about when, where and how air monitoring can or should be used as a tool to assess and address air quality in local airsheds and/or micro- environments. Among public health units and municipalities that are active on air quality issues, there is a.great deal of interest in understanding how air quality varies across a local community. While they see a great deal of value in air monitoring as a tool for assessing local airsheds and micro - environments, they see it as an expensive tool that must be used in a complementary way with air modelling tools. They would however, like to see air monitoring used to: • Validate and calibrate air modelling tools that can be used to assess various policies and decisions related to land use planning and transportation planning; • Inform and support specific land use and transportation planning policies; • Assess land use planning applications such as those related to the placement of daycare facilities or schools relative to commercial operations such as trucking depots; • Measure background air. levels to be. used to evaluate the cumulative air uali q ty impacts associated with proposed projects and facilities; • Confirm air levels predicted with air modelling for proposed projects or facilities after projects are completed and/or facilities are operating; and f�'errofta & R�oct� Page 2 8 -73 • Inform purchasing policies within municipalities. The public Health units and municipalities interviewed did not envision a network of many air monitors sited in multiple locations for long periods in their communities. Rather, with a few exceptions, they envisioned 'air monitoring equipment being used for limited periods to inform processes related to certificates of approval, environmental assessments, land use planning decisions, municipal purchasing policies, and policy. development. . There is no consensus among the parties interviewed about who should be responsible for air monitoring that is directed at local airsheds as a whole or at micro- environments that are not related to point sources. Asa rule, the MOE does not get involved in the assessment of local airsheds in a comprehensive way because the MOE does not see itself having regulatory authority or jurisdiction for many of the emission sources within a community. On the other hand, as a rule, staff within public health units and municipalities do not see themselves having the expertise or the resources to undertake assessments of their local airsheds. In addition, many do not feel that this is the responsibility of local governments. A number believe that this is the respousibility of the Province as the government body that has responsibility for compliance with Canada Wide Standards and the expertise, resources and authority to act on air quality. All of the public health staff interviewed indicated that they thought that the MOE should be taking a greater role in this type of work because of its technical expertise and resources. From comments offered, it appears that the Province may need to recognize that: the MOE air quality expertise is needed to assess and address air quality in a cumulative way; and the MOE needs to move beyond its focus on point source to include mobile and area sources as well as point sources. Judging by the comments of staff within public health units, and by the studies that are being directed at local airsheds and micro - environments by those interviewed, emissions associated with vehicles and traffic corridors are considered a very high priority. When it comes to the urban airshed, there appears to be a trinity of interests and expertise that need to be united on this issue: public health departments have responsibility for protecting the health of citizens within their communities; planning departments within regional and local municipalities have responsibility for long -range and current planning decisions within their jurisdictions; and the MOE has expertise in the assessment and management of air quality issues, legislative authority for air quality issues related to point sources,. and legislative authority for the environmental assessment processes that are applied to major projects including those applied to the transportation sector. erratta RociateS Page 3 8 -74 It is recommended that the MOE: 1. Provide technical support and financial resources to public health departments and/or municipalities that are seeking to assess air quality across their airsheds to inform land use and transportation planning processes giving priority to those municipalities that: a. Are expected to grow rapidly over the next 20 years; b. Have, or are expected to achieve, high population densities; and c. Have stressed airsheds because of transboundary air pollution and/or local emission sources. 2. Work with public health units and/or municipalities to identify, coordinate, and conduct air monitoring studies that assess micro - environments of common concern, such as traffic corridors, for the purpose of informing land use and transportation planning decisions and policy development at both a provincial and local level. 3. Provide technical support and resources to those public health units and/or municipalities that are doing air monitoring and/or air modelling studies to assess micro- environments that are of common concern to public health units and/or municipalities. 4. Actively work with public health units and/or municipalities to build an understanding of the air monitoring and modelling tools, technologies, and strategies that can be used to assess local airsheds and micro - environments, along with their strengths, limitations, and applications. 5. Conduct research on policies and protocols that can be used to address both regional and local air quality issues through the land use and transportation planning processes that are conducted by local, regional and provincial levels of government. �e�l'of�a �. RSSOCiz�eS Page 4 8 -75 Attachment 5 To PSD- 028 -11 Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Application, for Review Review Decision Summary November 15, 2010 MOE File No.: 10EBR001.R 1. Issue The Ministry of the Environment (ministry) received an application under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) to review the need for a new air pollution Act or regulation that focuses on particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (fine particulate or PM2,5), and to address the combined effects of proposed emissions and existing ambient concentrations. .2. Applicants' Request The applicants have requested a review to determine if a new air pollution Act or regulation is needed, [One that] specifically addresses PM2,5 and its role in air quality degradation on which human health depends ... because: 1) there Is a public health crisis In Ontario due to ambient air concentrations of PM2.5r 2) the existing regulatory regime does not protect against serious health impacts of PM2.5; and, 3) fatal and other serious health impacts will continue to grow unless immediate action is taken. The applicants are requesting this review on the basis that: 1) the 2005 reforms resulting in ontar€o's regulatory regime for air pollution control, through O. Reg. 419/05, do not address the emissions of PM2.5; 2) there is no other existing regulatory regime suitable to address the unique circumstances of PM25across Ontario; 3) a new binding regime (Act or regulation) is needed to protect human health from PM2.5 airborne concentrations across Ontario; and 4) the requested review is in the public interest... The applicants submit that existing Ontario regulations are not protective of human health with respect to adverse health'effects of PM2,5. The applicants refer to several of Ontario's Environmental regulations and state the following: - Environmental Protection Act (EPA) which provides provincial authority to regulate Ontario pollution, but has authorized no regulation of PM2.5; and, provides that the director may issue a Certificate of Approval (CofA) to .discharge a contaminant, and regulations prescribe conditions and criteria that apply to such decisions, but no such conditions or criteria address PM2.5. 8 -76 Ontario Regulation 419/05 Air Pollution — Local Air Quality which includes a standard for suspended particulate (particulate matter less than 44 µ.m in diameter) which is regulated for "visibility" issues. It does not regulate PM2.5 which causes serious health effects. This regulation requires no consideration of background ambient air quality, and Is not suitable to protect public health as there is no safe level of PM2.5. The now revoked Ontario Regulation 337 Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) which included an AAQC for suspended particulate but did not address fine PM and its health effects. This regulation was replaced by "Ontario's Ambient Air Quality Criteria" (February 2008) which does not include an AAQC for PM2_5. Even if it did, there is no legal requirement that an area not exceed any applicable AAQC; nor is there any requirement that the ministry consider the AAQC or existing ambient air quality when making GofA decisions- - Existing regulations do not address PM2.5 precursor pollutants. Existing regulations do not address existing ambient PM2_s levels in Ontario air. The applicants have recommended that the proposed Act or regulation would have eight components: 1) It would focus on the airborne contaminant posing the greatest danger to human health, namely PM2.6. 2) it would regulate not only direct emissions of fine PM2.3r but also the PM2.5 resulting from the emissions of "precursor" substances, that is, substances that mix together in the atmosphere to create additional quantities of PM2.5 3) it would apply initially to "major emitters" of PM2,5 and precursor substances; but would provide an approach that could be applied eventually to all other significant existing and proposed sources of PM2.,; 4) for an emitter, it would require three - dimensional mapping that would illustrate the extent of the affected airshed, as well as the concentration of PM2,6within the affected airshed due to the proposed emitter (the "affected airshed "); 5) it would require an emitter to evaluate, using an appropriate atmospheric dispersion model that has the capacity to address atmospheric chemistry, the combined air concentrations across the affected airshed of: a) the existing levels of P%.% in the affected airshed, and b) the future levels of PM2.5 resulting from the proposed source of new emissions of PM2,5directly, and as a result of now emissions of precursor substances; B) it would assess the risks to public health (i.e., communities or populations) associated with predicted ambient concentrations of PM2.6 in the affected airshed, being a combination of, a) predicted ambient levels of PM2_5 resulting from the proposed emitter; together with, b) existing ambient levels PM2.5 within the affected airshed; W; 8 -77 7) it would establish a limit on ambient concentrations of PM2.5 that is based on health risks to people within the affected airshed, such that existing or future sources of etblSsions would be prohibited where they present an unacceptable degree of health risk; and, 8) it would ensure assessments are publicly communicated to affected communities in advance of any regulatory decision - making, and that affected communities have an appropriate opportunity to comment on such assessments and possible deoisions, and an opportunity to use existing EBR rights to appeal any decision of concern. The applicants state that the province has a responsibility to address the problem and to compel reduced emissions or intrusions of PM2,5 and precursor substances into Ontario air. It is the applicants' position that a new Act or regulation is needed since existing Ontario regulations are not protective of human health respecting the adverse effects of PM2.5- The applicants recommend that a committee be struck to conduct the review and make recommendations to the minister on an expedited basis. The applicants recommend that the committee comprise: the Ontario Medical Association, Medical Officers of Health, and any other person the minister considers may have relevant environmental or public health expertise, interest or local authority over public health matters. 3. Ministry Review of Application The decision to assess this EBR Application for Review (Application) has been delegated by the Minister of the Environment (Minister) to the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of the 'Integrated Environmental Policy Division. The assessment of this Application involved staff from the ministry's Air policy and Climate Change Branch, Standards Development Branch, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, the Environmental Assessments and Approval Branch and Operations Division. The assessment was based on the evidence provided in the application as well as ministry initiatives that address the Applicant's request. Air Management of Fine Particulate Matter in Ontario PM2.5 may be directly emitted from processes ranging from transportation to residential to industrial sources or it may be a secondary pollutant generated through complex reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 in ambient air presents significant air quality management challenges because of the wide -range of sources and the long distances it can travel; as a result, PM2.5 requires a broad regional air management strategy and is difficult to manage at a local level. To illustrate, the ministry has conducted a series of studies in the Clarkson area of southern Ontario. The Clarkson Airshed is typical of urban areas in southern Ontario with significant industry, heavy traffic volumes, residential intensification and impacts 3 8 -78 from transboundary pollution. The Clarkson Airshed Study' showed that the most significant contributor to contaminant concentrations measured at ministry monitoring stations was vehicular emissions. Vehicular emissions can account for over 49% of fine PM and nitrogen oxides (NO,) in ambient air in this part of Ontario. Residential and transboundary sources were also found to be significant: it was concluded that 39% of observed PM2.5 levels could be attributed to sources outside of the study area On occasion, long range transport from the United States contributed to over 50% of the measured PM2.51evels in the Clarkson Airshed. The results of the Clarkson study illustrate how PM2.5 is a complex air quality problem that requires a comprehensive management strategy to address not only industrial emissions, but also residential, transportation and transboundary sources of PM2,5 and PM2.5 precursors. Ontario has responded to the PM2.5 challenge by making commitments towards reducing PM2.5 concentrations and emissions of precursors including a 45% reduction of nitrogen oxide (NO,) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions from 1990 values by 2015 under Ontario's Anti -Smog Action Plan; a 50% reduction of sulphur dioxide (S02) emissions beyond the 1985 Countdown Acid Rain Cap by 2015; and achieving the Canadian Council of Ministers (CCME) Canada - Wide Standards (CWS) for PM2.5 and ozone by 2010. With respect to the targets described above, provincial NOx-emissions had been reduced by 33% and VOC emissions had been reduced by 42% (based on 2007 data). In 2007 Ontario also met its commitment to reduce S02 emissions by 50% - 8 years ahead of schedule. AS described in more detail below, Ontario has implemented comprehensive regulations and programs to address ambient levels of PM2.5 and continues to take significant action to improve air quality across Ontario. Many of these regulations and programs directly address components of the applicants' recommendations for a proposed new air regulation. Ontario's approach has resulted in measurable reductions in emissions of PM2.5 and precursors, and improvements to air quality.. Canada -Wide Standard for PM2,5 The ministry is very aware of the human health burden associated with fine particulate matter and acknowledges the results of the various studies presented in the application. Ontario has adopted the Canada -wide Standard (CWS) for PM2.52 developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). The CWS is 30 µq/m3 24- hour averaging time to be met by 2010. Achievement is to be based on the 98 percentile ambient measurement annually, averaged over three consecutive years. ' Ontario Ministry of tho Environment, 2008. Clarkson Airshed Study- A Scientific Approach to Improving Air Quality - Part III The Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Source Contribution Assessment. http:// www, ene. gov .on.ca/iDublications /6768e.pdf z Canada -wide Standards for Particulate Matter (PM) and ()lone, Canadian COtmcil of Ministers of the Environment, 2000 http'/ lwww.ccme_ca/a-ssets /pdf /pmozone standard e.pdf 4 • Currently, this standard is under review by the CCME which may result in the standard becoming more stringent. The CWS is implemented on a regional basis with one designated monitoring station placed in each city having a population greater than 100,000. As of 2008, all designated sites in Ontario meet the CWS3. Many of the initiatives that follow are commitments and actions to reduce fine PM concentrations and have helped Ontario meet the CWS. State of the Environment Monitoring and Reporting A component of the adoption of the CWS is the establishment and maintenance of monitoring networks which are needed to characterize fine PM air quality problems, to design management programs and to track progress. The ministry has a network of 40- state -of -the -art Air Quality Index (AQI) stations across the province. The AQI is an indicator of air quality based on air pollutants, including fine PM and its precursors, that have adverse effects on human health and the environment. The ministry takes real -time air quality data from its AQI monitoring stations to produce AQI readings for each location. Index values can be accessed by the public through the ministry's Air Quality Ontario website4. The data from these stations are also used to produce the ministry's annual Air Quality in Ontario reports which are available through the ministry's website5. The ministry monitors air pollution levels and through smog advisories alerts the public when there is a strong likelihood that widespread elevated and persistent smog levels are expected. Members of the public can also subscribe to the Smog Alert Network4 notification service that provides advance warning that poor air quality may be on its way. Current State of Air duality in Ontario Ontario's publicly available 2008 Air Quality in Ontario report provides an overview of Ontario's air quality and presents provincial PM2.5 emissions and ambient concentrations. Highlights of the report with respect to PMZ,5 Include: overall provincial PM�,.S emissions have decreased by approximately 30% in the 10 -year period from 1998 to 2007 while the provincial annual average ambient concentration has decreased by 20 %p from 20036 to 2008; - fine PM emissions from industrial processes have been reduced by over 501/16 in the 10 -year period .from 1998 to 2007; 3 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2010. Air Quality in Ontario 2008 Report. htto:/Avww.ene.gov.on.ca/L)ublications(7356e.t)dI http://www.airQualitvon(a rio,conV 5 www.Ane.aov.on.ca 6 The ministry standardized continuous PM2.5 monitoring across Ontario in 2003 allowing for trend analyses from that date. 5 .m - significant amounts of PM2.5 measured in southern Ontario are of secondary formation and of transboundary origin; the CWS target of 30 µg/m3 was not exceeded at any of the CWS designated sites in 2008, including urban areas such as Toronto, Oshawa and Mississauga; - 75% of Ontario's PM2_5CWS designated sites were at or below 25 }gig /m' in 2008 (CWS is 30 p.g /m); and, PM2.5 levels relative to the CWS have been consistently decreasing in southern Ontario. Similar trends can .also be observed in PM2_5 precursors including NOX and S02. The report also shows how Ontario's PM2.5 omissions profile has changed over the past decade. In 1998, industrial emissions accounted for more than half of Ontario's PM2.5 emissions but have decreased over time to represent less than 85% of emissions in 2007. The dominant sector is now residential where PM2.5 emissions account for 37% of provincial totals, up from 20% in 1998. Regulation of Direct PM2,5 Emissions Ontario does not currently regulate direct emissions of PM2.5 from industrial or commercial facilities. Regulating direct emissions from facilities is not the most effective way to reduce PMZ.5 levels in an airshed since most ambient PM2_5 is secondary in nature and originates from transboundary and transportation sources. We do acknowledge that we have not fully assessed local impacts of individual industrial sources. Regulation of PM2.5 Precursor Emissions Ontario has a broad range of regulations and guidelines in place to address both the regional and local impacts of secondary PM2.5. These include: Ontario's industrial emissions reduction plan and emissions trading program for electricity and industry soctors (0. Reg. 194 /05 and 0. Reg. 397/01) require reduction of emissions through setting caps and trading mechanisms. Limits have been applied for two of the most significant smog and acid -rain causing pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (S02). Since 2003, smog- causing emissions from the electricity soctor have been trending downward. In 2008, Ontario's coal -fired plants had reduced emissions of NOx by 47% and emissions of S02 by 51 % from 2003. The emissions of NOx and S02 for industrial facilities regulated under O, Reg. 194/05 were respectively approximately 5.7% and 4,9% lower in 2008 than 2007. Ontario is leading the way in North America by legally committing to closing coal - fired generation. Closing out coal -fired generation will end emissions from these sources, improve air quality, and reduce smog- causing pollutants. Under O. Rog. 395/01 (Lakeview Generating Station) the closure of the Lakeview Generating C AM Station occurred in April 2005.. O. Reg. 496/07 (Cessation of Coal Use — Atitkokan, l..ambton, Nanticoke and Thunder Bay Generating Stations) requires the owner and operator of the remaining four coal -fired generating stations to cease using coal -as of December 31, 2014. Ontario's EPA, Section 9, requires a facility releasing emissions to the atmosphere to have a Certificate of Approval before it can lawfully operate. A review of an application includes an assessment of air quality impacts and may result in the issuance of a Certificate of Approval with conditions requiring the facility to minimize emissions. Guidelines and codes of practice are used to address PM2.5 and precursor emissions and are enforced through Certificates of Approval, for example: • Guidelines A -1 (Biomedical Waste Incinerators) and A -7 (New Municipal Waste Incinerators) which apply to incinerator systems. The limits in these guidelines include those for particulate matter, S02 and NOx in addition to other compounds. • Guideline A -5 (Atmospheric Emissions from Stationary Combustion Turbines) to control emissions of NOx from new and modified stationary combustion turbines by specifying atmospheric emission limits for NO,,, S02, and carbon monoxide. • Guideline A -9 (NOx Emissions from Boilers and Heaters) imposes NOx emission limits on large boilers and heaters. The purpose of this policy guideline is to reduce smog in Ontario by reducing the emission of NOx by new or modified large boilers and heaters. • Guideline F -1 (Particulate Emissions at New Cement Plants) which establishes emission limits for particulate matter from new cement plants. Ontario has included a 24 -hour value for PM2.5 in its AAQC guideline (February 2008)'. The value is provided with guidance for decision making near individual sources and is most commonly used in environmental assessments, special studies using ambient air monitoring data, and the assessment of general air quality in a community. Ontario recently passed a regulation (0. Reg. 455109) under the Toxics Reduction Act that sets out a framework for toxics reduction action by facilities including requirements to track and evaluate toxics, to develop reduction plans, and to make summaries of plans available to the public. Some of the toxics covered by the regulation contain fine particulate fractions or are precursors to fine PM. Ontario's Environmental assessment Act (EAA) applies to electricity, waste management, and transportation projects as well as a range of public sector infrastructure projects. It defines the Environmental Assessment process which 7 Ontario's Ambient Air Quality Criteria, 2008, htti):I/www.ene.,qov.0n.ca/publir-ations/6570e-chem.pdf 7 8-82 evaluates potential environmental effects of a project or undertaking, including an assessment of any contaminants emitted to air, such as PM2.5 if applicable. O. Reg. 419/05 (Air Pollution – Local Air Quality) is a general air pollution regulation requiring industrial and commercial point sources to limit emissions of a broad range of contaminants which includes total suspended PM and fine PM precursors (i.e., SO2, NOxand some specific VOCS) based on acceptable, health - based point -of- impingement concentration standards. The regulation also outlines emission estimating and dispersion modelling requirements. Transportation Initiatives Ontario has a variety of transportation initiatives to improve air quality both today and in the future: Ontario's Drive Clean program is an emissions inspection and maintenance program for vehicles. From 1999 to 2005, the program reduced smog - causing emissions from light duty vehicles by more than 150,000 tonnes. The Drive Clean Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (HDDV) program targets harmful emissions from large trucks and buses. During the 6 year period from 2000 to 2005, Drive Clean reduced fine PM from heavy duty diesel vehicles by nearly 1,300 tonnes. Drive Clean requirements are based on O. Reg. 361/98 (Motor Vehicles). Public transit is a priority for Ontario. in spring 2009, the government announced that Ontario is moving ahead with over $9 billion in priority rapid transit projects (the Big 5') identified in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, Construction Is underway on two projects — the Sheppard East L.RT in Toronto and York Viva Bus Rapid Transit. All five projects are expected to be completed by 2020. In order to address automotive sulphur emissions before federally regulated limits came into effect in 2005, Ontario implemented the Sulphur -in -Gas Reporting Regulation (O. Reg. 212/02). The regulation required Ontario gasoline manufacturers, blenders and importers to report to the government on the average level of sulphur in their gasoline. Transboundary Ontario is taking strong action on transboundary sources of air pollution which significantly affect the air that Ontarian's breathe. This includes: Ontario's active participation in the Canadian federal delegation for the Canada - US Air Quality Agreement. The federal government will be negotiating a PM Annex under this agreement; the Annex will include emission reduction commitments, and monitoring and reporting commitments. Ontario has implemented a four -point Transboundary Air Strategy in, support of the Premier's commitments at the 2005 Shared Air Summit. The strategy includes pursuing cooperative agreements with the United States, supporting M. RMIN U.S. states in legal battles with Washington for cleaner air, public education campaigns and enhancing scientific research, air quality monitoring and emissions modelling. New Initiatives In addition to the activities described above, Ontario is actively working to address airborne fine PM through other forums and processes, including incorporating cumulative effects assessment in decision making processes and establishing the Southwest Greater Toronto Area (SWGTA) Air Quality Task force. The ministry is currently reviewing how it applies the principles of its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV), including cumulative effects assessment and the ecosystem approach, in its environmentally significant decision making. Through this process the ministry is developing the long -term tools, including science, policies and guidelines to support the application of an ecosystem approach. The SEV places priority first on prevention and second on minimizing the creation of pollutants that cause damage to the environment. Ontario established the SWGTA Air Quality Task Force in September 2009, Dr. David Salsillie was appointed as the one- person Task Force in late November 2009. The Task Force has developed an Action Plan making recommendations on managing air pollution in the SWGTA in order to improve air quality now and in the future. The Action Plan examines how to reduce air emissions from industry, transportation and residential sources. The work of the Task Force is directly relevant to future ministry policies and programs for managing "local airsheds" in the rest of the province. The Order in Council which established the Task Force required the Action Plan to recommend: air quality improvement targets; timelines for achieving the targets; strategies for achieving the targets; reporting requirements for implementing the action plan; reporting requirements; and oversight, coordination and leadership for plan implementation. The Task Force appointed a Community Advisory Committee of residents, Industries, tier 1 and tier 2 municipalities, and the Chief Medical Officers of Health for Halton and Peel. Public Communication of Regulatory Decision- making The applicants state a need for public communication and comment in advance of regulatory decision - making. The ministry posts all environmentally significant proposals on the Environmental Registry. Under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), any member of the public can participate in ministry decisions about the environment and hold the government accountable for those decisions. The public has the right to comment on environmentally significant government proposals, to seek permission to appeal a ministry decision, or to ask a ministry to review a law or investigate harm to the environment. �9 : :E The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) has public consultation and notification requirements; therefore, projects subject to approval under the EAA are not required to be posted on the Environmental Registry for comment. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is both a study and planning process which evaluates the potential environmental effects and benefits of a project or undertaking on the environment. Projects subject to an EA require public notification and a public review period. More information regarding the EA process can be found on the ministry's website. 4. Review decision The ministry has implemented a comprehensive strategy to address fine particulate emissions and precursors in Ontario. The province has accomplished this through its comprehensive regulatory framework, adoption of the CWS, emission guidelines and other programs which address a wide range of industrial and non - industrial sources of fine particulate matter. The ministry is also actively addressing the issues identified by the applicants through its SEV review. The applicants' evidence and proposed regulatory components do not consider many of the measures currently in place nor the resulting significant improvements in air quality. The ministry does acknowledge that there may be a policy gap with respect to domestic sources of primary PM2.5. After careful consideration of the information available and the requirements of the EBR, the ADM of the Integrated Environmental Policy Division has concluded that a review by the ministry is warranted of the effectiveness of the current policy framework in addressing PM2.5. This review will include an assessment of the need to revise the policy approach to direct emissions of PM2,6. Other aspects of the request, such as cumulative effects, are already currently under review as part of the SEV review. Please note that the review will take a minimum of fifteen (15) months to complete. 10 : Attachment 6 To PSD- 028 -11 Western Climate Initiative Clean Energy: Creating Jobs, Protecting the Environment The WCI has achieved consensus on a regional strategy to reduce green- house gas emissions that accommodates the diversity of its 11 Partner juris diction and is a model for transitioning to a green economy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. From the Arizona deserts to the mountains of British Columbia, from the high -tech campuses of Silicon Valley to the automobile manufacturing plants of Ontario, the seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces that comprise the Western Climate Initiative reflect diverse geographies, industries, climates, populations, and energy and transportation infrastructures. They have one important thing in common, however: a commitment to building a green economy and reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are leading to climate change. Worlang together, the WCI states and provinces have achieved a unique consensus, forging a comprehensive strategy to mitigate climate change and spur investment in clean- energy technologies that create green jobs and reduce our dependence on " foreign oil. When fully implemented, the plan will cover go percent of GHG emis- sions in the region and will reduce those emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Western Climate Initiative The WCI Partner jurisdictions' regional approach is based on extensive economic analyses and stake- holder input over three years of technical work, collaboration, and compromise. It reflects an un- derstanding among the WCI jurisdictions that a comprehensive solution to our economic, energy, and environmental challenges requires a coordi- nated regional strategy that respects the interests, needs, and circumstances of each jurisdiction. A Comprehensive Initiative The WCI jurisdictions' regional plan includes the following elements: Carbon emissions limits. A market -based cap - and -trade system will provide incentives for com- panies and inventors to seek out new technologies that increase energy efficiency, promote greater use of renewable or lower - polluting fuels, and foster process improvements that reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Offset credits. To reduce abatement costs for emitters, a limited number of emissions offset cred- its will be allowed for projects in industries outside the capped sectors —such as forestry and agricul- ture. Complementary policies. To achieve the re- gional GHG emissions reduction goal and en- courage investments in low- carbon technologies, complementary policies that work in concert with cap- and -trade are essential. The WCI jurisdictions will continue to explore— together and individu- 2 ally — policies that work in concert with cap -and- trade to lower carbon emissions and reduce the cost of transitioning to a green economy. These include: • Energy efficiency measures. Energy efficiency programs, standards, incentives, and process improvements that make factories, buildings, homes, and appliances more energy efficient and reduce fuel consumption. Clean car standards. Standards for new passen- ger vehicles that reduce carbon emissions and fuel costs for consumers. • Renewable energy. Solar photovoltaic systems, community -scale wind turbines, geothermal systems, and generating systems that run on Waste material to help meet power needs and reduce GHG emissions. • Low - carbon fuel standards. Low - carbon fuel standards that encourage use of alternative transportation fuels, including electricity, bio- fuels, and hydrogen. The Economic Case for Action Clean- energy policies are good for the environment as well as for the economy. The WCI's economic modeling suggests that complementary policies will result in cost savings to the regional economy of more than US$ioo billion from 2012 to 2020. In combination with the cap- and -trade program and offset credits, the policies will also foster in- novation, investment, and job creation in the green economy. AM Western Climate Initiative U.S. Partner jurisdictions comprise 19% of the total U.S. population and 20% of the U.S. GDP Canadian Partner jurisdictions comprise 79% of the total Canadian population and 76% of the Canadian GDP. Manitoba Ontario GDP ........................ 48,586 Million C$ GDP ......................... 582,019 Million C$ Population .................. 1,186,700 ................. ............................... ...................... Population................... 12,803,900 Largest Source of Emission .. Transportation Largest Source of Emission ... Transportation British Columbia Quebec GDP ............ :........... 190,24 Mi GDP ......................... 298,157 Million C$ Population .................. 4,380,300 Population................... 7,700,500 Largest Source of Emission.. Transportation Largest Source of Emission ... Transportation 1J, " GDP ........................ 311,270 Million US$ mile Population .................. 6,468,424 Largest Source of Emission .. Transportation i 6 Oregon ... GDP ........................ 158,233 Million US$ Population. ................. 3,747,455 Largest Source of Emission .: Transportation California q GDP ........................ 1,812,968 Million US$ a Population .................. 36,553,215 ................ Largest Source of Emission .. Transportation Arizona GDP ........................ 247,028 Million US$ Population .................. 6,338,755 ........................... Largest Source of Emission.. Electricity `i- Wd —rihal lands W. Partners MEN, Observers Observers CANADA: Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Yukon; UNITED STATES: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming; MEXICO: Baja California, Chihuahua; Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, Tamaulipas Source for US data: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Source for Canadian data: Statistics Canada U.S. and Canada population figures 2009; U.S. and Canada GDP figures 2008 mom ................. ........: .._, Montana u ...... GDP ............. ...................957,861 34,253 Million US$ a ........ ................. Largest Source of Emission ... Electricity .....:. ....:........ Utah GDP ......................... 105,658 Million US$ Population ................... 2,645,330 ;.- Largest Source of Emission ... Electricity g g New Mexico GDP ......................... 76,178 Million US$ " " " " " " " " "" Population ................... 1,969,915 Largest Source of Emission ... Electricity W. Partners MEN, Observers Observers CANADA: Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Yukon; UNITED STATES: Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Wyoming; MEXICO: Baja California, Chihuahua; Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora, Tamaulipas Source for US data: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Source for Canadian data: Statistics Canada U.S. and Canada population figures 2009; U.S. and Canada GDP figures 2008 mom Western Climate Initiative The WCI jurisdictions are already realizing econom- ic benefits from the green economy. In the U.S., for example, the seven state jurisdictions comprise 20 percent of the U.S. economy but garnered 6o per- cent of venture capital investments directed toward clean - technology businesses from 2006 to 2008. In 2007, the proportion of green businesses and green jobs in the economies of the WCI state jurisdictions was 20 percent higher than in the U.S. economy as a whole. And in British Columbia, green businesses contributed C$15.3 billion to the provincial econo- my in 2008 and accounted for nearly 166,000 jobs either directly or indirectly. B.C.'s green economy is expected to grow significantly in the next decade, reaching 225,000 jobs in 2020. Looking Ahead More than half the states and provinces have action plans in place to transition to clean - energy econo- mies. The WCI jurisdictions collaborate regularly with the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeastern U.S. on cap- and -trade program design, complementary policies, and other efforts. They also share information with 15 jurisdictions in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. that have "official observer" status with the WCI. In addition, the WCI jurisdictions work closely with our national governments to explore how the WCI jurisdictions' plan can complement other national and international efforts to transition to a green economy and mitigate the effects of climate change. The WCI jurisdictions are moving forward on sev- eral fronts, including: More Information: www.westernclimateinitiative. • Release of the Detailed Design Summary in summer 2010. This document will support im- plementation of the cap- and -trade program by the jurisdictions. • Development of protocols associated with the emissions offset program. • Setting of carbon emission allowance budgets for each jurisdiction. • Ongoing collaboration and development of complementary policies. 4 C laris Le�ingthe Wr� n REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report #: PSD- 029 -11 File #: ZBA 2011 -0006 Subject: APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF PART LOT CONTROL APPLICANT: MAPLE WOODS LAND CORPORATION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report PSD- 029 -11 be received; 2. THAT the request for removal of Part Lot Control with respect to Block 26, in Plan 40M- 2265; and Block 137, in Plan 40M -2337 be approved and that the attached Part Lot Control By -law be passed pursuant to Section 50 (7.1) of the Planning Act; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 029 -11, any delegations and the Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by, Da id ` Crome, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning Services B R/C P /av /df March 10, 2011 Reviewed by, Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 E -x'111 REPORT NO.: PSD- 029 -11 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION 1.1 Applicant: Maple Woods Land Corporation 1.2 Part Lot Control: To allow the creation of one (1) semi detached /link residential lot (2 units) 1.3 Location: 372 and 376 West Scugog Lane, Bowmanville Lot 16, Concession 2, Town of Bowmanville (Attachment 1) 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On March 2, 2011, Planning Staff received a request from George Smith on behalf of Maple Woods Land Corporation for Removal of Part Lot Control with respect to Block 26, in Plan 40M -2265; and Block 137, in Plan 40M -2337 (see Attachment 1). 2.2 Plan 40M -2265 was registered on August 19, 2005, containing 24 lots for single detached dwellings and one lot for two semi - detached /link dwelling lots. Plan 40M -2337 was registered December 14, 2006, containing 136 lots for single detached dwellings. 2.3 Building permits have been issued for two link residential dwellings and they are now under construction. 2.4 Each block is in a registered plan of subdivision; therefore, there is an existing agreement in place to cover the Municipality's financial interest. 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS 3.1 Staff has no objection to the approval of a By -law exempting the subject lands from Part Lot Control. Attached is a By -law (Attachment 2) to exempt the subject lands from Section 50 (5) of the Planning Act pursuant to the provisions of Section 50 (7) of the Planning Act. 3.2 In accordance with the procedures established in the delegation of Part Lot Control By- laws, a copy of the "Unit Type and Number Summary Table" (Attachment 3), along with a copy of the Removal of Part Lot Control By -law will be forwarded to the Regional Planning Department. 3.3 The Finance Department advises that the taxes have been paid in full. 3.4 In accordance with Subsection 7.3 of Section 50 of the Planning Act, the By -law may provide a specified timeframe during which the By -law shall be in force. As a result, it is not necessary for Staff to prepare a second By -law to restore Part Lot Control on the subject lands. The Planning Act leaves it to the Municipality to determine an appropriate 8 -91 REPORT NO.: PSD- 029 -11 PAGE 3 timeframe during which the By -law shall apply. Given that there are only two dwellings subject to the application and they are both already under construction, staff recommends that the By -law be in force for a period of one year following Council approval, ending March 28, 2012. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 It is recommended that Council approve this application and adopt the attached Removal of Part Lot Control By -law for Block 26, in Plan 40M -2265; and Block 137, in Plan 40M -2337. Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — By -law for Removal of Part Lot Control Attachment 3 —'Unit Type and Number Summary Table Interested Parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Hannu T. Halminen Lisa Eagleson 8 -92 0 X cu -0 0 ,4.D -0 � U) v 03 N c0 CD Property Location Map (Bowmanville) I N U1 °" a J Subject Site Ifj° + � u U (n � i w o C, AVENUE BONS ZBA 2011 -0006 Removal Of Part Lot Control Owner: Maple Woods Land Corp. N 0 X cu -0 0 ,4.D -0 � U) v 03 N c0 CD THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NO. 2011 - being a by -law to exempt a certain portion of Registered Plan 40M -2265 and a certain portion of Registered Plan 40M -2337 from Part Lot Control WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to exempt from Part Lot Control, Block 26, in Plan 40M -2265; and Block 137, in Plan 40M -2337 both registered at the Land Title Division of Whitby; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Subsection 5 of Section 50 of the Planning Act shall not apply to those lands described in Paragraph 2 within the By -law. 2. That this By -law shall come into effect upon being approved by the Municipality of Clarington and thereafter Subsection 5 of Section 50 shall cease to apply to the following lands: a) Block 26 of Plan 40M -2265; and b) Block 137 of Plan 40M- 2337. 3. Pursuant to Subsection 7.3 of Section 50 of the Planning Act, this By -law shall be force for a period of one (1) year ending on March 28, 2012. BY -LAW read a first time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a second time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2011 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk Attachment 2 To Report PSD- 029 -11 [.*ME Attachment 3 To Report PSD- 029 -11 PART LOT CONTROL EXEMPTION BY -LAW Unit Type and Number Summary Table 40M -2265 and 40M -2337 MT �Yx f�'.'' til Z .#v§ � '+��kkk t s� AM AM 2 +az (Result XR *�APPRQfED s Y Y lBlocCS,x @, "� �fi U­ mt Type and Number .7r�'•:: v� ^, t of PaLot Control Exeipt�onxon Unit�Typ e d N an , i� 8 S �rnber Block 26, in Plan 40M- Linked / Semi - Detached Dwelling (2) No Change 2265; and Block 137, in Plan 40M -2337 TOTAL Units - 2 No Change E•sN REPO ITT L Way ENGINEERING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday March 21, 2011 Report #: EGD- 009 -11 Subject: File #: By -law #: PROPOSED GOODYEAR DAM FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 009 -11 be received; 2. THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the Collaborative Agreement; and 3. THAT all partners in the Collaborative Agreement be advised of Council's action. Respectfully by, Submitted by: A. . Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services ASC /PW /jo February 17, 2011 Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 - 623 -9282 9 -1 REPORT NO.: EGD- 009 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 1.1 Valleys 2000 was incorporated in May 1999 as a non - profit charitable organization of volunteers with a mandate to develop, enhance, and promote, trails, river bank improvements, fish and wildlife habitat along parts of the Bowmanville and Soper Creek Valleys. In order to increase the effectiveness of trout and salmon migration in the Bowmanville Creek, Valleys 2000 in conjunction with CLOCA have prepared a preliminary plan and terms of reference for the design and construction of a Fish Bypass Channel around the existing Goodyear Dam. The dam is located in the Bowmanville Valley on land that the Municipality leases from Veyance Technologies Canada Inc. An artist's rendering of the Bypass Channel is included as Attachment 1 to this report. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Municipality, renewed to October 31, 2014 has allowed Valleys 2000 to complete many projects in the Bowmanville and Soper Creek Valleys on municipally owned or leased land. One of the Municipal responsibilities in the MOU is "Coordinating, designing, tendering and supervising any contractor Works on behalf of Valleys 2000, subsequent to receipt of all funds from Valleys 2000 for a specified project." 2.0 COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT 2.1 Valleys 2000 is pursuing funding for the construction of the project from various sources, including the Ontario Trillium Foundation, Great Lakes Watershed Fund, Department of Fisheries and Oceans and others. To demonstrate support for the project a Collaborative Agreement has been prepared by Valleys 2000 that includes the Municipality, CLOCA, Veyance Technologies Canada Inc. (Goodyear), OPG, and the Float Fishing Conservation Group. The purpose of the Collaborative Agreement (Attachment 2) is to outline the roles and responsibilities of REPORT NO.: EGD- 009 -11 PAGE 3 each group on the project. Clarington's role in the Collaborative Agreement is defined as follows: "Clarington shall tender and award all construction contracts for. the project subsequent to receipt of all funds from Valleys 2000, and will supervise and manage the construction of the project works in conjunction with the Project Work Team." The Goodyear Dam Fish Bypass Channel project would be tendered through the Purchasing and Supply Services Division once the required funds are raised by Valleys 2000 and when approvals from relevant agencies are obtained. The project could begin in 2011 or 2012. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Concept Plan Attachment 2 - Collaborative Agreement ,!,M3 !Iplobe ATTACHMENT NO.:2 REPORT NO.: EGD- 009 -11 Goodyear Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT Between Valleys 2000 (Bowmanville) Inc. ( "Valleys ") Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority ( "CLOCA ") Veyance Technologies Canada Inc. Exclusive Manufacturers of Goodyear Engineered Products ( "Veyance ") Ontario Power Generation ( "OPG ") Float Fishing Conservation Group ( "Conservation Group ") . Municipality of Clarington ( "Clarington ") Project Background Valleys was incorporated in May of 1999 as a non - profit charitable organization of . volunteers to develop, enhance, promote and preserve trails, river bank improvements, fish and wildlife habitat, and special natural areas along parts of the Bowmanville and Soper Creeks leading to Lake Ontario ....for the recreation, benefit and enjoyment of residents of the community. Under a Memorandum of Understanding with Clarington, now renewed to December 31, 2014, Valleys has completed many improvements to the Bowmanville Creek Valley with the assistance of grants and volunteers including a Nature Pond (Trillium Grant), a Trail Bridge (Courtice Secondary School), a Butterfly Garden (St. Stephen's Secondary School), River Bank Reconstruction (Floating Fishers Group and Don Rickard), a commemorative Forest (now 20 trees) and the planting over 1000 trees and establishing "Woodland" and "Riverside" trails (500 meters). As of November 30, 2010, there have been donations of $245,886.00 worth of equipment and materials, $118,420.00 worth of hours of volunteers time ($10 per hour) and total donated funds of $193,900.00. In June of 2010, a survey taken on a rainy weekend showed 1,000 people using the Bowmanville Valley walking trails. In April of 2008, CLOCA, the Conservation Authority having jurisdiction over the Bowmanville Creek Valley, prepared a Terms of Reference for the design of the Goodyear Fish Passage Improvement Project. The project's objective is to increase the effectiveness of fish migration in the area of the Goodyear Dam, to maintain Veyance's ability to obtain water for their rubber manufacturing plant, and to enhance the trail system. Greck and Associates of Brampton made a proposal for engineering services in May of 2008 and in consultation with the collaborators in this Agreement, Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Canada (Fisheries and Oceans Fish Habitat Management and Sea control), prepared a draft report in September of 2009 and a Final Report in January of 2010. The recommendation of this report was to construct a small bypass channel around the dam with a leaping component to prevent the upstream passage of Sea Lamprey, a non native migrating species found in Lake Ontario. The bypass channel is a cost effective solution and will provide cultural and educational values to our community. Page 1 of 4 9 -5 Name of the Collaborative The Goodyear Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project Collaborative Names of Member Groups 1. Valleys 2000 (Bowmanville) Inc. ( "Valleys ") 2. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority ( "CLOCA ") 3. Veyance Technologies Canada Inc., Exclusive Manufacturers of Goodyear Engineered Products ( "Veyance ") 4. Ontario Power Generation ( "OPG ") 5. Float Fisherman Conservation Group ( "Conservation Group ") 6. Municipality of Clarington ( "Clarington ") Purposes The collaborative was formed to assist Valleys with the implementation of the Goodyear Dam Fish Passage Improvement Project to increase the effectiveness of fish migration in the area of the Goodyear Dam, to maintain Veyance's ability to obtain water for their rubber manufacturing plant and to maintain and enhance the existing trail system and more specifically to: - review and support the final engineering plans for the project; - help our community take an active role in stewardship activities that protect nature, fish habitat and the environment through volunteering activities; - assess the supporting trails and natural area adjacent to the project to make improvements for enhanced public use and enjoyment; - recommend ways to increase, support and implement activities, programs and signage designed to increase public use and appreciation of the natural heritage and trail system; - work with Valleys on development and maintenance programs for the project; and - assist Valleys in their fundraising activities. Decision Makinil Process The project could take until September of 2012 to complete depending on the success of Valleys in fundraising efforts. It will be constructed pursuant to the current Memorandum of Understanding between Clarington and Valleys through a Joint Project Work Team which will provide monthly reports during construction and post construction. Six organizations make up the Collaborative Committee; the quorum number is four. Each collaborator shall appoint 1 member save Valleys which shall appoint three members (members of the Project Team) but only have one vote. In order to assure that a quorum is always present at a meeting, the regular attendees will arrange a substitute from their organization if they are unable to attend. If this is not possible, they will notify Valleys. Meetings will be rescheduled in advance if a quorum is not anticipated. Page 2 of 4 If any decision cannot be made through the "consensus process ", it will be necessary to reach a decision by a majority vote. In order to reduce the frequency and number of meeting, Valleys may poll the members of the Collaborative Committee by internet on any item that requires authorization of the Committee. If a unanimous vote cannot be reached, a meeting will be called. It is intended that the Collaborative Committee will meet monthly during construction and at other times as required and notified on four (4) days notice by one of the Valley's members. Roles and Responsibilities of Collaborative Members 1. Valleys will be the lead applicant taking responsibility for managing the project with Clarington under its Memorandums of Understanding, speak publically on behalf of the Collaborative, complete the fundraising necessary for the project and call meetings of the committee. 2. Clarington shall tender and award all construction contracts for the project subsequent to receipt of all funds from Valleys 2000, and supervise and manage the construction of the project works in conjunction with the Joint Project Work Team. CLOCA will render assistance in assuring that regulatory and permit requirements for the project are met with regard to the Conservation Authorities Act, and also assist in dealing with and obtaining necessary permits and observing regulations of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Canada regarding Fish Habitat and the Sea Lamprey control. 4. Veyance shall endorse or sign off the final engineering drawings and be satisfied that all works relating to accumulation of silt, protection of the dam and an adequate water supply of water for its purposes are satisfactory. Veyance will sign off on any documents regarding the dam and its environs required by any regulatory body for the works to proceed. OPG shall make recommendations regarding education, signage and programs to promote the project, fish habitat, river and environment protection and trail use. 6. Conservation Group shall continue its volunteer role in providing ongoing assistance in river bank protection and fish - angling activity. 7. All Collaborators shall review the plans for the project and make recommendations for improvements with regard to maintenance, public use and safety. Page 3 of 4 9 -7 Signatures of authorized members of each group and Clarington: Valleys 2000 (Bowmanville) Inc. ( "Valleys ") Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority ( "CLOCA ") Veyance Technologies Canada Inc. ( "Veyance ") Ontario Power Generation ( "OPG ") Float Fishing Conservation Group ( "Conservation Group ") Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Date: Page 4 of 4 Leading the Way REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday March 21, 2011 Resolution #: Report #: EGD- 010 -11 File #: B.02.13.016 By -law #: Subject: LONGWORTH ESTATES SUBDIVISION PHASE 2, BOWMANVILLE, PLAN 40M -2242, `CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE' AND `ASSUMPTION BY -LAW', FINAL WORKS INCLUDING ROADS AND OTHER RELATED WORKS Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report EGD- 010 -11 be received; 2. THAT the Director of Engineering Services be authorized to issue a 'Certificate of Acceptance' for the Final Works, which include final stage roads and other related Works, constructed within Plan 40M -2242; and 3. THAT Council approve the by -law attached to Report EGD- 010 -11, assuming certain streets within Plan 40M -2242 as public highways. Respectfully by, Sub itted by: A.S. Cannella Director of Engineering Services ASC /jo February 18, 2011 Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer =9 REPORT NO.: EGD- 010 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 1.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington entered into a Subdivision Agreement, registered July 26, 1999, with Veltri and Son Limited, to develop lands by plan of subdivision, located in Bowmanville and described as Plan 40M -2242 (Attachment 1). The agreement required the developer to construct all roadworks, including hot -mix paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees, a storm drainage system and streetlights, hereinafter referred to as the 'Works'. 1.2 The Subdivision Agreement provides for the separation of the Works into five (5) stages: a) Initial Works; b) Street Lighting System, C) Final Works; d) Stormwater Management System (not applicable); and e) Longworth Avenue Works (not applicable) 1.3 The Initial Works and Street Lightinq System were issued 'Certificates of Completion' and subsequent 'Certificates of Acceptance' by the Director of Engineering Services, as per the maintenance requirements set out in the Subdivision Agreement. 1.4 The Final Works were issued a 'Certificate of Completion' dated June 15, 2009. This initiated a one (1) year maintenance period, which expired on June 15, 2010. The Works were re- inspected at that time, and all deficiencies have now been rectified to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 1.5 It is now appropriate to issue a 'Certificate of Acceptance' for the Final Works. The Subdivision Agreement requires Council approval prior to the issuance of the 'Certificate of Acceptance' for the Final Works. 9 -10 REPORT NO.: EGD- 010 -11 PAGE 3 1.6 Further to the issuance of a 'Certificate of Acceptance', a by -law is required to permit the Municipality to assume certain streets within Plan 40M -2242 as public highways (Attachment 2). Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map Attachment 2 - Proposed By -law 9 -11 W. U Q Z VESNA COU Q J W Y � P��Nv G�OV- LON , Longworth Estates � 00 Subdivision ,;'� \� °o4,gN Phase 2 — o� Plan 40M -2242 C, WMANVILLE r CO Bons =A�e r �s,;yil[�1Ili 11� ILL !' ffnnT \,v C IIlfI i f9,�! All quip --CLV MTT rDRAWN BY: E.L. 1 �,��,- �- -._ I_ F- w w c� O c� U co W F- U) U w U) O N W�E S FOURTH STRI DATE: March 4, 2011 �PMV � 'i" REPORT EGD- 010 -11 KEY MAP ATTACHMENT NO. 1 GAA tachments\40M- 2242.mxd THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NO. 2011 -XXX Being a By -law to assume certain streets within the Municipality of Clarington as public highways in the Municipality of Clarington. The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: THAT the streets and blocks shown on Plan 40M -2242, and listed below in this section, all being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, are hereby accepted by the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highways, and assumed by the said Corporation for public use: Don Morris Court Dolan Court Carlson Place Block 48 (road widening) BY -LAW read a first and second time this Vh day of XXXX, 2011. BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this XXt' day of XXXX, 2011. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie; Municipal Clerk ATTACHMENT NO.:2 REPORT NO.: EGD- 010 -11 9 -13 Oarftwn REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Date: MAR 21, 2011 Resolution #: Report #: EGD- 011 -11 File #: By -law #: Subject: BUILDING PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEE AMENDMENTS AND NEW BUILDING BY -LAW RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 011 -11 be received; 2. THAT the Building By -Law be revised to reflect the changes necessitated by the new provisions of the Building Code; 3. THAT the building permit fee and inspection fee structure as detailed in the new Building By -Law be approved; 4. THAT the Building By -Law be revised to include the annual indexing percentage of 3 %, effective January 1st each year; 5. THAT the new Building By -Law be effective April 4, 2011; 6. THAT the Building By -Law attached to Report EGD- 011 -11 as Attachment 1, inclusive of any amendments made by Council at the meeting of March 21, 2011, be recommended to Council for approval to rescind and replace By -Law 2005- 145, as amended; and 7. THAT all recorded interested parties be notified of Council's decision. Submitted by: �' �Ll i' Reviewed by:"` At. Cannella, Franklin Wu, Director of Engineering Chief Administrative Officer ASC /RP /hjl CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 9_14 Report EGD- 011 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND Page 2 1.1 In the spring of 2005, the Municipality retained the services of Hemson Consulting Limited to undertake a building permit fees study in order to comply with Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 - Bill 124. This study analyzed the costs of administering and enforcing the Building Code in the Municipality and making recommendations regarding the new building permit fees necessary to recoup the cost of providing the required building permit services. 1.2 The current building permit fees were approved by Council through report EDG- 24 -05 and By -Law # 2005 -145 with the intention that the building permit and inspection fees remain the same for a five year period (2005 to 2010). The building permit fees study was to be updated in 2010 to determine if the present permit fees are still adequate to administer and enforce the Building Code. 1.3 The Municipality hired Hemson Consulting Limited in the fall of 2010 to update the building permit fees study. 2.0 BILL 124 2.1 The general purpose of Bill 124 was as follows: • Respond to the building industry's concerns that many municipalities were collecting large permit revenues but not providing adequate services. Many municipalities were using permit revenues as general revenues or helping to finance new facilities. • Legislate to create a business unit that operates within the municipality, but is financially self sustaining. • State that permit fees can only be used for the administration and enforcement of the Ontario Building Code Act. Permit fees can be set to cover direct and indirect costs, and to contribute to a reserve fund which 9 -15 Report EGD- 011 -11 Page 3 will finance the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act during an economic downturn when annual permit revenue may be reduced. 2.2 The Bill 124 requirements in 2005 were as follows: • Legislated minimum time frames for building permit review process which added more pressure to the building staff for processing of building permits. • Legislated time frames for mandatory inspections of buildings plus additional heating inspections were required. • Notification for an inspection now must be undertaken within two days of being notified adding more pressure to the building staff. • All Building Officials must take the Ministry of Housing exams and become qualified in numerous categories in order to perform plans examination and inspections. The following are the qualifications required to become a Building Official. ■ House, small buildings, large buildings and complex buildings ■ Plumbing - house, plumbing all buildings. ■ HVAC- house, building services ■ Building Structural • Detection, lighting and power ■ Fire protection 3.0 BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS NEW REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Additional responsibilities are effective January 1, 2012. 3.2 There will be an additional mandated building inspection of the substantial completion of the air barrier system. 9 -16 Report EGD- 011 -11 Page 4 3.3 Energy efficiency for housing will be increased substantially in 2012. The Building Code will require all housing to comply with the new energy efficient standard in accordance with NRCan , " EnerGuide for new Houses: Administrative and Technical Procedures" or a prescribed method stated in the supplemented standard SB -12. Presently there is one prescribed method of insulating a house and the new requirement will allow the choice of 13 different compliance packages. Additional review and inspections by Building Staff will be required. 3.4 There will be a mandated "Occupancy Permit" required from the Municipality to the Owner and /or Builder prior to occupancy of the house. 3.5 A new Ontario Building Code is anticipated to be filed with the Registrar of Regulations by mid 2011. 3.6 The current edition of the Building Code was released in 2006. 3.7 The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) has begun work on the development of the next edition of the Building Code. Consistent with broader government priorities, the main themes of the next edition are expected to include support for the economy, promoting a greener Ontario, enhancing barrier -free accessibility and increasing public safety. 3.8 The Building Officials will require additional training to implement the new requirements of the new building code. 4.0 PRE - CONSULTATION MEETING WITH DEVELOPERS 4.1 On March 9, 2011 The Building Division hosted a consultation session with the Durham Region Home Builders' Association and Building Industry and Land Development Association on the proposed changes to the Building By -law and the proposed Building Permit Fee. 9 -17 Report EGD- 011 -11 5.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANGING FEES Page 5 5.1 As stated in Division C — Part 1 article 1.9.1.2 of the Ontario Building Code, before passing a by -law, regulation or resolution under clause 7 (1) (c) of the Act to introduce or change a fee imposed for applications for a permit or for the issuance of a permit, a principal authority shall, a) hold at least one public meeting at which any person who attends has an opportunity to make representations with respect to the matter, b) ensure that a minimum of 21 days notice of the public meeting is given in accordance with Clause (c), including giving 21 days notice to every person and organization that has, within five years before the day of the public meeting, requested that the principal authority provide the person or organization with such notice and has provided an address for the notice, c) ensure that the notice under Clause (b), sets out the intention of the principal authority to pass the by -law, regulation or resolution under section 7 of the Act and whether the by -law, regulation or resolution would impose any fee that was not in effect on the day the notice is given or would change any fee that was in force on the day the notice is given, ii. is sent by regular mail to the last address provided by the person or organization that requested the notice in accordance with Clause (b), and iii. sets out the information described in Clause (d) or states that the information will be made available at no cost to any member of the public upon request, and d) make the following information available to the public: an estimate of the costs of administering and enforcing the Act by the principal authority, ii. the amount of the fee or of the change to the existing fee, and iii. the rationale for imposing or changing the fee. MCI Report EGD- 011 -11 6.0 PUBLIC MEETING Page 6 6.1 A public meeting was held pursuant to the Building Code Act on March 21, 2011, at the commencement of the same General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting where Committee is receiving this report. 6.2 Should Council wish to consider amendments to the Building By -Law based on either communications or delegations at the public meeting or by Committee request, it is suggested that an addendum report be requested to specifically address issues raised and that this report be referred to the following Council meeting of March 28, 2011. 7.0 BUILDING PERMIT FEES 7.1 In the 2005 report #EGD -24 -05 for Building Regulatory Changes — Impact of Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act and Ontario Regulation 305/03, Council approved the increasing of the building permit fees and inspections rates by 41.11 %. Therefore, the impact on single dwelling building permit fee was $9.12 from $6.46 per squared metres. These fees approved in 2005 were constant over a five year period which enabled the building community to forecast its building construction costs in Clarington. 7.2 Staff is recommending that an annual 3 percent indexing be written into the Building By -Law attached to this report as Attachment 1. The annual indexing percentage would be effective January 1St each year. This annual indexing percentage would assist in keeping the revenues more in align with the building permit and inspection costs that increase annually due to employer and employee benefits, staff negotiations and operating costs within the building services unit. Some municipalities have the annual percentage indexing in their Building By -Law already. 9 -19 Report EGD- 011 -11 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Page 7 The updated study by Hemson Consulting Limited has determined that the present building permit fees are inadequate to recover the "anticipated reasonable cost" of administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act. The following table lists the allowable cost recovery items and establishes a total cost projected for 2011 for the provision of Building Code services in the Municipality. MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Building Services Unit TOTAL COSTS Direct Costs $ 1,342,746 -costs of the building division of the Engineering department for processing of building permit applications, review of building plans, conducting inspections and building - related enforcement duties. Indirect Costs $ 235,064 -costs for support and overhead services to the building division. Anticipated Costs Training included above New deadline compliance included above Interest on borrowing none Reserve Fund contributions $ 110,000 Total Costs $ 1,687,810 The total cost projected for 2011 is based on the future filling of a vacant building inspector position (3 building inspectors are required to handle anything beyond 650 permits annually. Currently, there are only 2 building inspectors), annual revenue estimated at $1.45 million and annual contributions to the Building Division reserve fund of $110,000 a year. The total cost for 2011 does not 9 -20 Report EGD- 011 -11 Page 8 inflation adjustment and assumes an annual indexing provision of 3% is inserted into the by -law. 7.7 The annual building permit revenue is estimated at $1,450,000 based on the growth expected in the next few years. This growth study known as Clarington Community Forecast was prepared by Hemson Consulting Limited, as part of the Municipality's Official Plan review and was the basis for the forecast in the Development Charges Background Study, June 2010. 7.8 The total cost projected for 2011 exceeds the estimated building permit revenues by 16.40 %. Projected Costs $1,687,810 Estimated Revenues $1,450,000 % Difference 16.40% 7.9 In accordance with the provisions of the Building Code Act, the Municipality is permitted to increase all building permit fees and inspection fees by 16.40% which equates for a single dwelling to be $10.62 from $9.12 per squared metres. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the listing of the Current and Proposed Building Permit Fees and Inspection Fees. 7.10 The revenue stream from the proposed fee increase will cover all of the anticipated direct and indirect costs to the Municipality as allowed by the Building Code Act, as well as contribute towards a reserve fund as permitted by legislation. This reserve fund would be used to maintain services during an economic downturn. 7.11 The proposed new building permit and inspection fees are comparable to the surrounding municipalities. Please refer to Attachment 3 for a Comparison of Clarington's Proposed fee to other Municipalities. As a point of interest, Clarington has a larger geographical area for our building staff to cover for inspections compared to the other Lakeshore municipalities in Durham. 9 -21 Report EGD- 011 -11 Page 9 8.0 ANNUAL BUILDING PERMIT FEES REPORT The building code requires that a report be prepared annually showing the total fees collected in the previous 12 month period. This report must also show a summary of the indirect and direct cost of delivering the building services and the amount of reserve fund established for administration and enforcement of the Building Code. This annual report is sent to Council as information and than posted on Clarington's website every year. 9.0 CHANGES TO OUR BUILDING BY -LAW 9.1 There have been numerous changes to the Building By -law that effect the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act. The following are the major changes to our Building By -law. • Equivalent materials have been replaced by alternative solutions. • Deputy Chief Building Official may be appointed. • Additional building permit fee for the re- activation of a dormant building permit. • Overtime fee when performing our duties outside of regular business hours. • Permit surcharge fee is applicable when unauthorized construction has commenced prior to-the application of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Occupancy Permits must be issued prior to the house being occupied. • Additional inspections added outside the required mandatory inspections noted in the building code, public pools or public spa, completion of 9 -22 Report EGD- 011 -11 Page 10 building where occupied under "Occupancy of Unfinished Building" and completion of the building where an occupancy permit has been granted. • Allows the Chief Building Official to enter into a Spatial Separation Agreement. • Describes the duties of the Fire Prevention Officers when performing Ontario Building Code Inspections. 10.0 SUMMARY 10.1 Staff recommend the increasing of the building permit fees and inspection fees by 16.40% to re -align the present building services unit into a self sustaining financial group and that Council approve the attached new building by -law. 10.2 Should Council decide not to approve the 16.40% increase to the building fees or delay making a decision or modify the percentage increase to the building fees, it will place an undue burden on the tax levy as a result of the present shortfall in the building services unit. Attachment 1 — New Building by -Law Attachment 2 — Current & Proposed Building Permit and Inspection Fees Attachment 3 -- Comparison of Clarington's proposed fee to other Municipalities MW Attachment #1 to EGD- 011 -11 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NO. 111 Being a by -law to provide for the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act within the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS subsection 3(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, chapter 23, provides that the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington is responsible for the enforcement of the Building Code Act within the Municipality of Clarington; WHEREAS subsection 3(2) of the Building Code Act, requires that the Council shall appoint a chief building official and such inspectors as are necessary for the enforcement of the Building Code Act within the Municipality of Clarington; WHEREAS Section 7 of the Building Code Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to pass certain By- laws prescribing classes of permits, permit application documents, fees, inspections and other related matters; and NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: TITLE 1. This.By -law may be cited as the Building By -law. 9 -24 DEFINITIONS 2. (1) In this by -law (a) "Act" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, chapter 23, as amended from time to time, and any successor thereto; (b) "alternative solution" means a substitute for an 'acceptable solution' as defined by the building code. (c) "as constructed plans" means as constructed plans as defined in the building code; (d) "applicant" means a person who applies for a permit and includes any person authorized by an owner to apply for a permit on the owner's behalf; (e) "architect" means a holder of a license, a certificate of practice, or a temporary license under the Architect's Act as defined in the building code; (f) "building" means a building as defined in Subsection 1(1) of the Act; (g) "building code" means the regulations made under Section 34 of the Act; (h) '"chief building official" means the person appointed by the Council as the chief building official for the purpose of enforcement of the Act; (i) "construction value" means the value prescribed by the chief building official to represent the total value of all work, services and material associated with the construction for which a permit is applied; (j) "Council" means the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington; (k) "deficient permit" means a permit where: (i) an inspection notice or order to comply has been issued by an inspector or, (ii) where an inspection required under the building code or this By -law has not been arranged, and six months or more have elapsed after the date the notice was issued or the inspection was required, (1) "deputy chief building official" means the person(s) appointed by Council as deputy chief building official under the authority of the Legislation Act 2006 S.O.2006. chapter 21. Schedule F, and listed in Schedule 'A' to this By -law, for the purpose of enforcement of the Act; (m) "holiday" means days when the offices of the Municipality of Clarington are not open for transaction of business with the public; (n) "inspector" means an inspector listed in Schedule A to this By -law; (o) "Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington; (p) "owner" means the registered owner of the land and includes; a lessee, mortgagee in possession, the person or directors of a corporation acting as the owner's authorized agent and the person in charge of the property, upon which is located, or will be located, the building or part thereof for which an application for a permit is, or has been made; (q) "permit" means permission or authorization given, in writing, by the chief building official, (i) to perform work regulated by the Act or the building code or both, or (ii) to change the use of a building or part of a building as regulated by the Act or the building code or both, or (iii) to occupy a building or a part thereof; (r) "permit holder" means an owner to whom a permit has been issued, or, where a permit has been transferred, the new owner to whom the permit has been transferred; (s) "professional engineer" means a person who holds a licence or a temporary licence under the Professional Engineer's Act; 2 9 -25 (t) "registered code agency," means a person or an entity that has the qualifications and meets the requirements set out in the Act. (2) Any word or term not defined in this by -law shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Act or the building code. APPOINTMENTS 3. Each person whose name is set out in Column 2 of Schedule A to this By -law is hereby appointed to the position set out beside that person's name in Column 1 thereof. - Also provided are the municipal titles and provincial Building Code Identification Number (BCIN) for each person appointed. (1) The appointment of the deputy chief building official is under the authority of the,Legislation. Act 2006 S O 2006 Chapter 21. Schedule F. Section 77. (2) Deputy chief building official appointed under this By -law shall have all of the powers and duties of the chief building official under this By -law, and under the Act, and the building code. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BUILDING OFFICIALS 4. Each person listed in Schedule A to this By -law shall be governed by the Code of Conduct set out in Schedule D to this By -law, with respect to exercising powers and performing duties under the Building Code Act. CLASSES OF PERMITS 5. Classes of permits with respect to the construction, demolition, building relocation, conditional permit, change of use, occupancy of buildings and the permit fees therefore, shall be as set out in Schedule "B" to this By -law. REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING PERMIT APPLICATIONS 6. (1) To obtain a permit, an applicant shall file a complete application on the form available from the chief building official, or from the Province of Ontario, together with the applicable requirements set out in subsections (2) to (8). (2) All documents and drawings accompanying an application shall be coordinated with each other and consistent with the description of the proposed work. Building Permits (3) Every application for a building permit or permit for a stage of construction (Partial Permit) under Subsection 8(1) of the Act shall, (a) identify and describe in detail the work to be done and the existing and proposed use and occupancy of the building, or part thereof, for which the application for a permit is made; (b) be accompanied by the plans (drawn to scale) specifications, documents and other information prescribed in Section 7 and Schedule C to this By -law; and (c) be accompanied by the appropriate fee calculated in accordance with Schedule B to this By -law. Demolition Permits (4) Every application for a demolition permit under Subsection 8(1) of the Act shall, (a) identify and describe in detail the work to be done and the existing use and occupancy of the building, or part thereof, for.which the application for a permit is made, and the proposed use and occupancy of that part of the building, if any, that will remain upon completion of the demolition; (b) be accompanied by the plans, specifications, documents and other information prescribed in Section 7 and Schedule C to this By -law; (c) be accompanied by the appropriate fee calculated in accordance with Schedule B to this By -law; and 9 -26 (d) be accompanied by confirmation that: i. arrangements have been made with the proper authorities for the safe and complete disconnection of all existing water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and other utilities; and ii. the owner will comply with the Municipality's property standards By -law at the completion of demolition. Conditional Building Permits (5) Every application for a conditional building permit under Subsection 8(3) of the Act shall, (a) comply with the requirements set out in subsection 6(3) in this By -law; and (b) be accompanied by: (i) a written statement from the applicant explaining why the applicant believes that unreasonable delays in construction would occur if a conditional building permit is not issued; (ii) a written acknowledgement from the applicant of the necessary approvals which must be obtained in respect of the proposed construction and the time period in which such approvals shall be obtained by the applicant; and (iii) a written agreement, in a form provided by the chief building official, executed by the applicant, the owner and such other necessary persons the chief building official determines for the purposes set out in subsection 8(3)(c), of the Act. (6) The chief building official is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington the written agreement referred to in sub clause 6(5)(b)(iii) in this By- law as part of the conditional building permit application. Change of Use Permits (7) Every application for a change of use permit under Subsection 10(1) of the Act shall, (a) identify and describe in detail the existing and proposed use and occupancy of the building, or part thereof, for which the application for a permit is made; (b) be accompanied by plans and specifications which show the current and proposed occupancy of all parts of the building and which contain sufficient information to establish compliance with the building code, including, but not limited to: floor plans and details of wall, ceiling and roof assemblies identifying existing fire resistance ratings and load bearing capacities; (c) be accompanied by the appropriate fee calculated in accordance with Schedule B to this By -law; and (d) be accompanied by the completed documents prescribed in Schedule C to this By -Law. Occupancy Permits for Unfinished Buildings (8) Every application for authorization to occupy an unfinished building under Division C, Part 1 . Subsection 1.3.3 of the Ontario Building Code shall, (a) identify and describe in detail the occupancy, the date of such occupancy; and the building or part thereof for which the application for a permit is made; (b) be accompanied by plans which show the areas of the proposed occupancy; and (c) be accompanied by the appropriate fee calculated in accordance with Schedule B to this By -law. Permit for a Stage of Construction (Partial Permit) (9) (a) when, in order to expedite work, approval of a portion of the building or project is requested prior to the issuance of a permit for the complete building or project, application shall be made and fees paid for the complete building or project. Complete plans and specifications covering the portion of the work for which immediate approval is requested shall be filed with the chief building official. (b) the fee shall be calculated in accordance with Schedule 'B' to this By -law. 4 9 -27 REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (1) Every applicant shall submit sufficient plans, specifications, documents and other information to enable the chief building official to determine whether the proposed building, construction, demolition or change of use will contravene the Act, the building code or any other applicable law. (2) The chief building official shall determine the plans, specifications, documents and other information required to be submitted with an application in order to deem it complete according to Division C, Part 1 Section 1.3 of the building code having regard for: (a) the scope of the proposed work; (b) the requirements of the building code, the Act and other applicable law; and (c) the requirements of this Section and Schedule C to this By -law. (3) Plans, specifications, documents and other information shall be submitted in a permanent medium upon paper or other suitable and durable material and shall contain text that is legible and drawings that are legible, complete, fully dimensioned and to scale. (4) Site plans submitted by an applicant shall; (a) be certified by the Planning Department of the Municipality of Clarington as being in conformity with By -laws passed under Section 34 and 41 of the Planning Act and (b) be referenced to a current plan of survey prepared and certified by an Ontario Land Surveyor, and a copy of the survey shall accompany the site plan submission, except where the chief building official waives the requirement to do so. (5) On the completion of the foundation for a detached, semi - detached, triplex, fourplex or townhouse dwelling, the chief building official may require submission of a survey prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor indicating the location of the building to all property lines and elevations of the bottom and top of the foundation wall, including the garage cut, prior to a framing inspection being undertaken. (6) On the completion of the construction of a building, or part of a building, the chief building official may require submission of a set of plans of the building or part of a building, as constructed, together with a plan of survey prepared and certified by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the location of the building. AUTHORIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS 8. (1) Where an alternative solution for an equivalent material, system or building design is proposed in either an application for a permit, or in a material change to a plan, specification, document or other information on the basis of which a permit is issued, the applicant shall submit: (a) a completed "Alternative Solution Application Form "; (b) a description of the proposed location(s) where the alternative solution is proposed to be installed; (c) a description of the proposed material, system or building design for which authorization is sought; (d) a description of all applicable provisions of the building code in contravention; (e) supporting documentation demonstrating that the proposed material, system or building design will provide the level of performance required by the building code; and (f) payment of the required fee as set out in Schedule B to this By -law. (2) The chief building official or registered code agency may accept or reject any proposed alternative solutions and /or may impose conditions or limitation on their use. (3) Alternative solutions which are accepted under this Section shall be applicable only to the location described in the application, and are not transferable to any other building permit. INCOMPLETE PERMIT APPLICATIONS (1) An application shall be deemed not to be complete according to Division C Part 1 Sentence 1.3.1.3(5) of the building code where any of the applicable requirements of Section 6 to this By- law have not been complied with. 9 -28 (2) Except as provided in 9(3), an application deemed to be incomplete shall not be accepted by the chief building official (3) The chief building official may accept an incomplete application where the applicant acknowledges, in writing, that the application is incomplete and waives the time period prescribed in the building code within which a permit must be issued or refused. (4) Where an applicant declares that an application is complete in all respects and complies with the Act, the building code and applicable law, the chief building official shall issue or refuse to issue a permit within the time period prescribed in the building code. (5) Where an applicant declares that an application is complete in all respects, but the application is determined to be incomplete or does not comply with the Act, the building code or applicable law, an additional fee as prescribed in Schedule B may be applied to the re- examination of documents required to be submitted by an applicant. ABANDONED PERMIT APPLICATIONS 10. (1) An application for a permit shall be deemed to have been abandoned by the applicant where, (a) the application is incomplete according to Section 9 in this by -law and remains . incomplete six months after it was submitted; (b) six months have elapsed after the applicant was notified that the proposed building, construction, demolition or change of use will not comply with the Act or the building code or will contravene any other applicable law; or (c) the application is substantially complete, and six months have elapsed from the date upon which the applicant was notified that a permit was available to be issued. (2) Where an application is deemed abandoned, all submitted plans, specifications and documents shall be disposed of, or upon written request from the applicant, returned to the applicant. (3) Where a permit holder wishes to re- activate a dormant building permit file, the permit holder shall pay the fee set out in Schedule `B' to this By -law. REVISION TO PERMITS 11. Should a permit holder wish to make any material change to any plan, specification, document or other information on the basis of which the permit was issued, the permit holder shall file an application for a revision to the permit which describes the material changes, and shall pay the fee set out in Schedule B to this By -Law. TRANSFER OF PERMITS 12. (1) If the owner of the land changes after a permit has been applied for or issued, the permit may be transferred to the new owner (the "transferee ") of the lands where an application is filed to the Municipality in writing, in accordance with this section. (2) Every application for the transfer of permit shall, a) include a written statement from the current permit holder authorizing the transfer of the permit to the transferee; b) include proof of ownership of the lands by the transferee satisfactory to the chief building official; c) confirm that the work to be done and the existing and proposed use and occupancy of the building or part thereof, for which the application for the transfer of the permit is made, is the same as that identified and described on the application of the permit; d) state the name, address, telephone number of the proposed transferee; e) state the name, address, telephone number and facsimile number of the proposed architect and/or professional engineer, and their building code qualifications, where they are different from those identified in the application for the permit, and a written confirmation from the architect and /or professional engineer(s), that they have been retained to undertake general review of the construction or demolition where required under the building code; 0 9 -29 f) include, where the proposed transferee is a builder as defined in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, or any successor thereto, the proposed transferee's registration number thereunder, g) be signed by the proposed transferee who shall certify as to the truth of the contents of the application; and (h) payment of the required fee as set out in Schedule B of this by -law. (3) Upon the issuance of transfer of a permit to the transferee, the transferee shall be deemed to be the permit holder and the original permit holder shall have no further rights or obligations under the permit, save and except for any obligations set out in any agreements entered into for the purposes of subsection 8(3)(c) of the Act. REVOCATION OF PERMITS 13. (1) Prior to revoking a permit, the chief building official shall give written notice of an intention to revoke the permit to the permit holder at the permit holder's address shown on the application or to such other address as the permit holder has provided to the Municipality for that purpose. (2) Following issuance of the notice described in Subsection 13(1) of this By -law above, the permit may be revoked immediately or after a period prescribed by the chief building official, and all submitted plans, specifications, documents and other information may be disposed of or, upon written request from the permit holder, returned to the permit holder. (3) Notice under Subsection 13(1) of this By -law shall be given either personally or by registered mail, and where notice is by registered mail, it shall be deemed to have been given on the fifth day after the day of mailing to the address specified in Subsection 13(1), whether actually received or not. Iy14flrr:Gl 71111k,Iplae7;&I :I =61 14. (1) A fee is to be paid with every permit application, calculated in accordance with Schedule B to this By -law and the fee shall be due and payable, in full, upon the submission of the application for a permit. The requirements for fees shall not apply to buildings constructed by or for the Corporation for the Municipality of Clarington and Lakeridge Health Bowmanville. (2) The minimum fee payable on any application shall be as indicated in Item 1, Part "A° in Schedule 'B'. (3) Where the calculation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule B to this By -law of the amount of a fee to be paid as part of a permit application is based upon the building category, floor area and /or value of the proposed construction. The chief building official, or a person designated by the chief building official to do so, shall determine the appropriate building category, floor area and /or value, and that determination shall be final. (4) Where an application for a permit is subject to additional user fees prescribed by the Municipality, the fees so prescribed shall be paid in addition to the fees set out in Schedule B to this By -law. (5) Fees shall be increased by three percent each year effective on the first day of January of each year. Flat rate fees shall be-rounded to the nearest dollar amount and increments of.half dollar and greater shall be rounded up. All other fees shall be rounded to the nearest cent. Re- examination Fee and Alternative Solution Fee (6) (a) where an applicant substantially revises proposed materials, systems or a building design after examination of a previous submission has already been undertaken, a re- examination fee shall apply as set out in Schedule B to this By -law. (b) where an applicant submits an alternative solution to a material, system or design, an examination fee shall apply as set out in Schedule 'B' to this By -law. Additional Inspection Fees (7) An additional inspection fee as set out in Schedule B to this By -law shall apply and shall be paid prior to each inspection being undertaken on any building, where: a) any of the prescribed notice requirements under the building code or the additional notices required under this By -law have not been complied with by a permit holder; b) more than two inspections are required due to construction being incomplete or not in compliance with the building code; 7 9 -30 c) a building is occupied before the notice required under Section 11 of the Act was given to the chief building official; d) an inspection is requested to confirm that outstanding items have been completed or corrected in respect of a deficient permit; e) an inspection of the backflow device on a fire main is requested; or f) an inspection for a liquor licence approval where there is no permit. Overtime Fee (8) Where a request is made in writing for work outside of regular business hours, the overtime fee shall be calculated and paid in accordance with Schedule 'B' to this By -law. Permit Surcharge (9) A building permit surcharge, in addition to the regular calculated fee, shall be charged in accordance with Schedule 'B' to this By -law, where construction has commenced without a building permit and an Order is issued. Occupancy Permit (10) The occupancy permit fee for a dwelling is included in the building permit fee, with the exception of Item 6, Schedule B - Part A. Fee Refunds (11) If requested, in writing, by an applicant or permit holder, where, (a) an applicant withdraws, in writing, an application for a permit; - (b) an application is deemed to have been abandoned in accordance with Section 10 of this By -law; (c) the chief building official refuses to issue a permit for which an application has been made; or (d) the chief building official revokes a permit after it has been issued, the chief building official shall calculate the portion of any fee paid that may be refunded and authorize the payment thereof, based upon the functions undertaken by the Municipality, in accordance with 14(12) to 14(18) below. (12) Eighty -five per cent (85 %) of the permit fee paid in accordance with Schedule B shall be refunded if only application administrative functions have been performed. (13) Fifty per cent (50 %) of the permit fee'paid in accordance with Schedule B shall be refunded if the following have been performed, (a) the functions described -in 14(12) above, (b) all or part of technical plan review functions, and (c) the permit has not been issued. (14) Twenty -five per cent (25 %) of the fee paid in accordance with Schedule B shall be refunded if the permit has been issued. (15) Notwithstanding 14(11) to 14(14) above, no refund of any portion of the permit fee paid in accordance with Schedule B shall be made if any construction or demolition has commenced. (16) No refund shall be payable where the amount calculated in accordance with this section is less than $50.00. (17) Any amount authorized by the chief building official to be refunded shall be paid to the person named on the fee receipt issued by the Municipality upon original payment of the fee, unless that person directs, in writing, that it be refunded to another person. (18) No refund shall be payable in the case of abandonment of a project or the revocation of a permit. 9 -31 REGISTERED CODE AGENCIES 15. The chief building official is authorized to enter into service agreements with registered code agencies and appoint them to perform one or more of the specified functions described in Section 15.15 of the Act. FENCES AT CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SITES 16. (1) Where, in the opinion of the chief building official or inspector, a construction or demolition site presents a hazard to the public, the chief building official or inspector may require the owner to erect such fences as the chief building official or inspector deems appropriate to the circumstances. (2) In considering the hazard presented by the construction or demolition site, the necessity for fences and the height and characteristics of such fences, the chief building official or inspector shall have regard for, (a) the proximity of the building site to other buildings; (b) the proximity of the construction or demolition site to lands accessible to the public; (c) the hazards presented by the construction or demolition activities and materials; (d) the feasibility and effectiveness of site fences; and, (e) the duration of the hazard. (3) Every fence required by this section shall: (a) be erected so as to fully enclose all areas of the site which present a hazard; (b) create a continuous barrier and be sufficient to deter unauthorized entry; (c) have a height not less that 1.2 metres above grade at any point, unless the chief building official or inspector determines that a greater minimum height is necessary; (d) if constructed of plastic mesh, snow fencing or other similar materials, be securely fastened at 200mm o.c. to vertical posts not more than 2.4 metres apart, and to horizontal members or a minimum 11 gauge cable at the top and bottom; and (e) be maintained in a vertical plane and in good repair MANDATORY INSPECTION NOTICES 17. (1) The permit holder shall also give notice to the chief building official or registered code agency of the following stages of construction in addition to the mandatory notices prescribed by the building code; (a) commencement of construction of: (i) masonry fireplaces and masonry chimneys, (ii) factory-built fireplaces and allied chimneys, (iii) stoves, ranges, space heaters and add-on furnaces using solid fuels and allied chimneys, (b) substantial completion of interior finishes; and /or (c) substantial completion of heating, ventilating, air- conditioning and air - contaminant extraction equipment; (d) substantial completion of the pool deck and dressing rooms for a public pool or public spa and readiness for inspection of the emergency stop system for a public pool or public spa; (e) completion and availability of drawings of the building as constructed, and (f) completion of a building for which an occupancy permit is required under Division C Part 1 Article 1.3.3.4. (2) A notice required to be given by a permit holder to the chief building official or registered code agency pursuant to Division C Part 1 Subsection 1.3.5 of the building code shall be given to the chief building official or registered code agency in accordance with Section 11 of the Act.. 0 9 -32 (3) For the purpose of 17(2) above, the term "day" means any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday other than a holiday as defined in Subsection 2(1) (m) of this By -law. (4) A notice given to the chief building official pursuant to Division C Part 1 Subsection 1.3.5 of the building code may be given orally or in writing to either the chief building official, an inspector or registered code agency and if given to an inspector in accordance with this Section, shall be deemed to have been given to the chief building official. (5) A notice given to the chief building official or registered code agency pursuant to Division C Part 1 Subsection 1.3.5. of the building code and this Section shall not be effective until actually received by the chief building official; inspector or registered code agency as the case may be. SPATIAL SEPARATION AGREEMENTS 18. The chief building official is authorized to enter into spatial separation agreements, as set out in Division B Part 9, Sentences 9.10.15.2.(4) and (5) and Part 3 Sentences 3.2.3.1.(8) and (9) of the building code, on behalf of the municipality and the owners of the properties on which the limiting distance is measured. OFFENCES AND PENALTIES 19. Any person who contravenes any portion of this By -law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine as provided for in Section 36 of the'Act. SEVERABILITY 20. Should any provision of this By -law be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid it shall not affect the validity of this By -law as a whole or any other part thereof, other than the provision declared to be invalid. INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 21. Schedules A, B, C and D attached shall form part of this By -law. 22. By -law 2005 -145, By -law 2005 -214, By -law 2006 -067, By -law 2006 -173, By -law 2006 -200, By -law 2007 -116, By -law 2008 -024 and By -law 2008 -186 are hereby repealed. 23. This By -law comes into force and is effective on April 4, 2011. BY -LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of 2011 10 9 -33 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti Barrie, Clerk SCHEDULE A APPOINTMENTS Under the authority of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23, and the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 1.11 The following people, listed in Column 2 of Table A, below, are appointed by Council, under the authority of the Building Code Act, in the positions listed in Column 1. Table A The following people, listed in Column 2 of Table B, are appointed as Inspectors by Council, under the authority of the Building Code Act, for the enforcement of the Building Code Act as described in Table D, Column A. Table B Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Provincial Name Municipal Title Provincial 3. Appointment Dennis George Building Inspector BCIN 1 Chief Building Richard A Pigeon Chief Building Official 10099 5. Official Kimberley Lain Building Inspector/Plans Exam 19687 6. Deputy Chief Jeremy Ze ers Building Inspector/Plans Exam 28145 2' Building Official Vacant Plumbing Inspector 34134 The following people, listed in Column 2 of Table B, are appointed as Inspectors by Council, under the authority of the Building Code Act, for the enforcement of the Building Code Act as described in Table D, Column A. Table B The following people, listed in Column 2 of Table C, are appointed as Inspectors by Council, under the authority of the Building Code Act, for plans review and inspection as described in Table D, Column B. Table C Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Provincial Aepointment Name Municipal Title Provincial BCIN 3. Inspector Dennis George Building Inspector 20869 4. Inspector Lloyd Cullen Plumbing Inspector 20955 5. Inspector Kimberley Lain Building Inspector/Plans Exam 19687 6. Inspector Jeremy Ze ers Building Inspector/Plans Exam 28145 7. Inspector John Tresise Plumbing Inspector 34134 8. Inspector Adam D Carter Mechanical Inspector 32677 9. Inspector David A Abramczuk Building Inspector 36111 10. Inspector George Semenenko Building Inspector 19686 The following people, listed in Column 2 of Table C, are appointed as Inspectors by Council, under the authority of the Building Code Act, for plans review and inspection as described in Table D, Column B. Table C 11 9 -34 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Item Provincial Appointment Name Municipal Title Provincial BCIN 11. Inspector Randy Reinert Fire Prevention Officer 20139 12. Inspector William Reid Fire Prevention Inspector 20958 13. Inspector Jacquie Hill -Bower Fire Prevention Inspector . 20957 11 9 -34 SCHEDULE A APPOINTMENTS Table D Column A Column B Inspectors listed in Schedule `A', Table B Inspectors listed in Schedule 'A', Table C are appointed for the enforcement of the are appointed for plans review and Building Code Act in the roles and inspection in the role and jurisdiction jurisdictions identified in the categories of identified in the category of qualification for qualification pursuant to Division C, Part 3, Fire Protection pursuant to Division C, Part Section 3.1 of the Ontario Building Code. 3 Section 3.1 of the Ontario Building Code, specifically for: Fire alarm and detection systems, Standpipe and hose systems, Fire suppression systems (including sprinkler systems), excluding single family dwellings and townhouses (if each townhouse has a separate sprinkler system) if legislation requires that all residential buildings be fully sprinklered. Voice communication systems, Fire fighter's elevators, Emergency electrical power supply (including related emergency and exit lighting), Access for fire fighters, Fire access routes, Fire hydrants, Fire extinguishers Exterior tanks, and Hazardous substances. Inspectors listed in Schedule 'A', Table C, shall report deficiencies to the Chief Building Official or a Deputy Chief Building Official for determination of issuance of orders and compliance. 12 9 -35 SCHEDULE B — PART A CLASSES OF PERMITS AND FEES PAYABLE Item Class of Permit Reference Fee Payable 1. Building Permit 6(3) See Schedule B - Part B $83 flat rate for all single detached dwellings 2. Demolition Permit 6(4) and residential accessory buildings Fee $0.21 per meters squared for all other buildings 2 Resubmission of application 9(5) Normal fee for proposed construction plus an found to be incomplete additional 10% of that fee. A minimum 3. Conditional Building Permit 6(5) additional fee of $163 and a maximum additional fee of $815 shall apply to 4. Transfer of permit 12 conditional permits. 5 Permit for Stage of 14 ( 6 ) With respect to phased projects, in addition to 4. Construction (Partial Permit) 6(9) the fee for the complete building, an 6' Re- examination 14(6) additional fee of $244 for each phase. 5. Change of Use Permit 6(7) $81 for each 100 sq.m. of floor area or part 7. Additional Inspection 14(7)(e) thereof 8. Occupancy Permit for 14(8) $123 per hour, minimum 3 hours 6 Unfinished Building (Division 6(8) $164 flat fee C Part 1 Subsection 1.3.3.1 building without a permit shall be the greater of OBC of: OTHER PERMIT FEES 13 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Item Fee Type By -law Reference Fee Payable $109 /hour, in addition to applicable type of 1 Alternative Solution Examination 8 building permit fee Fee (minimum 1 hour for house or 4 hours for other building) 2 Resubmission of application 9(5) 25% of application fee found to be incomplete 3. Revision to permit 11 $109 /hour (minimum 1 hour for house or 4 hours for other building) 4. Transfer of permit 12 $123 flat fee 5 Re- examination 14 ( 6 ) $492 plus the fee prescribed in Part B as a - Change in house model result of any additional area 6' Re- examination 14(6) 10% of applicable permit fee to a maximum of - other than 5 $1000 7. Additional Inspection 14(7)(e) $123 flat fee 8. Overtime Fee 14(8) $123 per hour, minimum 3 hours Surcharge applies after an Order is issued for building without a permit shall be the greater of: a) Surcharge of 25% of permit fee when 9. Permit Surcharge 14(9) construction has begun and a building permit application has been received, and b) Surcharge of 50% of permit fee when construction has begun and no building permit application has been received. 10. Dormant Building Permit File 10.3 $165 Reactivation fee 13 SCHEDULE B FEES PAYABLE FOR BUILDING PERMITS Item Building Type Fee Payable Service Index (SI) $/s q. m unless otherwise indicated 1. Assembly Occupancies (Group A) All Recreational Facilities, Schools, Libraries, $19.45 Places of Worship, Restaurants (Finished), Theatres, Arenas /Gymnasiums /Pools. Restaurants (Shell) $15.75 Open Public Swimming Pools $ 5.26 Transit Stations, Subways, Bus Terminals $14.58 All other Group A Buildings $19.45 2. Institutional Occupancies (Group B) Institutional, Hospitals, Nursing Homes $21.22 And other Group B Buildings 3. Residential Occupancies (Group C) Single Family Dwellings, Semis, Townhouses, $10.62 Duplexes, Live/Work Units All other multiple unit buildings and other $11.31 residential occupancies Motels above two stories and Hotels $16.19 4. Business and Personal Service Occupancies (Group D) Office Buildings (Shell), all other Group D $12.91 Buildings (Shell) Office Buildings (Finished), Banks, Medical $16.10 Clinics, Fire Halls and all other Group D Buildin s Finished 5. Mercantile Occupancies (Group E) Mercantile Occupancies, Retail Stores (Shell) $10.43 Retail Stores •(Finished), Department Stores, $1179 Supermarkets And All Other Group E Buildings Finished $13.79 67 Industrial Occupancies (Group F) Industrial Buildings (Shell) $ 8.14 Industrial Buildings (Partitioned Area) $11.31 Gas stations, Car Washes, $10.25 Parking Garages (U /G, Open Air) $ 4.95 Open Mezzanine Construction $ 4.92 7. Interior alterations (Partitions, Finishings, etc.) Group A, B and D $3.70 Group C, E and F $3.28 Apartment In -House $4.00 8. Designated Structures Communication Tower or Transmission Towers $395 flat fee On Building Crane Runway $395 flat fee Exterior Tank and Support $164 flat fee Pedestrian Bridge $164 flat fee Retaining Wall $8 per I.m. Satellite Dish $99 flat fee Solar Collector for single dwelling unit $99 flat fee Solar Collector for all other occupancies $99 per 10 panels (max $5000) Wind turbine See Item 11 Schedule B - Part B 9. Stand Alone & Miscellaneous Work a) Permanent Tent, Air Supported Structures $8.50 b) Balcony Guards (Replacements) $2.58 per I.m. c) Unfinished Basement (to accommodate a $4.92 building moved from elsewhere) d) Repair or Re- Cladding of wall (per wall area) $0.31 e) Canopy w/o enclosure $4.11 f) Ceilings (Added or Replacement) $0.52 g) Demising walls (no other construction) $3.89 per I.m. h) Electromagnetic Locks $59 per lock (max $425) i) Emergency lighting $57 per storey j) Farm Buildings $2.64 k) Fire alarms /Fire Code Retrofit $164 flat fee 1) Fire doors retrofit $33 per door m) Fireplaces, Wood Stoves $81 each n) Sprinkler systems - new or alteration $0.49 o) Repairs to parking garage $2.12 p) Portable Classrooms $328 flat fee i) Portapack $1179 q) Residential Decks, Porches, Balconies, $99 flat fee Carports 14 9 -37 SCHEDULE B FEES PAYABLE FOR BUILDING PERMITS For the proper interpretation and application of this Schedule, see the following notes. 15 MIMI r) Residental Detach or Attached Garages or Accessory Structure s) Temporary Structures i) Tent ii) Trailers and Temporary Buildings iii) Sales Pavilions (Construction On Site) t) Underpinning u) Shoring u) Window or door Replacements (excluding house) v Sin 3.15 of OBC only) $3.53 $99 up to 2 tents $164 flat fee $9.02 $7.79 per I.m. $7.79 per I.m. $3.95 per window $164 flat fee 10. Stand Alone Mechanical Work (HVAC and Plumbing) Y) Permit for Heating, Ventilating and A/C (HVAC) a) SDD Type Residential Buildings (HVAC) i) Single Detached Dwelling, Semi- $197 flat fee Detached, Duplexs & Townhouses (with or without A/C) b) All Other Group C — Residential Buildings (HVAC) i) Apartments, Hotels, etc. $0.71 c) Group E & F — Retail /Industrial (HVAC) i) Small (up to 2500 sq. ft.) $197 flat fee ii) All others ( >2500 sq. ft.) $0.88 d) Group A, B and D (HVAC) i) Assembly, Institutions, Restaurants and $1.23 Office Buildings e) Minor Alterations —All Buildings i) Ductwork only or A/C unit addition $115 flat fee ii) Add on systems, Space Heater, Make- $164 flat fee Up Air Unit, Exhaust Fan f) Special Ventilation Systems i) Commercial Kitchen Exhaust, Spray $197 flat fee Booth, Dust Collector, etc. g) Furnace Replacement i) SDD Type Residential, Buildings $115 flat fee h) Geothermal system or earth energy system $99 flat fee 2) Permit for Plumbing and Drains a) Single Family Dwellings $14 per fixture b) Groups A, C, E and F $17 per fixture c) Group B and D $17 per fixture d) Backflow Preventor $33 each e) Manhole, Catch basin, Interceptor, Sump, _ $23 each etc. 3) Piping a) Single Family Detached or Attached Dwellings i) Water Services, Sanitary and Storm $99 flat fee buried piping ii) Repairs, Replacement and Additions of $99 flat fee buried Plumbing and drainage piping, pooling drains b) All Other Buildings i) Inside Sanitary and Storm Piping $1.61 per I.m. ii) Outside Water Services, Sanitary and $2.69 per l.m. Storm Piping 11. Alterations, buildings and structures $13.97 for each $1,000 of construction value or not provided for in Items 1 to 10 1 part thereof. For the proper interpretation and application of this Schedule, see the following notes. 15 MIMI SCHEDULE B .FEES PAYABLE FOR BUILDING PERMITS Notes: The following guidelines for calculating floor areas and fees apply to the specific building types and construction indicated. The occupancy classifications used in this by -law shall be based on the Ontario building code major occupancy classifications. For mixed occupancy floor areas, the service index for the area of each occupancy shall apply. Calculation of Permit Fees Permit fees shall be calculated based on the formula given below, unless otherwise specified in the schedule: Permit Fee = SI x A where SI = Service Index for Classification of the work proposed, and A = floor area in sq. m. of the work involved 1 Floor Area Calculation Floor area shall: a) be calculated by measuring to the outer face of exterior walls and to the centre of party walls or demising walls, except when calculating interior partition work, b) where there are no exterior walls, be calculated by measuring to the perimeter of the building and /or structure, ie (post or column), c) include all habitable areas, including mezzanines, finished attics and enclosed balconies, d) include a roof area with an occupancy, e) include interior partitioning, corridors, lobbies, washrooms, service rooms, etc., D include floor openings for stairs, escalators, elevators, shafts, ducts, etc. g) not include the area of the floor opening found above the lowest floor level in an interconnected floor space or atrium. h) not include the area of an unfinished basement of a house. i) be calculated by measuring the area affected or serviced by the heating, ventilation and air - conditioning (HVAC) system, the sprinkler system and the fire alarm system. 2. `Shell' Building Definition A shell building is defined as consisting of the structural foundation and framing system and the exterior envelope and does not contain building services such as: heating, ventilation and air - conditioning (HVAC) system, sprinkler system, plumbing facilities, etc. 3. Interior Renovations / Alterations For houses the floor area used for the calculation of permit fees for interior renovations /alterations shall be the actual area of the floor being renovated and/or altered. For all other occupancies the area for calculation purposes shall be the greater of the actual area of the floor being renovated and /or altered or 50 sq. m. 4. Occupancy Classifications and Fees (a) The occupancy classifications used in this by -law shall be based on the building code major occupancy classifications. (b) For floor areas with mixed occupancies, the fee shall be calculated based on each major occupancy within the building. 5. Minimum Fee A minimum fee of $81 shall be charged unless the fee is a larger amount as otherwise stated in this By- law. 6. Model House Fee Where the floor area of a new model house is less than the original model. house floor area, no fee refund is payable. 7. Permit Fees Not listed in Fee Table For building permit types not listed, the permit fee shall be calculated on the basis of $13.97 per $1,000 of construction value. (a) "construction value", as used in Item 11 of Schedule B — Part B, means the value of the proposed construction as determined by the chief building official, whose determination of that value shall be final. 16 9 -39 SCHEDULE B FEES PAYABLE FOR BUILDING PERMITS (b) no additional fee shall apply for plumbing and drains, sprinklers, fire alarms, electromagnetic locks, or other mechanical systems or equipment proposed and installed at the same time as the construction they serve. (c) site services are included in the tee noted in Schedule "B" provided it is serving one building only and is installed at the same time as the building it serves. 17 9 -40 SCHEDULE C — PART A DOCUMENTS & DRAWINGS REQUIRED FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS Row Class of Permit Documents and Drawings Required 1(a) Building Permit Documents a Confirmation of compliance with applicable law Residential (Part 9) b Acknowledgement of incomplete application Detached houses c Mechanical Ventilation Design Summary Semi- detached houses d Regional Municipality of Durham Building Permit for Triplexes Sewage System Fourplexes a Regional Municipality of Durham Residential Townhouses Development Charges Information Form f TARION Registration Form g Regional Connection Application for Water /Sewer Drawings a Approved Site Plan b , Approved Grading Plan C Architectural Drawings d Structural Drawings e HVAC Drawings f Plumbing Drawings (Note 4) g Grading Plan and Occupancy Deposit 1(b) Building Permit Documents a Confirmation of compliance with applicable law Residential as in 1(a) b Acknowledgement of incomplete application Alterations c Regional Municipality of Durham Building Permit for - Additions Sewage System - Accessory Buildings Drawings a Approved Site Plan b Approved Grading Plan (Note 3) C Architectural Drawings d Structural Drawings e HVAC Drawings f Plumbing Drawings (Note 4) Grading Plan and Occupancy Deposit 2(a) Building Permit Documents a Confirmation of compliance with applicable law Non - residential and other residential b Acknowledgement of incomplete application not provided for in row 1(a) or 1(b)' c Commitment to General Reviews by Architect & New Buildings Engineers - Additions d Ontario Building Code Data Matrix e Land and Building Use Declaration ' f Flow Control Roof Drainage Declaration g Confirmation of Energy Efficient Design h Regional Municipality of Durham Commercial Development Charges Information form i Regional Connection Application for Water /Sewer Drawings a Approved Site Plan b Approved Grading Plan C Architectural Drawings d Structural Drawings e HVAC Drawings f Plumbing Drawings g Electrical Drawings h Fire Protection Drawings i Geotechnical Report j . Specifications 2(b). Building Permit Documents a Confirmation of compliance with applicable law Non - residential and other residential b Acknowledgement of incomplete application as in 2(a) c Commitment to General Reviews by Architect & Alterations Engineers Renovations d Ontario Building Code Data Matrix Tenant Occupancies a Confirmation of Energy Efficient Design Drawings a Location Plan b Architectural Drawings C Structural Drawings d HVAC Drawings e Plumbing Drawings f Electrical Drawings g Fire Protection Drawings 18 9 -41 SCHEDULE C — PART A DOCUMENTS & DRAWINGS REQUIRED FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS Row Class of Permit Documents and Drawings Required 3. Change of Use Permit Documents a Confirmation of compliance with applicable law b Acknowledgement of incomplete application Drawings a Location Plan b Architectural Drawings 4. Building Permits Documents - Other than rows 1 to 3 a Confirmation of compliance with applicable law b Acknowledgement of incomplete application C Documents from rows 1 to 3, or other documents which are applicable to the scope of work proposed Drawings a Drawings from rows 1 to 3 which are applicable to the scope of work proposed 5. Demolition Permit Documents a Confirmation of compliance with applicable law b . Acknowledgement of incomplete application C Commitment to General Review by Engineer d Demolition Agreement — Property Standards e Demolition sign off sheets f Structural Drawings as required g General review demolition commitment certificate Drawings a Location Plan b Site Plan Notes: 1. The documents described in this schedule are available from the chief building official. 2. A description of the information required on drawings is contained in Part B of this schedule. 3. The chief building official may waive the requirements for any specified documents or drawings where the scope of the work, applicable law or building code requirements does not necessitate its submission. 4. Plumbing drawings are waived for plumbers licensed by the Municipality of Clarington in rows 1(a) and 1(b). 19 9 -42 SCHEDULE C — PART B INFORMATION_ REQUIRED ON DRAWINGS Item Drawing Type Information Required Class of Permit - Part A Row No. 1(a 1 b 2 a 2 b 3 4 1. Site Plan a Legal description, survey property lines, property dimensions, compass orientation, location and name of adjacent roads X X X X b Outline of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, building dimensions and their distance to property lines X X X X X X C Dimensions and location of parking and vehicle access and fire routes d Dimensions and location of barrier -free parking, curb cuts, path of travel to building and building access X X 2. Grading Plan a Signature and seal of professional engineer, b Property lines, easements sidewalks, X X X X driveways, building location, curb cuts, X X X X retaining walls C Existing and proposed elevations within the site and at property lines, retaining wall elevation, slopes of driveways, drainage flow and swales X X X X X X d Location of catch basins, above and below ground utilities, and connections to services 3. Architectural a Existing plans showing construction and room and space identification of all floors in the area of proposed work or occupancy X X X X X X X X X X X b Plans of all floors including basements complete with all rooms and room names C Roof plan showing roof slope, drainage, roof and roofing construction details X X X X X d Building elevations showing grade, floor and X X X X X ceiling heights, overall building height, exterior finish materials, window heights and sizes and spatial separation requirements e Construction details including proposed wall section from footing to roof, specifications of all wall, floor and roof assemblies and all building X X X X X materials and construction specifications f Stairs, guards and handrail dimensions and details, window sizes and height above floor X X X X X level; location and fuel type of all fireplaces g Mezzanine plan showing construction, guardrails, egress X X X h Location and details of barrier free entrances and barrier free washrooms X X X i Reflected ceiling plans, bulkhead details; horizontal service shaft details X X X i Roof equipment screening, anchorage for window washing, roof access X X k Building cross sections showing grade, floor and ceiling heights, horizontal and vertical fire separations X X X X X X X X i Enlarged sections and detail plans of washrooms and exit stairs m Wall sections, plan and section construction details X X X n Exit stair enclosure, wall construction details, fire separations and listed design numbers, door numbers referenced to a door schedule X X X X X X o Door and hardware schedule, door and frame details, window schedule, room finish schedule 9 -43 20 SCHEDULE C — PART B INFORMATION REQUIRED ON DRAWINGS Item Drawing Type Information Required Class of Permit - Part A Row No. 1(a) 1(b) 2(a) 2(b) 3 4 4. Structural a Foundation plans, floor and roof framing plans, footing, column and beam schedules, . structural details and material specifications X X X X X b Design specifications, live and dead loading, wind and snow loading, earthquake loading, geotechnical report design basis X X X c Structural drawings sealed by a professional engineer for all structural elements not within the scope of Part 9 of the building code X X X X d Roof and floor truss drawings sealed by a professional engineer X X X X 5. HVAC a . Heating, ventilating and air conditioning plans, service shafts, equipment layout and X X X X X schedules b Heat loss and gain calculations, ventilation design summary X X X C Fire damper locations, kitchen exhaust equipment X X X X 6. Plumbing a Plumbing and drainage plans; location and sizing of under and above ground storm; sanitary and water supply piping and X X X X X appurtenances b Location of fire stopping; specifications of plumbing and firestopping materials X X X 7. Electrical a Electrical supply and distribution plans; location of power and lighting outlets; equipment schedules; transformer locations X X X b Location and specification of emergency lighting, emergency generators and exit signage X X X 8. Fire Protection a Fire hydrant locations, sprinkler and standpipe distribution plans and schedules; sprinkler head layout; fire hose cabinet X X X locations b Location and specification of emergency lighting, emergency generators and exit X X X signage; fire alarm system annunciator, diagrams and specifications C Location of smoke alarms and carbon X X X X X monoxide detectors Notes 1. Where indicated by an X, the information described is required to be included on the drawings for the class of permit specified. 2. Required information may be located or consolidated on other drawings rather than as specified in this schedule: 3. The chief building official may waive the requirement for any required information specified in this schedule due to limited scope of work, applicable law or building code requirements. 21 9 -44 SCHEDULE D CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BUILDING OFFICIALS PURPOSE 1. To promote appropriate standards of behaviour and.enforcement actions by the chief building official and inspectors in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty under the Building Code Act or the building code. 2. To prevent practices which may constitute an abuse of power, including unethical or illegal practices, by the chief building official and inspectors in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty under the Building Code Act or the building code. 3. To promote appropriate standards of honesty and integrity in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty under the Building Code Act or the building code by the chief building official and inspectors. ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES The chief building official, deputy chief building official and inspectors appointed in Schedule A to this By -law shall comply with this code of conduct. Any appointed chief building official or inspector who fails to act in accordance with the provisions of this code may be subject to disciplinary action appropriate to the seriousness of the breach. All allegations concerning a breach of this code shall be made in writing. Any person who has reason to believe that this code of conduct has been breached may bring the matter to the attention of the chief building official. Where the allegation concerns the actions of the chief building official, the matter may be brought to the attention of the senior staff person to whom the chief building official reports. Any chief building official or senior staff person who receives information, in writing, concerning a significant breach of this code shall investigate the matter, and where appropriate shall commence disciplinary action in accordance with the employment standards of the place of work. All communications received by a chief building official or senior staff person concerning a breach of this code shall be held in confidence. The chief building official or senior staff person shall advise Council in writing about the particulars of the alleged breach, its investigation and the final disposition of the matter upon its conclusion. CODE OF CONDUCT In exercising powers and performing duties under the Building Code Act, the chief building official and inspectors shall: 1. Exercise powers in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code Act, the building code and other applicable law that governs the authorization, construction, occupancy and safety of buildings and designated structures, and the actions, duties and qualifications of chief building officials and inspectors; 2. Act to identify and enforce compliance where significant contraventions of the Act or regulations are known to exist; 3. Apply all relevant building laws, regulations and standards in a consistent and fair manner, independent of any influence by interested parties; 4. Not accept any personal benefit which may create a conflict with their duties; or perform duties where a personal interest may create a conflict; 5. Obtain the counsel of persons with expertise where the chief building official or inspector does not possess sufficient knowledge to make an informed judgment; and 6. Act honestly, reasonably and professionally in the discharge of their duties. 22 9 -45 Building on Permit Conditional Building Permit Permit for Stage of Construction (Partial Permit) Change of Use Occupancy Permit for Unfinished Building Alternative Solution Examination Fee Resubmission of incomplete application Revision to Permit Transfer of Permit Re- examination - Change in house model Re- examination - other than house model Additional Inspection Overtime Fee Permit Surcharge (after an Order is issued for building without a permit) Dormant Building Permit File CD I rn MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BUILDING BY -LAW SCHEDULE B, PART B DRAFT PROPOSED FEES Description Minimum fee payable on any application Single detached dwelling /residential accessory building All other buildings Normal fee for proposed construction plus additional % In addition to the fee for complete building In addition to applicable type of building permit fee for house In addition to applicable type of building permit fee for other bl, % of application fee House Other building Plus fee prescribed in Part B as result of additional area % of applicable permit fee Minimum 3 hours per Union Collective Agreement greater of 25% of permit fee (building permit appl received) or 50% of permit fee (building permit not received) Reactivation fee $1 v 0 zr 3 cD it N O M G7 0 16.40% Increase flat fee min $163 max $815 each phase per100 mZ flat fee min 1 hour min 4 hour min 1 hour min 4 hour flat fee max $1000 flat fee per hour Current Fee ier sq.m. Proposed Fee per sq.m. $70 $81 $71 $83 $0.18 $0.21 plus 10% 10% $210 $244 $70 $81 $141 $164 $109 $109 25% 25% $70 $109 $109 $106 $123 $423 $492 10% 10% $106 $123 $123 $1 v 0 zr 3 cD it N O M G7 0 Building Classification Communications Tower or Transmission T Crane Runway Exterior Tank and Support Pedestrian Bridge Retaining Wall Satellite Dish Solar Collector for single dwelling unit Solar Collector for all other occupancies Wind Turbine Permanent Tent, Air Supported Structures Balcony Guards (Replacements) Unfinished Basement (to accommodate a I Repair or Re- Cladding of wall (per wall are Canopy w/o enclosure Ceilings (Added or Replacement) Demising Walls (no other construction) Electromaqnetic Locks Farm Buildings Fire Alarms /Fire Code Retrofit Fire Doors Retrofit Fireplaces, Wood Stoves Sprinklers system - new or alteration Repairs to Parking Garage Portable Classrooms Portapack Residential Decks, Poncces, Balconi, Residential Detached or Attached G; Temporary Structures Tent Trailers and Temporary Buildings Sales Pavilions (Construction on Underoinnina on BUILDING BY -LAW SCHEDULE B, PART B DRAFT PROPOSED FEES 16.40% Increase Current rp oposed Description Fee Fee per sq.m. r sq.m. Accessory Structure $0.42 $0.49 $1:82 $2.12 $282 $328 flat fee 11.85 $13.79 $85 $99 flat fee $85 $99 up to 2 tents 141 $164 flat fee .75 $9.02 i.69 $7.79 per I.m. $141 $164 per 1.m. flat fee flat fee 10 panels max $5,000 perl.m. perl.m. per lock (max $425) per storey flat fee per door $141 $164 $7 $8 $85 $99 $85 $99 $99 Schedule B Part B Item 1 $7.30 $8.50 $2.22 $2.58 from elsewhere ) $4.23 $4.92 $0.27 $0.31 $3.53 $4.11 $0.45 $0.52 $3.34 $3.89 $51 $59 $49 $57 $2.27 $2.64 $141 $164 $28 $33 Accessory Structure $0.42 $0.49 $1:82 $2.12 $282 $328 flat fee 11.85 $13.79 $85 $99 flat fee $85 $99 up to 2 tents 141 $164 flat fee .75 $9.02 i.69 $7.79 per I.m. ng BUILDING BY -LAW SCHEDULE B, PART B DRAFT PROPOSED FEES 16.40% Increase urrent Proposed Fee Fee r sq.m. per sq.m. ,jnonn $7.79 per I.m. Window or door Replacement (excluding house $3.39 $3.95 per window Sign (3.15 of OBC only) $141 $164 flat fee Building Classification is and A/C (HVAC) umbino & Drains CD I v1 O BUILDING BY -LAW SCHEDULE B, PART B DRAFT PROPOSED FEES Description yrc IN 1-1-1 uUIIUII IUD kI IV In%.,) - JIII IC UCLdl:11CU Semi Detached, Duplexes & Townhouses (with or without A/C) All other Group C - Residential Buildings (HVAC) - Apartments H etc. Group E & F - Retail /Industrial (HVAC) - Small (up to 2,500 sq.ft.) Group E & F - Retail /Industrial (HVAC) - All others (above 2,500 s Group A, B and D (HVAC) - Assembly, Institutions, Restaurants and Office Buildings Minor Alterations to Buildings - Ductwork only or A/C unit addition Minor Alterations to Buildings - Add on systems, Space Heater, Make -Up Air Unit, Exhaust Fan Special Ventilation Systems - Commercial Kitchen Exhaust, Spray Booth, Dust Collector, etc. Furnace Replacement - SDD Type Residential, Buildings Geothermal system or earth energy system Single Family Dwellings Group A, C, E, and F Group B and D Backflow Preventer Manhole, Catchbasin, Interceptor Sump, etc. Single Family Detached or Attached Dwellings - Water Services, Sanitary and Storm buried piping Single Family Detached or Attached Dwellings - Repairs Replacement and Additions of buried Plumbing and drainage _piping, pool drains All Other Buildings Inside Sanitary and Storm Piping All Other Buildings - Outside Water Services, Sanitary and Storm Piping Buildings and structures not provided for fee fee 1.38 $1.61 per I. m. 2.31 $2.69 per I.m. each $1000 of construction $12 $13.97 value or part thereof 16.40% Increase flat fee flat fee flat fee flat fee flat fee flat fee flat fee per fixture per fixture per fixture Current Fee per sq.m. Proposed Fee per sq.m. $169 $197 $0.61 $0.71 $169 $197 $0.76 $0.88 $1.06 $1.23 $99 $115 $141 $164 $169 $197 $99 $115 $99 $12 $14 $15 $17 $15 $17 1 fee fee 1.38 $1.61 per I. m. 2.31 $2.69 per I.m. each $1000 of construction $12 $13.97 value or part thereof Attachment #3 to EGD- 011 -11 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BUILDING PERMIT FEES REVIEW UPDATE 2011 MUNICIPAL COMPARISONS - BUILDING PERMIT FEES Note: Ajax industrial rate is not displyed in fee by -law Source: Municipal fess by -laws HEMSON 9 -51 26 Current Fee Rate $ per square metre Single One Storey Multi Storey Industrial Municipality Dwelling Plaza Shell Office Shell Warehouse Whitby $6.78 - $9.69 $7.54 $9.37 $4.84 - $5.81 Richmond Hill $8.35 - $13.95 $7.10 $8.70 $5.60 Markham $8.56 - $14.27 $7.73 $9.20 $5.98 Vaughan $9.00 - $9.75 $7.00 $8.75 $5.40 Ajax $9.00 $7.80 $12.60 n/a Mississauga $9.27 - $13.58 $8.47 $9.38 - $10.40 $4.75 - $6.55 Caledon $9.30 - $12.90 $8.25 $9.80 $4.75 - $6.40 Burlington $9.56 - $12.32 $10.83 $12.34 - $14.58 $5.11 - $7.47 Pickering $10.00 $8.00 $8.00 $6.00 Oshawa $10.29 $9.45 $10.40 $4.99 - $9.97 Brampton $10.50 - $13.00 $9.00 $8.00 $5.40 Oakville $11.50 $11.21 $11.99 - $14.82 $5.63 - $9.99 Toronto $14.75 - $23.35 $12.52 $15.45 $7.96 - $9.83 Clarington 2011 Calculated $10.62 $10.43 $12.91 $8.14 Current $9.12 $8.96 $11.09 $6.99 Note: Ajax industrial rate is not displyed in fee by -law Source: Municipal fess by -laws HEMSON 9 -51 26 REPORT Leading the Way ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, March 21, 2011. Report #: EGD- 012 -11 File #: Resolution #: By -law #: Subject: MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR JANUARY, 2011. Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 012 -11 be received for information. Submitted by: S. Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services ASC *RP *bb March 11, 2011 Reviewed by le /"" lia � � ranklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -1824 9 -52 REPORT NO.: EGD- 012 -11 [:T -991 elael11J.` rk PAGE 2 1.1 With respect to the Building Permit Activity for the month of JANUARY 2011, Staff wish to highlight the following statistics for the information of Committee and Council. MONTH OF JANUARY 2011 2010 BUILDING CATEGORY NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION % CHANGE OF VALUE 2011 -2010 Residential 21 $2,506,147 36 $6,200,589 -59.6% Industrial 1 $30,000 0 $0 N/A Government 0 $0 0 $0 N/A Commercial 3 $171,000 5 $436,500 -60.8% Institutional 0 $0 4 $217,800 N/A Agricultural 2 $122,416 3 $301,500 -59.4% Demolition 0 $0 2 $0 N/A TOTAL 27 $2,829,563 50 $7,156,389 -60.5% YEAR TO DATE 2011 2010 BUILDING CATEGORY NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION % CHANGE OF VALUE 2011 -2010 Residential 21 $2,506,147 36 $6,200,589 - 59.6% Industrial 1 $30,000 0 $0 N/A Government 0 $0 0 $0 N/A Commercial 3 $171,000 5 $436,500 -60.8% Institutional 0 $0 4 $217,800 N/A Agricultural 2 $122,416 3 $301,500 -59.4% Demolition 0 $0 2 $0 N/A TOTAL 27 $2,829,563 50 $7,156,389 -60.5% 9 -53 REPORT NO.: EGD- 012 -11 PAGE 3 1.2 With respect to building permit activities (over $250,000) and large residential building permit activities, the details are provided as follows: Owner / Applicant Construction Type Location Value 9 -54 REPORT NO.: EGD- 012' -11 PAGE 4 The following is a comparison of the types of dwelling units issued for the month of "JANUARY" and "YEAR TO DATE ". 0 Tov-inhc 0% 4 Sell) Detached 45% Dwelling Unit Type "JANUARY" 2011 2 Apartment 3 4ine. 1. -tached 33% 'A Single Detached 3 ® Semi - Detached 4 © Townhouse 0 ■ Apartment 2 Dwelling Unit Type "YEAR T4 DATE 2011" 2 Apartment 0 Towi tc 0% 4 Semi Detached 45% w 5ingie uetacnea i E Semi - Detached 4 A Townhouse 0 ■ Apartment 2 3 Single Detached 33% The following is a historical comparison of the building permits issued for the month, of "JANUARY" and "YEAR TO DATE" for a three year period. Historical Data for Month of "January" ` $18,000,000 $10;000,000 $14,000,600 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $o 2011 2010 2009 Value $2,829,563 $7,156,389 1$16,418,810 9 -55 REPORT NO.: EGD- 012 -11 PAGE 5 PERMIT REVENUES 2011 2010 January Year to Date January Year to Date PERMIT FEES 1 $18,094 1 $18,094 1 $53,178 1 $53,178 1 INSPECTION SERVICES NUMBER OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 2011 2010 January Year to Date January Year to Date Building Inspections 287 287 310 310 Plumbing & Heating Inspections 378 378 409 409 Pool Enclosure Inspections 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 665 665 719 719 NUMBER OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 9 -56 2011 2010 January Year to Date January Year to Date Single Detached 3 3 17 17 Semi - Detached 4 4 2 2 Townhouse 0 0 0 0 Apartments 2 2 0 0 TOTAL 1 9 9 1 19 19 9 -56 REPORT NO.: EGD- 012 -11 RESIDENTIAL UNITS HISTORICAL COMPARISON PAGE 6 YEAR: AREA 2011 (to end of January) 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Bowmanville 1 282 98 340 451 609 307 587 468 345 312 Courtice 6 236 113 134 82 126 241 173 180 133 129 Newcastle 0 37 24 60 77 84 202 191 123 131 76 Wilmot Creek 0 8 9 30 16 15 15 25 29 38 24 Orono 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 Darlington 0 8 6 10 6 7 14 15 13 17 47 Clarke 1 6 11 5 11 12 13 10 16 15 9 Burketon 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Enfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enniskillen 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 5 Hampton 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 Haydon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kendal 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 Kirby 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leskard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Maple Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Mitchell Corners 1 0 0, 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Newtonville 0 7 5 7 2 2 4 5 3 3 0 Solina 0 1 5 0 1 6 3 3 3 3 1 1 Tyrone 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 9 3 TOTALS 9 593 274 593 1 655 861 1 802 1 1,015 843 701 609 9 -57 • Leading the Way REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, March 21, 2011 Resolution #: Report #: EGD- 013 -11 File #: By -law #: Subject: MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR FEBRUARY, 2011. Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 013 -11 be received for information. Submitted by: 2= Reviewed by: . S. Cannella, C.E.T. ranklin Wu Director of Engineering Services t Chief Administrative Officer ASC *RP *bb March 14, 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -1824 9 -58 REPORT NO.: EGD- 013 -11 1. BACKGROUND PAGE 2 1.1 With respect to the Building Permit Activity for the month of FEBRUARY 2011, Staff wish to highlight the following statistics for the information of Committee and Council. MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2011 2010 BUILDING CATEGORY NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION % CHANGE OF VALUE 2011 -2010 Residential 32 $7,115,225 61 $12,910,844 - 44.9% Industrial 1 $450,000 0 $0 N/A Government 1 $120,000 0 $0 N/A Commercial 1 $51,860 2 $727,900 -92.9% Institutional 1 $1,600,000 1 $8,886,600 -82.0% Agricultural 0 $0 0 $0 N/A Demolition 3 $0 1 $0 N/A TOTAL 39 $9,337,085 65 $22,525,344 - 58.5% YEAR TO DATE 2011 1 2010 BUILDING CATEGORY NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION NUMBER OF PERMITS VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION % CHANGE OF VALUE 2011 -2010 Residential 53 $9,621,372 97 $19,111,433 -49.7% Industrial 2 $480,000 0 $0 N/A Government 1 $120,000 0 $0 N/A Commercial 4 $222,860 7 $1,164,400 -80.9% Institutional 1 $1,600,000 5 $9,104,400 -82.4% Agricultural 2 $122,416 3 $301,500 -59.4% Demolition 3 $0 3 $0 N/A TOTAL 66 $12,166,648 115 $29,681,733 -59.0% 9 -59 REPORT NO.: EGD- 013 -11 PAGE 3 1.2 With respect to building permit activities (over $250,000) and large residential building permit activities, the details are provided as follows: Owner / Applicant Construction Type Location Value LAKERIDGE HEALTH Renovations to Hospital 47 LIBERTY SOUTH STREET, $1,600,000 CORPORATION (CCU) BOWMANVILLE ONTARIO POWER GENERATION Upgrade fire detection system 2,151 SOUTH SERVICE ROAD, $450,000 DARLINGTON • .1 REPORT NO.: EGD -013 -11 PAGE 4 The following is a comparison of the types of dwelling units issued for the month of "FEBRUARY" and "YEAR TO DATE ". Dwelling Unit Type "FEBRUARY" 2011 0 0 Tomhouse Apartment 0% 0% 10 Semi- 14 Detached Single 42 °/, 4 :, Detached 5$% U Single Detached 14 © Semi - Detached 10 o Townhouse 0 ■ Apartment 0 Dwelling Unit Type "YEAR TO DATE 2011" 0 2 Townhouse Apartment 0% 6% Sil17 l& Detached 14 52% Semi- Detached 42% to Single Detached 17 0 Semi- Detached 14 o Townhouse 0 v Apartment 2 The following is a historical comparison of the building permits issued for the month of "FEBRUARY" and "YEAR TO DATE" for a three year period. 9 -61 REPORT.NO.: EGD- 013 -11 PAGE 5 PERMIT REVENUES 2011 2010 February I Year to Date February I Year to Date I PERMIT FEES 1 $42,074 1 $60,168 1 $176,484 1 $229,662 1 INSPECTION SERVICES NUMBER OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 2011 2010 February Year to Date February Year to Date Building Inspections 325 612 297 607 Plumbing & Heating Inspections 353 731 358 768 Pool Enclosure Inspections 0 0 0 1 0 TOTAL 678 1,343 655 1,375 NUMBER OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 9 -62 2011 2010 February Year to Date February Year to Date Single Detached 14 17 38 55 Semi - Detached 10 14 2 4 Townhouse 0 0 6 6 Apartments 0 2 5 5 TOTAL 1 24 33 1 51 70 9 -62 REPORT NO.: EGD- 013 -11 PAGE 6 RESIDENTIAL UNITS HISTORICAL COMPARISON YEAR: AREA 2011 of (to rY) 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Bowmanville 15 282 98 340 451 609 307 587 468 345 312 Courtice 14 236 113 134 82 126 241 173 180 133 129 Newcastle 2 37 24 60 77 84 202 191 123 131 76 Wilmot Creek 0 8 9 30 16 15 15 25 29 38 24 Orono 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 Darlington 0 8 6 10 6 7 14 15 13 17 47 Clarke 1 6 11 5 11 12 13 10 16 15 9 Burketon 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Enfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enniskillen 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 5 Hampton 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 Haydon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kendal 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 Kirby 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leskard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Maple Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Mitchell Corners 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Newtonville 0 7 5 7 2 2 4 5 3 3 0 Solina 0 1 5 0 6 3 3 3 3 1 1 Tyrone 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 3 9 3 TOTALS 33 593 274 593 655 861 1 802 1,015 843 701 609 9 -63 • arm n Leading the Way REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday March 21, 2011 Resolution #: Report #: EGD- 014 -11 File #: By -law #: Subject: PROPOSAL TO CLOSE AND CONVEY A PORTION OF A ROAD ALLOWANCE (GIVEN ROAD) SITUATED IN LOT 30, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 014 -11 be received; 2. THAT Council approve in principle the closure and conveyance of Given Road from Rudell Road to the east limit of future Pedwell Street, situated in Lot 30, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke (Attachment 1); 3. THAT Council authorize the publication of a notice that Council intends to declare part of the road allowance (Attachment 1) to be surplus and to pass a by -law to close that part of the road allowance; 0 THAT the applicant pay all legal, advertising, appraisal and land costs associated with this transaction; and THAT Lidvest Properties (Clarington South) Ltd. Be advised of Council's decision. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 - 623 -9282 9 -64 REPORT NO.: EGD- 014 -11 Respectfully by, Y P, &Izrfx52 Sub fitted by: A.S. Cannella Director of Engineering Services ASC /jo March 14, 2011 !r PAGE 2 Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer REPORT NO.: EGD- 014 -11 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Lidvest Properties (Clarington South) Ltd. is the owner of lands situated on both the north side and the south side of Given Road in Newcastle between Rudell Road and future Pedwell Street. The lands located on the north side of Given Road have been draft approved for residential plan of subdivision 18T -89059 (Foster Creek North) and Authorization to Commence has been given for Phase 1. The developer has recently confirmed that they will construct Pedwell Street all the way to Highway 2 under the Phase 2 of Foster Creek North Subdivision, and they will construct a cul -de -sac at the west end of Given Road (east of Pedwell Street) as depicted in the Neighbourhood Plan (and which is a condition of draft approval). 1.2 The subject portion of Given Road can now be conveyed into private ownership to facilitate registration of the next phase of the subdivision plan and to finalize the road closure that was previously endorsed through the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan. Lidvest Properties (Clarington South) Ltd. has submitted the formal Application for Road Closure and Conveyance that is required under current municipal policy. 2.0 MUNIICPALITY POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR ROAD CLOSURES 2.1 In accordance with the Municipality's Policy and Procedure for Road Closures, the Application For Road Closure And Conveyance has been submitted to the Municipality. The Director has made a determination that the road allowance is not required for public highway purposes and that the closure is necessary to facilitate development of a draft approved plan of subdivision. The Policy and Procedure for Road Closure further states that the applicant must pay a non- refundable application fee and obtain consent of the abutting property owners (none in this case). The Municipality must under By -Law 95 -22, declare the land surplus and also determine whether the surplus property shall be sold by the acceptance of an offer from a member of the public in response to a tender, sold at its appraised fair market value to adjacent owners or exchanged for other property of equal or greater value. • .. REPORT NO.: EGD- 014 -11 PAGE 4 Under the Municipality's Policy and Procedure, the Municipality must give notice of its intention to pass a by -law closing the road allowance, circulate the application to all appropriate parties (Agencies and Utilities), and hold a public hearing prior to Council declaring the land surplus and passing a by -law closing the road allowance. 3.0 CONCLUSION 3.1 The Director of Engineering Services has determined that this portion of the road allowance (Given Road between Rudell Road and the future Pedwell Street) situated in Lot 30, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke is not required for the municipal road network. It is therefore recommended that Council direct staff to process the application to close and convey the subject land to Lindvest Properties (Clarington South) Ltd. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Lidvest Properties (Clarington South) Ltd. 9 -67 NEWCASTLE hway ..1111 111 � ;..- � ice= • -•. • - -• 11 '11111 a ■ v DRAWN BY: E.L. C NW ■ .•� /11111. � �IIIIIIIIIII: DATE: March 14, 2011 \ REPORT EGD- 014 -11 Iff 1 Highway 401 - KEY MAP ATTACHMENT NO. 1 �— —� GAAttachments \Given Rd Closure tar' Leading the Way REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, March 21, 2011 Report #: EGD- 015 -11 File #: Resolution #: By -law #: Subject: CLARINGTON BOULEVARD AND STEVENS ROAD INTERSECTION - BOWMANVILLE Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 015 -11 be received; 2. THAT Council approve the proposal for the construction of traffic signals at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road; 3. THAT construction of the recommended traffic signals be completed in 2011; 4. THAT funding for the works be reallocated from the following completed projects from previous Capital Budget years: Baseline Road /Spry Avenue Signalization Project — account #110 -32- 330 - 83312 -7401 ($56,000), Bloor Street Sidewalks — account #110 -32- 331 - 83343 -7401 ($41,200), Prestonvale Road Sidewalks — account #110 -32- 331 - 83346 -7401 ($47,800), and Courtice Road Sidewalks — account #110 -32- 331 - 83345 -7401 ($55,000); and 5. THAT Council approve the proposal to remove the unwarranted all -way stop at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Uptown Avenue at the same time that traffic signals are installed at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 - 623 -9282 am M 9 -70 REPORT NO.: EGD- 015 -11 Respectfully by, ZLZW S brAitted by: A.S. Cannella Director of Engineering Services Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer ASC /jo February 16, 2011 Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., C.A. Director of Finance /Treasurer PAGE 2 REPORT NO.: EGD- 015 -11 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 It has come to the attention of the municipality that a number of motor vehicle collisions have recently occurred at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard at Stevens Road in Bowmanville. The intersection has been studied and reviewed to determine if improvements or additional traffic controls are warranted. 1.2 The Clarington Central Secondary School, which may be referred to in this report as "the school ", is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road. This proximity to the school generates a large amount of pedestrian and vehicular activity, particularly during the a.m. and p.m. peak school periods. 1.3 A review by staff of the following intersections showed: Clarington Boulevard at Stevens Road (see Attachment 1) • Multi -lane, four -leg; • Clarington Boulevard — 13 -19m wide collector road designed as 2 lanes northbound and 2 lanes southbound; • Stevens Road — 9.5m wide.local road with single -lane approaches; • Concrete median dividing south leg with painted median dividing the north leg of Clarington Boulevard; • Sidewalks provided except along undeveloped area east of the school; • Pavement markings delineating the multiple lanes north of Uptown Avenue intentionally absent to discourage multi -lane use; • Stop signs, stop bars and pedestrian lines on east/west approaches; • Street light illumination provided throughout area; • Sufficient sight lines (day lighting triangles) . 9 -71 REPORT NO.: EGD- 015 -11 Clarington Boulevard at Uptown Avenue • Multi -lane, three leg: PAGE 4 • Only 135m spacing between Stevens Road and Uptown Avenue and only 145m spacing between Uptown Avenue and Durham Highway 2; • The intersection would not meet warrants for an all -way stop due to the low side street volumes of the "T" intersection with a driveway to Home Depot on the west side of Clarington Boulevard. 1.4 A number of site observations were made at Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road, including: a) In general, the subject intersection operates at a good level of service (LOS) which is a function of vehicle delay; b) Traffic peaks from 7:50 a.m. to 8:50 a.m. with a higher concentration of vehicular and pedestrian traffic between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.; c) Despite the width of Clarington Boulevard being sufficient for two travel lanes, it is typically used as one wide lane in each direction north of Uptown Avenue due to the intentional lack of lane pavement markings; d) A significant number of students cross both Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road, with the majority crossing at mid -block locations often diagonally, rather than at the intersection, which often results in drivers having to slow or take some evasive action; e) Vehicles which exit the school driveway 30m north of Stevens Road and travel south often accelerate rapidly to reach the intersection quickly. 1.5 In addition to engineering staff reviewing the intersection, a new traffic count was performed on December 02, 2010 with an all -way stop and traffic signal warrant analysis undertaken. Stantec Consulting Ltd. was also retained to provide a traffic review of the intersections of Clarington Boulevard at both Stevens Road and Uptown Avenue to provide input to staff. Engineering staff also met with 9 -72 REPORT NO.: EGD- 015 -11 PAGE 5 representatives of Durham Regional Police to discuss the intersection related collisions which had occurred in 2010. 1.6 Traffic volumes on Stevens Road have increased within the last year with the opening of Wal -mart, located at the west end of Stevens Road at Green Road. Volumes are expected to continue to increase as other commercial businesses open and residential development occurs in the area. 1.7 Motor vehicle collisions at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road were reviewed for identifiable trends or patterns. Sight distance at this intersection is good and not considered a factor in the collision history or identifiable as a safety concern. This intersection is relatively new and Wal -mart opened in 2010. Records showed no collisions in 2008, none in 2009 and three in 2010. The three in 2010 showed a consistent trend and were all right angled collisions under wet conditions with eastbound motorists stopping but failing to yield to northbound traffic. Two of the collisions occurred at the peak a.m. period 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., with the third occurring closer to noon. The three collisions were attributable to driver errors such as misjudging, wet weather conditions, variations in vehicular speeds, vehicular spacing or right -of -way. The east bound drivers were charged with failing to yield the right -of -way. 1.8 Based on the traffic count of December 2, 2010, a review of the intersection traffic controls was undertaken. The need for higher form of traffic control at the subject intersection was analyzed using the procedures contained in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM). This involves comparing the recorded traffic and pedestrian volumes, and collision history, with the OTM justification levels (or warrants) for either all -way stop control or signalization. The most recent count shows that neither all -way stop control nor signalization is warranted as both the minimum volume entering and minor street volume thresholds are not met. 9 -73 REPORT NO.: EGD- 015 -11 PAGE 6 Additionally, the OTM also advises that all -way stop control should not be used at an intersection where any other traffic device controlling right -of -way is permanently in place within 250m (with the exception of a YIELD sign). The stop control at Uptown Avenue is only 135m to the south.. 1.9 With either all -way stop control, or traffic signal control all approaches would operate at good levels of service. However, installing an all -way stop control at a multi -laned intersection can be very confusing for drivers as vehicles approach from one direction at varying times. Right -of -way is not always clear. 1.10 While neither all -way stop control nor traffic signals are warranted at this time, staff are mindful that the Brookhill area and the Smart Centre commercial development are rapidly expanding. It is anticipated that traffic signals will be warranted in the relatively near future. In response to public concern and the eventual need for signals, staff recommend the installation of traffic signals at this time. Due to the proximity of the unwarranted all -way stop control at Uptown Avenue, it is recommended by staff and the traffic consultant that the stop control on Clarington Blvd. at Uptown Avenue be removed. 1.11 The report has been reviewed with the Finance Department and they concur with the recommendations as they pertain to the reallocation of funds. 2.0 CONCLUSION 2.1 The future commercial and residential growth in the Brookhill area will significantly increase traffic at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road with the expectation that it will require traffic signals in the near future. As the installation of an all -way stop at multi -lane approaches combined with high pedestrian volumes can cause confusion for motorists, it is recommended to install signalization at the intersection in 2011 which would include countdown pedestrian signals at an estimated cost of $200,000.00. This 9 -74 REPORT NO.: EGD- 015 -11 PAGE 7 project may be funded from the reallocation of funds from the Baseline Road /Spry Avenue Signalization Project, Bloor Street Sidewalks, Prestonvale Road Sidewalks, and Courtice Road Sidewalks. All works required for these projects have been completed and as such have no further funding commitments. 2.2 The unwarranted all -way stop at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Uptown Avenue is too close to the existing traffic signal at Durham Highway 2 and too close to the proposed traffic signal at Stevens Road. This all -way stop control should be removed at the same time the new traffic signal is activated in conjunction with public announcements regarding the date of implementation. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map 9 -75 z ""y 4 0, 4; Z,1 M, "V -V 7E 1 11 2 , ................... STEV, &RU C ME D - FAY, HI fill '1 7Q, Vr Steven 74' F Uptown Ave. -NoT2 r DRAWN BY: E.L. DATE: March 8, 2011 OR, REPORT EGD-015-11 KEY MAP ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ,p,,,, GAAttachments\Clarington Blvd StevensRd.mxd llqjr�ipg Central Seconudry schQol z ""y 4 0, 4; Z,1 M, "V -V 7E 1 11 2 , ................... STEV, &RU C ME D - FAY, HI fill '1 7Q, Vr Steven 74' F Uptown Ave. -NoT2 r DRAWN BY: E.L. DATE: March 8, 2011 OR, REPORT EGD-015-11 KEY MAP ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ,p,,,, GAAttachments\Clarington Blvd StevensRd.mxd • Leading the Way REPORT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law#: N/A Report#: OPD- 004 -11 File #: Subject: 2010 WINTER REPORT Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report OPD- 004 -11 be received for information. Submitted by: Reviewed FrW H6fi41th B.A., RAM.R., R.R.F.A. Director of Operations FH \kr Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer 10 -1 10 -2 REPORT NO. OPD- 004 -11 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: PAGE 2 Further to our 2010 Winter Budget Report #OPD- 002 -10, submitted June 21, 2010, staff is providing a final update to the costs of the 2010 winter maintenance program. Winter Maintenance: As of December 31, 2010, the following table illustrates the expenditures incurred. Winter Control 2010 Budget 2010 Actual Variance Plowing $ 329,600.00 $ 102,560.31 $227,039.69 Sanding /Salting $ 1,153,500.00 $ 812,634.83 $340,865.17 Winter Maintenance Other $ 227,500.00 $ 300,276.70 ($ 72,581.56) Total $1,710,600.00 $1,215,276.70 $495,323.30 The 2010 winter maintenance budget from January 1 st to December 31 st actual expenditure of $1,215,276.70 includes the sand /salt year end inventory adjustment of ($98,443.90). Included in the above total is the 2010 cost of $145,755.15 to provide winter maintenance to unassumed developments, which is recovered from developers. Extensive clean up of facilities, fire halls and Municipal parking lots was experienced in the spring of 2010. The increase in winter maintenance work such as thawing of culverts and the spring clean up impacted the "Winter Maintenance Other" account. The Municipality of Clarington delivers winter control services across a road system of 1,700 lane kilometers. The Operations Department winter response capacity features twenty -nine (29) units in total. Our response is composed of a mix of vehicles from the Orono, Hampton, and Yard 42 depots. In 2010, The Operations Department had thirty -nine (39) responses. A full callout is categorized by calling all available drivers. An event is categorized by calling any number less than all available drivers. The breakdown is as follows: ten (10) full callouts and twenty -nine (29) events. Of these thirty -nine (39) CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 263 -2292 F (905) 263 -4433 REPORT NO. OPD- 004 -11 =041M callouts, twenty -eight (28) were for snow accumulation, one (1) was for freezing rain, seven (7) were for drifting snow and three (3) were for ice / clean up conditions. Winter Callouts: Year Jan Feb Mar Apr Oct Nov Dec Total 2007 17 27 13 2 0 10 20 89 2008 19 23 18 0 1 8 27 96 2009 21 12 1 2 0 1 14 51 2010 12 16 0 0 0 1 10 39 Please note that winter operations were down significantly from the previous three year average of 79 callouts. During 2010 depth of snow in the BIA's never met the criteria for snow removal operations to be scheduled. Winter Patrol is a critical winter control function. It provides us the assurance that the road system is observed on a continual basis during the winter season, so that any potentially hazardous conditions encountered can be addressed. Road Patrol is also backed up by an On Call Lead Hand available to visit the areas of concern if necessary and to make judgement calls as appropriate. An Operations Supervisor is also on call to assist with winter maintenance. Senior Citizens and Physically Disabled Sidewalk Program The total budget for this program in 2010 was $44,800.00 with an actual expenditure of $8,683.58. As per the 2010 approved budget, there is -an annual administration fee of $60.00 plus HST per registered property. Staff costs for the administration of the program and night patrol during November and December cost the Municipality an additional $7,100.00. Revenue collected for the January to April season totaled $14,040.00 which had been intended to subsidize the CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 10 -3 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 263 -2292 F (905) 263 -4433 REPORT NO. OPD -004 -11 PAGE 4 actual costs of this program. The contractor was only required to provide mainly sanding of sidewalks a total of fourteen (14) times during January and February. The actual budget for 2011 has been adjusted to $19,500.00, recognizing decrease in number of - applicants since a paid service has been introduced. For the 2010 — 2011 season there has been $16,560.00 received from the residents. For November and December there has been nine (9) callouts costing a total of $2,487.00. As per report COD -007 -11; the price has increased by $2,268.21 per callout and the expectation would be that the cost of the program for the 2010 - 2011 season will exceed the actual fees received. Program Call -Out Statistics Looking back, it can now be said that this period from January 2010 to April 2010 had remarkably low snowfall amounts compared to previous years. Since the charge has been implemented the Senior Citizens and Physically Disabled Sidewalk and Driveway Windrow Snow Clearing Program has declined to 276 residents on the program. There are 42 new participants to the program since last season. Area January February March April November December Total 2010 6 8 -0-0 81 1 8 23 2011 8 12 Newcastle 23 30 Newtonville 20 Looking back, it can now be said that this period from January 2010 to April 2010 had remarkably low snowfall amounts compared to previous years. Since the charge has been implemented the Senior Citizens and Physically Disabled Sidewalk and Driveway Windrow Snow Clearing Program has declined to 276 residents on the program. There are 42 new participants to the program since last season. Area 2010 -2011 Season Returning Total Bowmanville 120 136 Burketon 2 2 Courtice 66 81 Enniskillen 2 2 Hampton 7 7 Newcastle 23 30 Newtonville 3 4 Orono 11 14 Totals 234 276 10 -4 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 263 -2292 F (905) 263 -4433 REPORT NO. OPD- 004 -11 Sidewalk Snow Clearing Contract: PAGE 5 The total budget for sidewalk snow clearing portion of the program in 2010 was $120,000.00 with an actual of $41,538.92. The snow clearing service on municipal sidewalks starts when a snowfall ends and only when there is more than two centimeters of snow on sidewalks. The driveway windrow snow clearing service is not undertaken until the snow plowing on all municipal streets has been completed. Below is a table of call -out statistics for this program from 2001 to 2010: Call -Out Statistics Pavement Patching: The total budget for pavement patching in 2010 was $418,000.00 with an actual of $546,248.31. The condition of our rural roads is rapidly declining and the liability issues with pot holes are a growing concern. The mild winter during the first four months of 2010 produced a freeze / thaw affect that created havoc on the rural road system. Staff and equipment that are normally performing winter maintenance activities were deployed in an effort to keep the roads passable during this time period. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 10 -5 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 263 -2292 F (905) 263 -4433 January February March April November December Total 2001 17 13 6 0 1 16 53 2002 10 10 7 0 2 11 40 2003 23 14 11 4 1 6 59 2004 20 9 3 0 1 9 42 2005 11 5 4 0 5 10 35 2006 7 9 2 0 0 3 21 2007 12 12 6 1 2 12 45 2008 11 10 9 0 2 13 45 2009 8 4 0 1 0 4 17 2010 7 7 0 0 1 13 28 Pavement Patching: The total budget for pavement patching in 2010 was $418,000.00 with an actual of $546,248.31. The condition of our rural roads is rapidly declining and the liability issues with pot holes are a growing concern. The mild winter during the first four months of 2010 produced a freeze / thaw affect that created havoc on the rural road system. Staff and equipment that are normally performing winter maintenance activities were deployed in an effort to keep the roads passable during this time period. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 10 -5 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 263 -2292 F (905) 263 -4433 REPORT NO. OPD- 004 -11 PAGE 6 Salt Management and Winter Control Improvements New GPS units are installed as trucks are replaced, to track location and quantity of material used. Road thermometers are included with truck replacements. RWIS weather data is continually being improved and allows for proactive decision making resulting in fighting the storms from the bottom up rather than from the top down. Increased training with the 2010 patroller's course, involved all supervisors, lead hands, patrol staff, and improved the knowledge base of materials application for all concerned. The program dealt with Weather 101 / Road weather / Winter Minimum Maintenance Standards / Winter Patrol Documentation / winter specific Health and Safety Legislation / Salt Management Overview / Review of Pre - Wetting, Anti Icing and De- Icing technology / Event Management / Managing Available Staff Hours of Service. The addition of one (1) patrol man allowed more proactive responses to storm events and the plowing and salting of facility parking lots during the afternoon shift. CONCLUSION: The Operations Department continues to closely monitor weather forecasts including the Provincial Road Weather Information System (RWIS) which accurately predicts each hour anticipated precipitation, air, and pavement temperature, dew point temperature (the moment fog occurs) and wind speed / gusts, and respond accordingly. General conditions encountered are lake effect flurries, drifting snow on rural roads, freezing rain, icy / flash freeze conditions, or snow accumulations that require maintenance. A follow up report before summer recess will update Council on the 2011 winter costs as it relates to the approved budget. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 10 -6 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 263 -2292 F (905) 263 -4433 Clarbgton CORPORATE REPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report#: COD - 009 -11 File #: Subject: CL2011 -08, OSBORNE STREET RECONSTRUCTION & ENERGY DRIVE CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report COD - 009 -11 be received; 2. THAT Hard -Co Construction Ltd., Whitby, ON with a total bid in the amount of $2,468,845.95 (excluding HST), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of Tender CL2011 -08, be awarded the contract for Osborne Street Reconstruction and Energy Drive Construction as required by the Engineering Department; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of $3,550,000.00 (which includes $2,468,845.95 for contract plus net HST rebate, tendering, design contract administration and contingencies) be drawn from the Account # 110- 32 -330- 83334 -7401 Osborne Street Reconstruction and Energy Drive Construction; 0 5 THAT the tender award be subject to the approval of the Regional Municipality of Durham for Regional infrastructure; and THAT the Mayor and the Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -4169 14 -1 REPORT NO.: COD - 009 -10 PAGE 2 Submitted by _ Reviewed by: Marie Marano, H.B.Sc., C.M.O., 'Franklin Wu, Director of Corporate Services Chief Administrative Officer MM \JDB \km 14 -2 I , A Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., C.A., Director of Finance REPORT NO.: COD - 009 -10 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Osborne Street Reconstruction and Energy Drive Construction as required by the Engineering Department. 1.2 Tenders were advertised in the Daily Commercial News, as well as electronically on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per the letter from AECOM Canada Ltd., Schedule "A" attached. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of six (6) submissions were received in response to the tender call. Five submissions were deemed compliant and acceptable and the sixth submission from Mar -King, Construction, Concord was deemed an unbalanced bid /non- complaint and rejected. 2.2 After further review and analysis by the Engineering Department, AECOM Canada Ltd. and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Hard - Co Construction Ltd., Whitby, ON, be recommended for the contract for the Osborne Street Reconstruction and Energy Drive Construction. A copy of the recommending memos from the Department of Engineering and the consultant AECOM are attached as Schedule "A ". 2.3 The low bidder has provided services to the Municipality in the past and has performed satisfactorily. References were also checked and Hard -Co Construction Ltd. has completed a number of projects of similar scope and value for the Region of Durham and the City of Kawartha Lakes. All references were satisfied with work completed by Hard -Co Construction Ltd., and would recommend them for similar projects. 14 -3 REPORT NO.: COD - 009 -10 PAGE 4 2.4 Queries with respect to department needs, specifications, etc., should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3.0 FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost of $3,550,000.00 including net HST, contract award, tender, design contract administration, contingencies and utilities be drawn from account # 110 -32- 330 - 83334 -7401. The funding required for the project for the municipal portion is from 2008 and 2010 capital budgets for Osborne Street Reconstruction and the non municipal portion is from secured letters of credit from Ontario Power Generation to Municipality of Clarington for the construction of Energy Drive and sanitary sewer and watermains on Osborne Street. Please refer to the attached Schedule "A" for more details. 4. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 4.1 The Director of Finance has reviewed the funding requirements and concurs with the recommendation. 4.2 This report has been reviewed for recommendation by the Purchasing Manager, with the appropriate departments and circulated as follows: Concurrence: Director of Engineering Attachments: Schedule "A" — Memo from Engineering Services & Letter from AECOM Canada Ltd. 14 -4 Leading the Way MEMO SCHEDULE "A" TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Ron Albright, Manager, Infrastructure and Design DATE: March 11, 2011 RE: Osborne Road Reconstruction and Energy Drive Construction, CL2011 -08 The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the recommendation provided by AECOM Canada Ltd. ( "AECOM ") and offers the following comments. Over the last several years the Municipality has been working with the various stakeholders in the Clarington Energy Business Park (CEBP) to ensure the necessary infrastructure requirements needed to service the CEBP are in place in time to allow for development of the Park to progress. We are now at a point that Ontario Power Generation plan to develop their site in the Park and commence construction in the coming months and as such servicing is required. In addition to the typical design process associated with a road reconstruction the project also required coordination with the ongoing Master Drainage Plan for the CEBP which involved working with Central Lake Ontario Conservation, Canadian National Railway and Stakeholders within the CEBP. Input into and from the Secondary Plan for CEBP were also key in the finalization of the design for the reconstruction of Osborne Road. As Council is aware, the Osborne Road reconstruction had funding approved for the project in the 2008 and 2010 budgets. In addition the Municipality of Clarington has partnered with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and the Region of Durham to complete additional servicing in the area including the construction of a new road in the CEBP, Energy Drive, from Osborne Road to the east limit of the OPG lands. Upon completion of the works Osborne Road will be reconstructed to an urban standard from the south limit of Osborne Road to just north of the newly constructed Energy Drive. Originally it was planned to reconstruct the remainder of Osborne Road from Energy Drive to South Service Road as OPG had planned to develop their land north of Energy Drive. Since the start of the project OPG have changed their plans and are now developing on the south side of the proposed Energy Drive. For this reason coupled with future 407 East Link land requirements to the north and budget constraints the scope of work was reduced to the north side of Energy Drive which is what was included in the Tender CL2011 -08. 14 -5 SCHEDULE "A" We concur with AECOM's recommendation to award the contract to Hard -Co Construction Ltd. in the amount of $2,468,845.95, exclusive of HST, for the reconstruction of Osborne Road and the new construction of Energy Drive. It should be noted that funding for the Regional services and the construction of Energy Drive are being funded by Ontario Power Generation and funding has been secured through letters of credit with the Municipality of Clarington and through the servicing agreement with the Region of Durham. A detailed breakdown of the Clarington's and external funding is provided on the Cost Apportionment provided with AECOM's tender review letter. Due to past experiences on similar projects, a contingency amount of approximately 10% is carried forward. Therefore, including design and tender fees as well as contract administration fees, the Engineering Department advises the following breakdown for the above referenced project: We recommend the report to Council move forward based on the above apportionments. Attached for your files is the recommendation provided by AECOM which includes a more detailed breakdown of estimated project costs. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, rtureand Ron Albrigh t, P. Manager, Infrastpital Works RA/jo Attachment. Cc: Sean Bagshaw, P. Eng., AECOM Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance A.S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services 14 -6 Project Breakdown Total Project Value $1,608,000 Budget Amount Osborne Reconstruction 110 -32- 330 - 83334 -7401 (2008) $220,000 Osborne Reconstruction 110 -32- 330 - 83334 -7401 2010 $1,500,000 Estimated Unexpended Budget $112,000 Additional Funding Required $0 We recommend the report to Council move forward based on the above apportionments. Attached for your files is the recommendation provided by AECOM which includes a more detailed breakdown of estimated project costs. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, rtureand Ron Albrigh t, P. Manager, Infrastpital Works RA/jo Attachment. Cc: Sean Bagshaw, P. Eng., AECOM Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance A.S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services 14 -6 SCHEDULE "A" AEC ®M March 11, 2011 Mr. A. S. Cannella, C.E.T. Director, Engineering Services The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Sir: Project No: 60117328 (12- 29703) AECOM 905 372 2121 tel 513 Division Street 905 372 3621 fax Cobourg, Ontario K9A 5G6 www.aecom.com Regarding: Osborne Road. Reconstruction and Energy Drive Construction, Contract No. CL2011 -08 (the "Contract') Municipality of Clarington Tenders for the above project were opened at the Municipal Offices on Monday, March 7, 2011 at 2:15p.m. A list of the bids received is provided in the table below. All numbers are inclusive of HST. BIDDER TOTAL BID Hard -Co Construction Ltd. $2,789,795.92 Whitby, ON Dom- Meridian Construction Ltd. $2,851,153.38 " Mississauga, ON Fernview Construction Limited $2,920,075.83' Brampton, ON Eagleson Construction $3,098,892.64 Millbrook, ON Elirpa Construction Limited $3,244,022.23 Pickering, ON Dig -Con International Ltd. $3,832,765.87 " Bolton, ON Mar -King Construction Rejected Concord, ON Calculation Error(s) ** Qty Changes were not made as addressed in Addendum CL2011 -08 Tender Award Letler -Doc 14 -7 SCHEDULE "A" AZCOM Page 2 March 11, 2011 The Municipality of Clarington's Purchasing Department (the "Purchasing Department ") reviewed all bids to confirm compliance with the Clarington Purchasing By -Law. The bid from Mar -King Construction Company Ltd. was rejected by the Purchasing Department. All other bids were deemed compliant by the Purchasing Department. AECOM Canada Ltd. ( "AECOM ") has reviewed the two lowest bids and confirmed the bid values noted above. Hard -Co Construction Ltd. is the lowest bidder. Its submitted tender has been reviewed and was confirmed to be compliant. The bid from Dom- Meridian Construction Ltd had an extension error in the amount of $1.13, which was corrected by the Purchasing Department. This does not affect the bid order. As .requested by the Purchasing Department, references were checked only for the lowest bidder. Hard -Co Construction Ltd. has completed a number of projects of similar scope and value including work for the Region of Durham and the City of Kawartha Lakes. References stated that Hard -Co Construction Ltd. has completed work to specification and to their satisfaction. With the low bid from Hard -Co Construction Ltd., and other associated project costs noted on the attached cost apportionment, the project is within budget. Should funding be available, it is our. opinion, based on the input provided by the references contacted regarding performance on previous projects, that the bid in the amount of $2,468,845.95 (exclusive of HST) may be awarded to Hard -Co Construction Ltd. of Whitby, Ontario subject to all }provisions of the Clarington Purchasing Bylaw being met. Bid Cheques or Bid Bonds shall be retained for Hard -Co Construction Ltd. and Dom- Meridian Construction Ltd., the second low bidder, until the Contract has been executed. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. Doug Timms, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager doug.tim.ms @aecom.com DT.hm Encl. cc. Mr. Ron Albright, P.Eng., Manager of Infrastructure and Capital Works, Municipality of Clarington CL2011.08 Tender Award Leuer.D= 14 -8 Municipality of ClaringtonlOntario Power Generation Osborne Road Reconstruction and Energy Drive Construction Cost Apportionment Based on Low Bid Contract CL2011 -08 SCHEDULE "A" Friday, March 11, 2011 A Fenns 13-1—f * 9111 7100 Ili 7007/19/ Description Total Clarington I Ontario Power Generation - Comments Osborne Road Energy Drive and OPG Share of Osborne Road items Roadworks and Storm Sewer Sanitary sewer, & Watermain Project ID/Account Number _ 110 -32 -330- 83334 -7401 Letter of Credit G198126 Construction Costs Contract CL2011.08 - SECTION 1 - OSBORNE ROAD (Energy Dr to CN Tracks) Total Part 'A' - Roadworks and Storm Sewers $866,067.70 $882,645.70 $3,422.00 OPG responsible for Item A15, storm sewer stub from MH C43 -006 to OPG site. Item A3 moved to General Items. Osborne Rd from South Service Rd to Energy Dr, all sidewalk and trees deleted. Total Part'B' - Sanitary Sewer and Appurtenances $192,340.00 $192,340.00 Total Part'C' - Watermain and Appurtenances $356,355.00 $356,355.00 Total Part'D' - Electrical $2,170.00 $2,170.00 Street lights omitted - only includes dud crossings. SECTION 2 - ENERGY DRIVE Total Part'E' - Roadworks and Storm Sewers $625,039.25 $625,039.25 Total Part'F - Sanitary Sewer and Appurtenances $155,099.00 $155,099.00 Secured under Region of Durham Agreement (Legal Ref. No. AGT- 78 -10, Works Ref. No. 2008 -C-6) Total Part'G' - Watermain and Appurtenances $183,398.00 $183,398.00 Secured under Region of Durham Agreement (Legal Ref. No. AGT- 78 -10, Works Ref. No. 2008 -C-8) Total Part'H' - Electrical $6,160.00 $6,160.00 SECTION 3 - GENERAL ITEMS $62,217.00 $22,874.56 $14,185.05 $25,157.39 General Items include Item A3 - Traffic Control and Signing Total Construction 1 $2,468,845.95 $907,690.26 $562,880.05 $998,275.64 Detail Design and Approvals 12 -29703 Osbome Road Reconstruction Preliminary Design Based on Initial OPG Concept and Unapproved MDP To Jan 29, 2010 $80,085.33 $80,085.33 $0.00 $0.00 Includes Osborne Rd from South Service Rd to Solina Rd including turn lanes on South Service Rd and Solina Rd from Osborne Rd to South Service Rd Detailed Design Based on Final OPG Concept and Coordination of Infrastructure for 0 to and 1, 2010 Refurb. From Jan 30, 2010 to Dec 31, 2010 � $84,846.63 $84,846.63 $0.00 - $0.00 Includes Osborne Rd from South Service Rd to 960 m southerly including storm sewer outfall 12 -29688 Clarington Energy Business Paris Master Drainage Plan MDP Final Draft Report Based on Concept As Discussed With CLOCA Staff To Nov 27, 2009 $94,231.74 $94,231.74 $0.00 $0.00 Revised MDP Concept and Final Report Based on CLOCA Comments and Development Details and,Phasing From Nov 28, 2009 $95.000.00 $95000.0 $0.00 $0.00 Costs include estimated additional costs to achieve final approval Total Detail Design and Approvals $354,163.70 $354,163.70 $0.00 $0.00 Tendering, Construction Administration and Materials Testing 10.0% Tendering, Construction Administration and Materials Testing $247.000.00 $91.000.00 $56.000.00 $100.000.00 Total Tendering, Construction Administration and Materials Testing $247,000.00 $91,000.00 $56,000.00 $100,000.00 Other Costs Utility Relocation - Bell (Preliminary Quote) $12,313.20 $12,313.20 $0.00 $0.00 Hydro One (Preliminary Quote) $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Storm Sewer Placed Under Region of Durham Contract D2010 -032 - PO #05961 $51.980.00 $51.980.00 $0.001 $0.001 Total Other Costs $104,293.20 $84,293.20 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Sub -Total Estimated Project Costs $3,174,302.85 $1,437,147.16 $628,880.05 $1,108,275.64 - 10% Contingencies (approx.) $314.297.78 $143.041.52 $61.961.14 $109.295.12 Total Estimated Project Costs (Excluding HST) $3,488,600.63 $1,580,188.68 $690,841.19 $1,217,570.75 Total Estimated Project Costs (Including 1.76% Unrecoverable HST) $3,550,000.00 $1,608,000.00 $703,000.00 $1,239,000.00 Budget Amount $1,720,000.00 $703,000.00 $1,239,000.00 Underl(Over) Budget Amount $112,000.00 $112,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 11CACBG1FP001 .na.aecomnetcom\pmjectslDept 12112- 29703\ Construction\ CL2011- 08- Testpay(WorkingRevised).As AECOM 14 -9 Ciarftwn REPORT FINANCE DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Date: MAR 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report#: FND- 005 -11 File #: Subject: MAYOR AND COUNCILLOR'S REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES FOR 2010 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report FND- 005 -11 be received for information. Submitted by. I�t ,'L� Reviewed by Nancy Taylor, 1313A, CA Director of Finance/ Treasurer NT /RB /hjl Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 15 -1 REPORT NO.: FND- 005 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: PAGE 2 1.1 Appended hereto, please find a schedule detailing the compensation paid to each Member of Council during 2010 as required by the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25, Section 283. Also attached is a schedule detailing compensation paid to Clarington's representatives on the Veridian Board of Directors. 1.2 As per Resolution # GPA- 445 -95, passed by Council on July 15, 1995, attached is the Regional Municipality of Durham Report # 2011 -F -15 detailing the remuneration and expenses of the Members of Council and Regional Council appointees to local boards. Attachments: Attachment # 1 — Remuneration & Expenses for Mayor &Councillors — January 1 to November 30, 2010 Attachment #2 — Remuneration & Expenses for Mayor & Councillors — December 1 to December 31, 2010 Attachment # 3 — Remuneration & Expenses for Members of Veridian Corporation — January 1 to December 31, 2010 Attachment # 4 — Regional Report No. 2011 -F -15 15 -2 MAYOR & COUNCILLORS' REMUNERATION & EXPENSES January 1 to November 30, 2010 Name Basic Pa 1/3 Tax Free OMERS Municipal Gross Pay Travel Allowance Conferences Other Total Allowance Equivalent Severance (per By -law 2008 -020) Note 1 Note 2 Mayor J. Abernethy $45,676.85 $22,838.43 $1,793.83 - $70,309.11 * $9,511.97 $2,584.38 $798.59 $83,204.05 Councillor A. Foster 19,133.89 9,566.94 717.52 - 29,418.35 6,314.07 55.44 - 35,787.86 Councillor R. Hooper 19,133.89 9,566.94 717.52 - 29,418.35 - 396.34 - 29,814.69 Councillor M. Novak * *+ 19,133.89 9,566.94 717.52 - 29,418.35 9,214.90 215.44 - 38,848.69 Councillor G. Robinson 19,133.89 9,566.94 717.52 29,418.35 6,314.07 30.00 - 35,762.42 Councillor C. Trim ** 19,133.89 9,566.94 717.52 - 29,418.35 6,381.42 1,422.57 104.93 37,327.27 Councillor W. Woo 19,133.89 9,566.94 717.52 - 29,418.35 7,131.72 1,653.45 55.70 38,259.22 Total $160,480.19 $80,240.07 $6,098.95 - $246,819.21 $44,868.15 $6,357.62 $959.22 $299,004.20 * Net of donation to the Municipality of $3,237.72 ** Regional Councillor + Deputy Mayor- January 1 to November 30, 2010 Notes: Conferences Include payment made by the Municipality for registration fee and /or accommodation, as well as direct reimbursement of expenses. Other Includes parking, meals, airfare, external kilometer reimbursement and miscellaneous charges. Expenses excludes G.S.T. W I w D m 0 m 1$ 0 z 0 0 0 cri Cn I MAYOR & COUNCILLORS' REMUNERATION & EXPENSES December 1 to December 31, 2010 Name Basic Pa 1/3 Tax Free OMERS Municipal Gross Pay Travel Allowance Conferences Other Total Allowance Equivalent Severance (per By -law 2008 -020) Note 1 Note 2 Mayor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor J. Neal Councillor M. Novak' Councillor W. Partner Councillor C. Trail[ Councillor W. Woo'* Former Councillor G. Robinson $4,348.67 1,739.45 1,739.45 1,739.45 1,739.45 1,739.45 1,739.45 $2,174.33 869.72 869.72 869.72 869.72 869.72 869.72 $163.08 65.23 65.23 65.23 65.23 65.23 65.23 - - - - - - 26,092.00 $6,686.08 2,674.40 2,674.40 2,674.40 2,674.40 2,674.40 2,674.40 $838.39 - 556.53 811.98 556.53 603.36 622.09 $457.92 - - - - - - - - - - - - - $7,982.39 2,674.40 3,230.93 3,486.38 3,230.93 3,277.76 3,296.49 26,092.00 Total $14,785.371 $7,392.651 $554.461 26,092.001 $48,824.491 $3,988.881 $457.921 $53,271.28 Regional Councillor + Deputy Mayor- December 1 to December 31, 2010 Notes: Conferences Include payment made by the Municipality for registration fee and /or accommodation, as well as direct reimbursement of expenses. Other Includes parking, meals, airfare, external kilometer reimbursement and miscellaneous charges. Expenses excludes G.S.T. Municipal Severance Severance pay for J. Abernethy and C. Trim will be paid in 2011. D v n 3 3 (D N O Z 0 0 cri l REMUNERATION & EXPENSES OF CLARINGTON DIRECTORS OF VERIDIAN CORPORATION January 1 to December 31, 2010 Name Salary Miscellaneous Total Expenses J. Abernethy $ 19,500.04 $ 75.00 $ 19,575.04 H. Edmondson $ 13,000.04 $ 287.00 $ 13,287.04 B. Mountford $ 16,000.04 $ 41820.00 $ 20,820.04 M. Novak $ 13,000.04 $ 184.00 $ 13,184.04 Total $61,500.16 $5,366.00 $66,866.16 Notes: Miscellaneous Include payments made by Veridian for registration fee and /or accommodation, Expenses as well as direct reimbursement of expenses, as well as parking, meals, airfare and miscellaneous charges. . Expenses excludes GST /HST i Cn D rt C7 S W 0 Z I Attachment #4 to FND- 005 -11 The Regional Municipality of Durham -- Report to: The Finance and Administration Committee From: R.J. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance Report No.: 2011 -F -15 . - Date: March 1, 2011 SUBJECT: The Remuneration and Expenses in 2010 of Members of Regional Council and Regional Council Appointees to Local Boards, as Required by Section 284 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c25 RECOMMENDATION: The Finance and Administration Committee recommends that this report be received for information and forwarded to Regional Council. REPORT: As required by Section 284 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, 1 have prepared a statement of the remuneration and expenses that were paid in 2010 to Regional Councillors and Regional Council Appointees. (See attached Schedules 1 to 3 respectively). The information concerning Regional Council appointees was obtained directly from the Local Boards, with the exception of the Brock Township Landfill Public Liaison Committee, Compliance Audit Committee, Development Charges Complaint Committee, Durham Accessibility Advisory Committee, Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, Durham Environmental Advisory Committee, Durham Regional Local Housing Corporation, Durham Region Police Services Board, Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change, Durham Region Transit Commission, Transit Advisory Committee, Durham Trail Coordinating Committee, Energy from Waste Facility Site Liaison Committee, Land Division Committee and the 9 -1 -1 Management Board, whose accounting records are maintained by the Regional Finance Department. R.J. Clapp, CA Commissioner of Finance Attach. 15 -6 20- Page 1 of 2 2 15 -7 SCHEDULEI REGIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES CONFERENCES, REGIONAL COUNCIL CONVENTIONS MEMBERS REMUNERATION SEVERANCE MILEAGE & MEETINGS TOTAL Abernethy, J. (6) (8) 42,251.32 1,974.81 815.00 45,041.13 Aker, J. 3,998.16 - - - 3,998.16 Ballinger, J. (6) 3998.16 , - - 3,998.16 Bath, D. 3,998.16 - - 3,998.16 Chapman, R. 3,998.16 - - 3,998.16 Coe, L. (6) 3998.16 , - - 3,998.16 Collier, S. 3,998.16 - - 3,998.16 Crawford, S. 42,251.32 2,422.09 - 2,270.49 46,943.90 Cullen, A. (5) 47,580.83 31,487.17 266.23 - 79,334.23 Diamond, N. 3,998.16 - - 3,998.16 Drew, R. 3,998.16 - - 3,998.16 Drumm, J. (6) 46,249.48 - - 1,530.74 47,780.22 42,251.32 3,167.09 45,418.41 England, A. 3,998.16 " - - 3,998.16 Foster, A. (6) 3998.16 , - - 3,998.16 Grant, J. 42,251.32 - 1,332.78 1,582.81 45,166.91 Gray, J. (5) 47580.83 , - - 47,580.83 Henry, J. 46,249.48 - - 46,249.48 Herrema, H. (6) 42,251:32 - 807.81 - 43,059.13 Johnson, R. 42,251.32 - 565.14 3,061.52 45,877.98 Jordan, C. 46,249.48 - 756.35 346.60 47,352.43 Kolodzie, J. 42,251.32 - - 2,742.38 44,993.70 Littley, B. 42,251.32 - 494.82 - 42,746.14 Lutczyk, R. 42,251.32 156.93 42,408.25 Marimpietri, T. 3998.16 , " - - 3,998.16 McLean, W. 46,249.48 - 372.80 2,174.23 4.8,796.51 McMillen, J. 42,251.32 - 1,184.52 1,553.43 44,989.27 Mercier, C. 3,998.16 - - 3,998.16 Mitchell, D. (6) (7) 46,749.48 - 140.37 46,889.85 Neal, J. 46,249.48 226.40 - 46,475.88 Nicholson, B. 42,251.32 27,987.17 87.86 - 70,326.35 Novak, M. (6) 46,249.48 - 1,388.43 1,731.70 49,369.61 O'Connell, J. 3,998.16 - - - 3,998.16 O'Connor, G.L. (6) (7) 4,498.16 - - - 4,498.16 O'Connor, L. (7) 46,749.48 - 2,376.81 - 49,126.29 Parish, S. 46,249.48 - 225.72 3,772.46 50,247.66 Pearce, M. (5) 47,580.83 - 2,126.80 - 49,707.63 Perkins, P. (6) 46,249.48 - - - 46,249.48 Pidwerbecki, N. (7) 46,749.48 - 199.65 50.00 46,999.13 Rodrigues, P. 3,998.16 - - - 3,998.16 Ryan, D. 46,249.48 - 471.36 1,139.51 47,860.35 Shepherd, R. (6) 42,251.32 - 981.05 - 43,232.37 Trim, C. (5) (6) 47,580.83 44,981.67 2,361.03 1,535.53 96,459.06 Woo, W.(6) 3,998.16 - - - 3,998.16 1,318,303.48 106,878.10 18,497.67 27,473.49 1,471,152.74 Page 1 of 2 2 15 -7 SCHEDULEI (continued) REGIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES CONFERENCES, CONVENTIONS, REGIONAL CHAIR REMUNERATION SEVERANCE MILEAGE & MEETINGS TOTAL Anderson, R. 174,708.22 - 5,981.35 23,734.51 204,424.08 NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF REGIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES (1) Remuneration to the Regional Chair and Councillors is authorized by by -laws #16- 2007, #01- 2005, #08 -2004, #09 -2004, #10 -2004, #50 -95, and #61 -93. (2) The Regional Chair is provided with an automobile and is reimbursed for actual expenses incurred. (3) Regional Councillors are reimbursed as follows: Mileage - based on a rate per kilometre. Conferences, Meetings, etc. - a rate of $75 /day for meals, etc, without receipts; however, if the daily rate is insufficient, actual expenses with receipts are reimbursed. Accommodation, registration, etc. - reimbursed based on actual receipts. (4) Expenses relating to Regional Council study and training sessions are not included in this statement. (5) Denotes Regional Committee Chair to November 30, 2010. (6) Remuneration is paid to Regional Councillor by the Area Municipality, and the Region reimburses the Area Municipality. (7) Denotes Regional Committee Chair December 1 to December 31, 2010. (8) J. Abernethy donated to the Region an amount equivalent to the 2010 salary increase. 15 -8 21 11 Page 2of2 SCHEDULE2 REGIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS 0 COMPENSATION PAID IN LIEU OF PENSION PLAN REGIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS Crawford, S. Cullen, A. Drumm, J. Emm, G. Grant, J. Gray, J. Henry, J. Johnson, R. Jordan, C. Littley, B. Lutczyk, R. McLean, W. McMillen, J. Neal, J. Nicholson, B. O'Connor, L. Parish, S. Pearce, M. Pidwerbecki, N. Ryan, D. IN LIEU OF PENSION S 3,048.49 6,696.10 3,638.36 2,699.48 3,048.49 3,638.36 3,048.49 3,048.49 3,048.49 3,048.49 3,048.49 3,048.49 3,048.49 3,048.49 5,752.57 3,048.49 3,048.49 3,638.36 3,048.49 3,638.36 69— 331 96 NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF REGIONAL COUNCIL MEMBERS 20 IN LIE OF PENSI 10 COMPENSATION PAID U ON PLAN 1) Pursuant to by -law #08 -2004, members of Regional Council, including the Chair, who are not enrolled in OMERS, are entitled to compensation in lieu of a pension plan. Payment is made in the current year based on prior year's earnings. 2) Pursuant to by -law #16 -2007, the Regional Chair is enrolled in OMERS effective January 1, 2007_ 21 Page 1 of 1 I 15 -9 i i SCHEDULE3 REGIONAL COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO LOCAL BOARDS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES REGIONAL COUNCIL APPOINTEES I� g Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Crawford, S. Cullen, A. Drumm, J. Emm, G. Foster, A_ Gray, J. Hooper, R. Johnson, R. Mitchell, D. Neal, J. Nicholson, B. Novak, M. Pearce, M. Perkins, P. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Robinson, G. Trim, C. Kawartha Region Conservation Authority Hodgson, L. Hooper, R. McMillen, J. O'Connor, L. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Drew, B. Grant, J. Herrema, H. Toronto & Region Conservation Authority Jordan, C. Littley, B. O'Connor, G.L. REMUNERATION 300.00 150.00 400.00 300.00 250.00 350.00 400.00 400.00 250.00 400.00 100.00 300.00 400.00 350.00 4,350.00 165.00 440.00 275.00 450.00 500.00 900.00 700.00 2,550.00 5,800.00 1,500.00 800.00 8,100.00 1,342.61 433.10 36, 386.08 38,161.79 MILEAGE 106.08 83.20 124.80 120.64 291.20 96.20 62.40 81.12 232.96 101.92 1 62.40 156.00 --1 8.40 360.00 497.00 900.00 487.50 2- 1,925,00 797.00 180.00 2,9 611.00 100.00 2,827.10 3, 1835 0 CONFERENCES, CONVENTIONS, & ME- E- TINGS TOT 406.08 150.00 483.20 424.80 250.00 350.00 520.64 691.20 346.20 462.40 100.00 381.12 632.96 451.0 92 5, 56 52 227.40 431.00 856 856 40 810.00 997.00 1,800.00 1,187.50 4,794.50 7,725.00 2,297.00 980.00 11, 020 00 1,953.61 533.10 39,213.18 4 15-10 2 1 73 Page 1 of 5 SCHEDULE 3 (continued) REGIONAL COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO LOCAL BOARDS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES CONFERENCES, COUNCIL CONVENTIONS, ITEES REMUNERATION MILEAGE & MEETINGS TOTAL CTC Source Protection Committee Presta, J. Durham Accessibility Advisory Committee Angus, A. Atkinson, R. Bremner, S. Cordahi, M. Drumm, J. Edwards, C. Roche, M. Rundle, P. Sutherland, M. Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee 240.35 - 240.35 - 40.00 40.00 98.60 40.00 138.60 - 40.00 40.00 - 40.00 40.00 - 40.00 40.00 - 40.00 40.00 - 40.00 40.00 - 40.00 40.00 98.60 320.00 418.60 Beach, E. - 444.60 - 444.60 Bowman, E. - 183.04 - 183.04 Cohoon, Z. - 332.80 - 332.80 Grant, J. - - Gray, B. - 496.08 - 496.08 Guthrie, N. - 65.52 - 65.52 Kennedy, K. - 416.00 - 416.00 Lea, R. - 135.72 - 135.72 McMillen, J. - _ O'Connor, K. - - - _ Pistritto, P. - 208.00 15.00 223.00 Puterbough, F. - 124.80 - 124.80 Risebrough, D. - 691.64 - 691.64 Schillings, H. - 146.43 - 146.43 Watson, T. - 211.33 - 211.33 Westerbaan, R. - 286.00 - 286.00 Wolters, J. - 291.20 - 291.20 - 4,033.16 15.00 4,048.16 214 Page 2 of 5 15 -11 SCHEDULE 3 (continued) . REGIONAL COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO LOCAL BOARDS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES REGIONAL COUNCIL CONFERENCES, APPOINTEES REMUNERATION MILEAGE CONVENTIONS, & MEETINGS TOTAL Durham Environmental Advisory Committee Barrington, A. Bielarczyk, S. _ - - Breslin, S. - Burt, L. Edwards, A. 310.34 - 310.34 Gillette, L. 57.41 Gray, J. - 57.41 Grieve, S. 96.93 Karney, B. 72 38 - 96.93 Lasis, A. 72.38 Manns, H. McDonald, K. 1,107.60 - 1,107.60 McRae, E. _ - Middleton, D. 75.50 Murray, K. 75.50 Shepherd, R. 156.00 _ 156.00 Szenteczki, M. - 254.80 - 2,130.96 _ 254.80 2,130.96 Durham Region Non - Profit Housing Corporation Anderson, R. _ Cullen, A. - - Gray, J. - - - O'Connor, L. Pearce, M. 6,000.00 _ _ 1 189.97 7 189 9 7 Perkins, P. - - - Trim, C. - - - Durham Trail Coordinating Committee Clayton, T. Cooke, R. Grant, J. 46.80 - 46.80 Herrema, H. _ - - Jones, K. - - - Jordan, C. - - - Kolodzie, J. - - - Littley, B. - - McMillen, J. - - Murray, J. - - Novak, M. - - - Perkins, P. - - Rowe, J. Stoner, J. - Tucker, M. 96.72 - 96.72 Visser, W. 78 00 - 78.00 - 221_ 52 - 221.52 15-12 Page 3 of 5 215 SCHEDULE 3 (continued) REGIONAL COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO LOCAL BOARDS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES Durham Region Police Services Board Anderson, R. 5,829.51 - - 5,829.51 CONFERENCES, 9,311.64 - REGIONAL COUNCIL Drumm, J. 5,329.51 - CONVENTIONS, Henry, J. APPOINTEES REMUNERATION MILEAGE & MEETINGS TOTAL Ryan, D. 5,329.51 - - 5,329.51 26,800.17 - Social Housing Services Corporation O'Connor, L. 8,250.00 638.17 255.88 9,144.05 Urbanski, A. * 833.33 - - 833.33 9,083.33 638.17 255.88 9,977.38 * Represents Region of Durham share of total remuneration of $5,000. Land Division Committee Chui, D. - - - _ Collins, J. 1,721.46 647.95 8.48 2,377.89 Graham, H. 3,008.72 412.39 72.89 3,494.00 Hamilton, P. _ - _ Hurst, J. 2,100.64 - - 2,100.64 Komarnicki, J.M. 2,650.99 260.59 49.59 2,961.17 Marquis, D. - _ _ Patel, L. 2,100.64 199.69 52.88 2,353.21 Skinner, V. 2,100.64 89.78 47.75 2,238.17 Sutton, R. 2,100.64 295.87 72.58 2,469.09 Taylor, W. 2,100.64 451.30 44.57 2,596.51 17,884.37 2,357.57 348.74 20,590.68 Durham Region Police Services Board Anderson, R. 5,829.51 - - 5,829.51 Boyle, B. 9,311.64 - - 9,311.64' Drumm, J. 5,329.51 - 2,247.48 7,576.99 Henry, J. 500.00 - - 500.00 McLean, W. 500.00 - - 500.00 I Ryan, D. 5,329.51 - - 5,329.51 26,800.17 - 2,247.48 29,047.65 216 Page 4 of 5 15 -13 F SCHEDULE 3 (continued) REGIONAL COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO LOCAL BOARDS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES NOTE TO SCHEDULE OF REGIONAL COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO LOCAL BOARDS 2010 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES 1. No remuneration or expenses were paid to Regional Council appointees to the: - 9 -1 -1 Management Board - Association of Local Public Health Agencies - Association of Municipalities of Ontario - Brock Township Landfill Public Liaison Committee - Business Advisory Centre Durham - Canadian National Exhibition Association - Compliance Audit Committee - Development Charges Complaint Committee - Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed Resource Group - Durham Advisory Committee on Homelessness - Durham Region Child and Youth Advocate - Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change - Durham Regional Local Housing Corporation - Durham -York Residual Waste Study Joint Management Group - Energy from Waste Facility Site Liaison Committee - East Duffins Headwaters Committee (formerly the Glen Major Forest & Walker Woods Stewardship Committee) - GTA Agricultural Action Plan Committee - GTA Fare System Project Executive Committee - GTA Fare System Project Steering Committee - Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance - Greater Toronto Transit Authority (GO Transit) - Highway 407 East Environmental Assessment Group - Local Diversity and Immigration Partnership Council - Multi- Stakeholder Advisory Panel for the Durham Sustainability Stewardship Program - Rouge Park Alliance - Rouge Valley Health System - Ajax and Pickering Health Centre Site - South Georgian Say -Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee - TRCA Trail Guidelines Advisory Committee - Transit Advisory Committee - Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Committee 15-14 2 1 ? Page 5 of 5 0 Energizing Ontario REPORT FINANCE DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: MAR 21, 2011 Report #: FND- 006 -11 File #: Resolution #: By -law #: Subject: BUILDING PERMIT FEES ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report FND- 006 -11 be received for information. Submitted by- �'�k &A-&� Reviewed by: //brt Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., C.A. �( Director of Finance/ Treasurer NT /LG /hjl A.S1. Cannella, C-E.T Director of Engineering Services c��. Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 15 -15 REPORT NO.: FND- 006 -11 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: PAGE 2 1.0 Under the Building Code Act, 1992 and the passing of subsequent amendments and Ontario Regulation 350/06, municipalities are required to prepare an annual report that records the amount of building permit fees collected and the costs incurred during the process. Division C Part 1 Section 1.9 of the Building Code specifies what is to be included in the annual report as follows: (1) The report referred to in Subsection 7 (4) of the Act shall contain the following information in respect of fees authorized under Clause 7 (1) (c) of the Act: (a) total fees collected in the 12 -month period ending no earlier than three months before the release of the report, (b) the direct and indirect costs of delivering services related to the administration and enforcement of the Act in the area of jurisdiction of the principal authority in the 12 -month period referred to in Clause (a), (c) a break -down of the costs described in Clause (b) into at least the following categories: (i) direct costs of administration and enforcement of the Act, including the review of applications for permits and inspection of buildings, and (ii) indirect costs of administration and enforcement of the Act, including support and overhead costs, and (d) if a reserve fund has been established for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of the Act, the amount of the fund at the end of the 12 -month period referred to in Clause (a). (2) The principal authority shall give notice of the preparation of a report under Subsection 7 (4) of the Act to every person and organization that has requested that the principal authority provide the person or organization with such notice and has provided an address for the notice. 1.1 The requirement to issue an annual report on building permit fees came into effect for the 2006 year which means the first report was required by March 31, 2007. It is unclear in the regulations as to how the annual report is to be reported; i.e. via Council meeting, newspaper advertising, municipal website, etc. 1.2 In accordance with the Building Code Act as amended, staff have prepared this report to Council on an informational basis and Attachment "A" will be posted on the municipality's website in March 2011. 1.3 On Attachment "A" for the summary of the 2010 Annual Report for Building Permit Fees, the total of the direct and indirect costs exceeds the total building permit fees revenue by $34,991. 15 -16 REPORT NO.: FND- 006 -11 PAGE 3 1.4 During the 2010 year, the Engineering Department advised Council through the monthly building permit activity report that the building permits issued in 2010 were significantly higher in comparison to the 2009 year. 1.5 The total number of all types of building permits issued in 2010 was 1,042 compared to 643 in 2009 which translates into a 62% increase in 2010. 1.6 The total number of new residential building permits issued in 2010 was 593 compared to 274 in 2009 which translates into 116% increase in 2010. 1.7 The below graph illustrates the number of permits for all types and new residential for the last 6 years. The 2010 figures are more in line with the pre 2007 figures. Building Permits 1400 1200 1150 1045 1042 1000 950 61 02 800 55 93 643 93 c600 ■ All types of Permits 400 ■ New Residential Permits 200 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year CONCLUSION: 2.0 In the Annual Building Permit Fees report for 2009, Report # FND- 017 -10, staff advised that the building fee financial analysis model would be updated to verify that the permit fees charged were reasonable. 2.1 The Engineering department staff has a report in this Committee meeting under the Engineering section of the agenda addressing the outcome of the Building Permit Fees study update and other amendments to the Building Code. 15 -17 REPORT NO.: FND- 006 -11 PAGE 4 2.2 In light of the Council's decision on Engineering's report for Building Permit Fees and Inspection Fees increase and Building By -Law, staff advises that the current fee structure in the municipal by -law for the building permit fees By -Law Number 2005 -145 does not sustain the building services costs. 2.3 Attachment "A" is a summary of the 2010 building permit fees revenue and related expenditures with the expenses broken down into direct and indirect costs along with the balance of the building division reserve fund. It also reflects that the total amount of the permit fees do not exceed the costs to administer and enforce the Building Code Act. Attachments: Attachment "A ": Summary of 2010 Building Permit Fees Revenue & Expenditures 15 -18 ATTACHMENT "A" MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Building Permit Fee Annual Report for 2010 REVENUES Total Building Permit fees collected during 2010 year under the Municipality of Clarington's Bylaw Number 2005 -145, as amended is $1,394,707. Transfer from Reserve Fund: $143,054. TOTAL REVENUES: $1,537,761. EXPENSES Direct Costs: Direct costs are deemed to include the costs of the Building Division of the Engineering Department for the processing of building permit applications, the review of building plans conducting inspections and building- related enforcement duties. Total Direct Costs: $1,083,983. Indirect Costs: Indirect costs are deemed to include the costs for support and overhead services to the Building Division. Total Indirect Costs: $488,769. TOTAL EXPENSES: $1,572,752. Deficit /(Surplus) as of December 31, 2010: $34,991. STATEMENT OF RESERVE FUND: Building Division Reserve Fund balance as of December 31, 2010 ($3,042). NOTE: Unaudited Figures. 15 -19 Cladiwn REPORT LEGAL DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law#: N/A Report#: LGL- 004 -11 File #: Subject: CLARINGTON ATS. ST. MARY'S CEMENT COURT FILE NO: 09 -CV- 375276 RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report LGL- 004 -11 be received for information. Submitted by: 411 �" An rew C. Allis 6n Municipal Solicitor ACA /j b Reviewed by F-ranklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 16 -1 LGL- 004 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND Paae 2 1.1 In March 2009, St. Mary's Cement Inc. commenced an application seeking an interpretation of Zoning By -law 84 -63. It specifically sought a declaration that its proposed "Demonstration Project" (burning alternative fuel derived from post - composting and post - recycling residual materials) is a permitted use at its cement manufacturing plant in Clarington. 1.2 The application was heard on December 7 and 8, 2010. 2.0 COURT DECISION 2.1 Attached to this report is the decision of the Superior Court dated March 11, 2011. The decision is self - explanatory. The Municipality's position was accepted by the Court. 2.2 Much of the credit for the result goes to Faye Langmaid whose planning evidence provided the basis for the decision. 2.3 We believe that Mr. Justice Stinson's decision is well- reasoned and accurate with one exception — the Municipality never took the position that it was opposed to the Demonstration Project. We did, however, feel that if the alternative fuels demonstration project is to proceed, it should go through a rezoning process. 2.4 If anyone has any questions, please contact either Ms. Langmaid or me. Attachment 1: Superior Court Decision dated March 11, 2011 16 -2 MRR -11 -EW 1 10:00 From: BETWEEN: ST. MARY'S CEMENT INC. — and ­ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO REPORT LGL- 004 -11 CITATION: St. Mary's Cement v.C:larington, 2011 ONSC 1533 COURT FILE NO.: 09 -C'V- 375276 DATE: 20110311 ON'I'AR1O SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Applicant THE MUNIC1PAUTY OF CLARINGTON Respondent STINSON .T. Michael J Mc camel, Q.C'_, for the applicant lan Godfrey and Jon .3mithen, for the respondent HF.AR2D: December 7 and 8, 2010 [1] In this application St. Mary's Cenielit Inc. ( "SMC ") seeks an interpretation of Zoning By -law 84 -63 Of the Municipality of Clarington ( "Clarington.") and a declaration that certain proposed activity is not a land use controlled by the by -law, or in the altenzative is an accessory use permitted udder the by -law. [2] In a nutshell, the application has its origin in a proposal by SMC to burn alternative fuel derived from post.-composting and post - recycling residual materials in its cement plant. In turn, this gives rise to the question whether this activity equates to operating a waste disposal area, which is not a permitted use at the site in question. Factual "Background [31 Clarington is a so- called "lower tier" municipal government loca.tcd within the upper tier Rcgicnal Municipality of L)urllun. Roth Clarington and L)urham have Official Pions that outline the goals and patterns of expceted grov lh and development for the region. Municipal zoning by -laws have been enacted in conl:onnity with these plans. Clarington's Zoning By- 16 -3 MAR -11 -2011 10:00 From: Page: 2 To:Heenan Blaikie P.3/10 law 84 -63 was passed pursuant to section 34(1) of the Plarn hi Act, R.S.O. 1990, c_ P.13 ( "Planning Act "), and was amended by By -law 85 -47 to its current form. 141 Since approximately 1968 SMC has operated a cement manufacturing plant in Clarington, on a large plot of land on the north shore of Lake Ontario, south of Highway 401. The SM.0 site encompasses 321 hectares of land, and is subject to By -law 84 -63. The site is divided into two parcels ol' land, both of which are zoned as "Extractive Industrial (M3) Zone" (M3). The 31 hectare parcel of land housing the cement plant is subject to a specific site exception: the M3 -1 Zone. This exception permits the land to be used for a cement manufacturing plant. (5] The Clarington zoning by -law defines a "Waste Disposal Area." as meaning "a place where garbage, refuse or domestic or industrial waste is dumped, destroyed, or stored in suitable containers." The M3 -1 zoning for the cement plant site does not mention waste disposal or a waste disposal area. [6J To achieve the very high temperatures required in the cement manufacWring process, WC. burns in its cement kiln a heel known as pet.coke (petroleum coke), a by- product of the crude oil relining process. SM:C's supply of petcoke is delivered to its site primarily by lake freighters, and in smaller amounts by truck transport. [7] SMC is proposing to conduct what it describes as a "Demonstration Project" utilizing three energy-rich materials to substitute for a, portion of the currently utilized fuel, The proposed substitute materials are post - composting residual plastic film from a composting plant; post - recycling paper bio- solids; and post - recycling residual materials froth a paper plant ('Ma.teria.ls "). Conduct of the short -term Demonstration Project will enable SMC to determine the feasibility of the Materials as alternative fuels for its manufacturing process. if they are feasible, it is anticipated that SMC will begin to use the Materials on a regular basis. The Materials would be delivered to the site by truck transport exclusively. [81 The Province of Ontario has established a rigorous regulatory process to control the use of various materials that may be used as fuels. Of particular relevance is R_R.O.1990, Reg. 347, enacted under the Environmental Protection Act, R,S.0. 1990, c. E.19 (``LTA "). This regulation contains a detailed definition of materials that are defined as "waste" in order to Subject the nlanag'ement of these materials to review by the Ministry of the Environment ("MOF ). Before anyone may use as a fuel any combustible material which is a by- product of a manufacturing process (except for a. few exempted materials) that is defined as "waste" under O. Reg. 347, an approval under s. 27 of EPA must be obtained. l etcoke is already approved under s. 9 of the EFA. The use of the Materials as Fuel requires a s. 27 approval, which SMC has sought. [9] Cladngton has informed SMC: that it considers the incineration of the Materials at SMC's cement plant is not a permitted use under the zoning by -law, because it is tantamount to the operation of a waste disposal area. Clarington has raised a series of planning- related 16 -4 MAR -11 -2811 10:00 From: Page: 3 To:Heenan Blaikie P.411,10 issues and concerns that, m its submission, justify its opposition to the Demonstration Project. SMC: disagrees and has Brought this application to have the court resolve the dispute. The Issues 1101 T3efi)re listing the issues raised on the application, it is worthwhile reeitilig the issues not raised or properly before the court. To be clew, the focus of this case is on land use, not environmental regulation. it is not my function to pass on the environmental suitability or Otherwise of the Materials as a fuel source. Lnvironmental considerations jti.,e the responsibility of the MOE under the E11A and I do not intend to usurp , this imporwrit regulatory I ;Linction. As a result, this is not an application that entails the consideration of any environmental issues related to the burning of alternative fuels or waste in a cement kiln. The decision 1 am required to make is whether the use of the Materials at the SMC site as lbel in the cement kiln would constitute a Permissible use from perspective of the -zoning by -law. 111] The interpretation of lay -law 84 -63 in the present context requires consideration of several issuers: a. Are the Materials proposed by SMC properly characterised as "waste" or fuel for the purposes of the zoning by -law? b_ Does the burning of the Materials introduce a land use that is not permitted by the zoning by -law? C. If the proposed activity is outside of the scope of the uses permitted under the terms of the zoning by -law, can the conduct be properly characterized as all accessory use., thereby permitting the activity? The Positions of the Parties [12] It is the position of SMC that the zoning by -law permit~ a specific use of land - a cement nta.nuiacturing plant - and as long as this "use" continues, the user is compliant with the by -law. SMC. submits that the burning of file] in the plant is not a discreet land use and thus the burning of new alternative fuels does not constitute a Change in land use. Alternatively, if the burning of alternative fuels is deemed a land use by this court, the use is permitted as an "accessory use" according to section :3 of 13y -law 84 -63, since it is customarily incidental or subordinate to, and exclusively devoted to the main use of the site. [131 C larington submits that the Materials fall within the definition of waste Under the 1.PA, a definition that is incorporated by reference in the C'larington and Durham 0f7icial ' 1wis, and -# :also applicable to the zoning by -law. 'Ibe disposal of waste, by burning or otherwise, for whatever purpose, means that tiM("s land would be used for a waste disposal 16 -5 MAR -11 -2011 10 :01 From: Page: 4 To :Heenan Blaikie P.5/10 area, which is not permitted under the by -law. As a result, the proposed activity is not permissible, absent an amendment to the zoning by -law. Legal Arguments and Analysis Interpretive Approach [14] It is well recognized that zoning, by -laws are authorized to control the use of land, regulate the erection, location, and use of buildings and help prevent development of unsuitable sir contaminated lands, which includes the right to prohibit line. or more uses oil sprciftc parcels of land. The parties disagree, however, on, the approach to take in interpreting the Clarington zoning by-law. While neither explicitly characterized their approach as such, the position of SMC reflects a plain meaning approach favouring a practical interpretation where the continuation of the permitted use and purpose of the land is paramount (See Ruth Sullivan, Statt.ttoiy Interpretation, 2d ed (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2007) at 29 -48). SMC relies on the text of thc. by -law and, while rocognizing their applicability in other contexts, reiects any consideration of Official flans or the LTA. j 151 By contrast, Clarington subscribes to nriedger's modern principle articulated by laeobucel J. in Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., 1'19981 1 S.C.R. 27 (See Sullivan, supra, at 29- 48). Cieneridly, this holistic, contextual approach looks to the intent of the drafters of the. by- law in resolving ambiguities or interpretive issues. The focus is ort whether all activities that occur on the land ccmliorm to the perinitted usage. Clarington therefore relies on municipal documents that.:l.'ormed the basis for the creation of the by -law and associated legislation. [161 Geiieral principles appropriate li>r statutory -interpretation, are also applicable tc? municipal by-laws (Montreal (Ville) v, 2952 -1366 Quehee Mo., 2005 SC(_' 62, X20051 3 S_C.R. 141 at para. 10). In my view, the Court must approach interpretation. of the by -law by considering, the text of the by -law, the intent of Council and the purpose and scheme of the by -law as a whole_ (See Neighbourhoods of Wi"n((fields Limited 1'arinerchip t. Death, 12008] O..l. No. 3298 at para. 43 (Sup C:t), aft�d 2009 ONCA 277, leave to appeal to SCC dismissed 12009] 13-C.C.A. No. 253). [171 Both the Clarington ()I-ticial Plan and the Durham Official Plan are relevant in determining the; circumstances and intent pursuant to which the zoning by -law was created- In addition, s. R of the Ahdnicipal Act, 2001, 5.0. 2001, c. 25, provides that "powers oI' a municipality under this or any other Act shall he interpreted broadly so as to Confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its afTairs as it considers appropriate and to enhance the municipality's ability to respond to municipal issues" (Aon Ina. v. Peterborough (Qv) (1990), 96 O.T.C. 34, [1999) O.J. No. 1225 at para. 18 (Gen Div). [181 SW' subn•iits, however, that the Official Plans are not law and thus have rio hearing; on. the matter. SM.0 cites Niagara River Couliliun v. Nia aro -on- the -Lake (Toivn), 2010 ONCA 173, 12010] 0J, No. 917 at para. 42 [Niagar a], for the proposition that "official plans are not statutes and should not be construed as such." Clarington concedes that Official 16 -6 MAR - 11--2011 10:01 From: Page: S To,-Heenan Blaikie P.6/10 are not law. i-towever, Clarington submits — and i agree; - that Niagara dues not preclude consideration of O ficial Plans to provide context ,6or a by -law in determining the intent ot. the text. As the Court o1'Appt;al itself said in Toeonto (Cih) v. Goldlist Properties Inc. (2003), 67 OR( 1d) 441 (at para. 49: I.i'lt is iniportant to bear in mind that the purpose of an official plan is to set out a framework of "goals, objectives and policies" to shape and discipline specific operative planning decisions. An official plan rises above the bevel of detailed regulation and establishes the broad principles that are to govern the municipality's .Land use .planiii.ng generally. Waste versus Fuel [19] 'There is no definition of "waste" in the Clarington zoning by -law. SMC maintains that this is not problematic. The issue is the continued use of the land and whether changing the fuel in the cement - producing process impacts the previously pernlissible use.. Clarington eniphasires the importance of locatirig such a definition in properly interpreting the. by -law. [20] The Durham Official Plan defines waste to include "industrial waste_.. and such other waste as designated under the E'nvi'ronmental Protection Act." The Clarington Official 'flan is less specific, referring to "material defined as waste by applicable provincial legislation." In my view, both Official flans reflect an intention to adopt the EPA definitions of "waste ". [21( SMC acknowledges (as It mast) that, for F.PA purposes, the Materials fall under that statute's definition of waste. SMC argues, however, that its application undcr s, 27 of the GI'A doc;s not equ.tte t() an acknowledgment of the Material as waste for dining purposes. Rather, the EN approval application merely reflects SMC's adherence to enviroturiental regulation_ It is the position of SMC that the definitions within the Official Plans are without legal force, riot relevant, and thus do not provide any ineans with which to connect the .F.PA definition of waste.. to the By-law. [221 SMC: stresses that the Materials are being used to produce energy for the manufacture of cenient and thus are fuel. The Materials are reported to have reasonable heat value and con)parablc kcy fuel characteristics when weighed against petcoke. Moreover, the Materials are already utilized as fuel sources in parts of the United States and Europe, though not yet in Canada. [2.11 In Canadian Environlnenlal Law Association el ill. and Piiura (Re.) (1979), 26 O.R.. (2d) 488 tit 4911 (Div CL)) l f irura1, a disc decided undcr the former Eni;irowlenlal Prolection Arl. 1971, S.O. 1971, C. 86, the Court commented oil the transition of waste to Fuel: "While the PCBs were waste at some time, they were no longer waste when they arrived at the St. Lawrence Cement Company to be used as 16 -7 MAR -11 -2011 10:01 From: Page: 6 To:Heenan Blaikie P.7/10 fuel. By then they had undergone extensive treatment and processing. They had been blended and filtered and had hccn converted. into 'a. valuable fitel and manufacturing resource. Stich fluids could no longer be described as waste as that term is used in the F,nvironmcnlal Proteclion AC:t, 1971." SMC. submits that this reasoning is applicable to this case. [241 Clarington argues that Pilura is distinguishable in that the legislative scheme under the, current KPA is entirely different than the statute that was is in place 40 years ago. Moreover, no real pre - processing occurs with the Materials: they are simply dried prior to transfer. Tn contrast, the PCBs considered in PiJvru underwent extensive processing. 125] in my view, whether the Materials are or are not pre - processed cannot alter the nature of the undertaking that SMC proposes and the underlying reality of its submission: the use of any material, whatever its source, as a fuel in the cement kihi does not alter the land use- if that is so, C'larington notes, the door is opened to the transport, storage, and use in the cement kiln on the SMC site of arty number of potentially offensive energy - producing products, such as used tiros, processed sewage, animal meat or bone meal. [26] The cotltinuunl of processing required for a material to become a fuel when it was formerly a waste is an interesting ditiC'Llssiora but one that is beyond the scope of this application. The question remains whether the Materials constitute waste as that term is used in the by -law. In light of the adoption of the EPA definition of waste in both the Durham and Clarington 0.11itial flans, in my view the only logical way to interpret the terns "industrial waste" its found in the Claringtota zoning by -law is to apply that statutory definition. Since the Materials fall within the LSPA. definition., T hold that for purposes of the zoning by -law they Waste Dispusvrl Area [271 It is common ground that the current zoning for the SMC site flocs not hermit the operation of a waste disposal area. SMC Submits that bewuse: the plot cif land is being used for the sami; purpose - to manufacture cement - its activity, including fuel use, continues to be perinitted under the by -law. Moreover, since the Materials are being used as a fuel, a waste < i ated. Clarington submits that the site will transition to a waste disposal area under both the EPA and the by -law if those materials are burned for fuel. [281 SMC relies (-tin cases involving legal nun- contbrming, uses for the proposition that changing one of the activities carried on at this site, such as the type of fuel used, does not fundamentally change the use of land and the buildings (See lVairs v. Benven'ulr. (2005), 77 0.11. (1d) 386, [20051 O.J. No. 3254 (Sup Ct), al'I'd in part, (2006), 80 O -K. (3d) 721 (Wa.lisl)- SMC: suggests that ate factors outlined in Saini- Rontould v. Olivier, 2001 5CC 57, [20011 1 2 S.C.R. 898 at 920 -21 [.mint -Rolr could l are helpful in deterrYrining whether a change of use. has occurred in this case: the purpose of the pre - existing List and activities that were carried out there; whether the new use is simply an intensification of the old use; how remote the change Um MAR -11 -2011 10:02 From: Page: 7 To:Heenan Blaikie P.8 /10 is from the earlier activity; the extent to which the activity is within the original scope of usage; the neighbourhood effects; and consideration Of the proper balance in the characterization of the legal non - conforming use. 1291 Clarington asserts that this is not a case of a legal non - conforming use as in Watts or ,Stunt- Roniauld 131ack's Law Dictionary defines legal non- conforming use as "a use which does not comply with present zoning provisions but which existed lawfully wad was Created in geed faith prior to the an•vtms+1it of the zoning provision." (Black's Lam, Dlclionary, 6th ed, sub verho "nonconforming use "). In this case, the same zoning restrictions exist before and afler the proposed change. The change in "fuel" is the modification, not the by-law. 1-301 While 1 agree that SMC's use of the site for the manufacturing of cement will continue to be a permitted use under the i7emonstration Project, 1 do not agree that the substitution of a new fuel is, pennissible under the doctrine of` legal non- conforming use. Rather, in my view, through the introduction of a fitel that falls within the ERR definition of waste, SMC is introducing a new and additional use on the site, because it will he disposing of industrial waste. As such, SMC will be operating a waste disposal area on the site. Accessory Use 1-3V1 Clarington's Zoning By -law 84 -63 also includes provision for "accessory use" of land, which is defined as " a use established during; or after the establishment of the main use which is customarily incidental acid subordinate, to, and exclusively devoted to, the main use of the lot, and located on the same lot as such main use." SMC submits that a plain reading of this text supports a finding that the use of alternative materials as fuel is an accessory use to the main use of the site as a cement tnanufacturin.g plant. 1321 The onus is on SMC to show that the activity is an accessory use (Becker Milk Co. Ltd. and City of London. (1984), 44 C_ R, (2d) 385 (HC) at 5, arl,d [19851 O.J. No. 2745 (Div Ct). For an activity to be "customarily incidental" to the main uSt'. it must be common within the municipality or province in issue: (Re Convenience Services Lid. v. City of,Sarrlt,Ste. Marie et al. (1980), 30 U.R. (2d) 660 [1980] O.J. No. 3802 at paras. 2 -5 UK'); 1423107 Oniarin Inc. v. Woodstock (C.'ity) (2001), 200 D.i.,.R. (4th) 175, [2001 ] O.J. No. 1330 at para. 36 (Sup Ct)). [33] The evidence does not support the conclusion that the proposed use is common or customary within the Municipality of Durham or the Province of Ont-a.rio..According to SVIC's Corporate Environment Manager, "Despite the potential benefits, none of the alternative energy sources [which include the Materials] are utilized within the cement manufacturing sector in the province of Ontario." It follows that although these materials are used extensively in the United States and England, their use is not typical or customary in Ontario. [341 1 therefore conclude that the use of the Materials as fuel does not tall within the Scope of the concept of accestiary use. 16 -9 MAR -11 -2011 10:02 From: Page: $ Conclusion and Disposition To:Heenan Blaikie P. 9110 [351 For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed Demonstration Project involving the use or the Materials by SMC as an alternative fuel in its cement kiln is not a permissible use on the SMC: site under C:larington Zoning By -law 84 -63. The application is therefore dNinissed. if the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may make brief written submissions (no more than three pages plus a costs outline), within the next 30 days. Released: March 11, 2011 16 -10 K211, W =- Stinson J. MAR -11 -2011 17:02 From. Released: March 11, 2011 To:Heenan Blaikie P.10/10 CITATION: St. Mary's Ccmcntv.C:larington, 2011 ONSC 1533 COURT FILE NO.: 09- CV- 375276 DATE; 20110311 ONTARIO SIJPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE RF.TWF.F.N: ST. MARY'S CEMENT INC. Applicant —and- THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Stinson J. 16 -11 Unfinished Business 1 • 1 � Leading t REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Addendum to Report #: PSD -017 -11 Resolution #: By -law #: File #: ZBA 2010 -0022 (X -REF: COPA 2010 -0004) Subject: PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD STORE OF 2,829M2 AND TWO SMALLER BUILDINGS OF 783M2 AND 185M2 RESPECTIVELY FOR RETAIL/SERVICE COMMERCIAL USES — 680 LONGWORTH AVENUE, BOWMANVILLE APPLICANT: 1804603 ONTARIO INC. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Addendum to Report PSD- 017 -11 and Report PSD- 017 -11 be received; 2. THAT the rezoning application submitted by 1804603 Ontario Inc., be approved and that the proposed Zoning By -law contained in Attachment 2 to Addendum to Report PSD- 017 -11 be passed; 3. THAT the Holding (H) provision on the zone be removed once the owner has entered into a site plan agreement with the Municipality; and 4. THAT the interested parties listed in Report PSD- 017 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. �f Submitted by: '� Reviewed by: Davi J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer DJ /FL /df 11 March 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905 )623 -0830 18 -1 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD- 017 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAG E 2 1.1 Staff submitted a recommendation report PSD- 017 -11 (Attachment 1) to the General Purpose and Administration Committee on February 28, 2011. 1.2 Ronald Richards, agent of the applicant, 1804603 Ontario Limited, made a short verbal presentation at the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting in which he requested deferral of the report for two weeks pending further discussions with staff regarding the interpretation of certain sections of the proposed Zoning By -law. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 During follow -up discussions with Staff after the meeting, the agent of the applicant indicated that their client had a concern with section 1. d. i) b) of the proposed Zoning By -law because the minimum required non - supermarket space of 960m2 did not make provision for circumstances where the use of the corner building forms part of the supermarket. The applicant suggested that the minimum space of 960m2 for non - supermarket uses on the site be reduced to 760m2 in the event the corner building use forms part of the supermarket. The applicant also expressed the opinion that the Holding Zone is unnecessary and should be removed since all the provisions of the Holding Zone have been addressed via their site plan application which they were awaiting comments on. 2.2 The site specific Official Plan Amendment that was adopted for this proposed development stipulates that that the corner use can either function independently from the supermarket or as part of the supermarket with the caveat that the use therein interacts with the adjacent public square, faces Scugog Street and that it has main pedestrian access to the Longworth Avenue / Scugog Street intersection. Staff has no objection to the revision of the proposed Zoning By -law, provided that the above - mentioned Official Plan policy is complied with. 2.3 Staff recommends the following revisions to section 1. d. i) of the Zoning By -law: • Amend section 1. d. i) b) to read "A minimum of 760m2 of non - supermarket uses; and Deleting sections 7. d. viii) and x) and replacing it with the following: "viii) Corner Building a) A Corner building with a minimum of 185 m2 shall be constructed on the lands zoned C1 -56; b) The Corner building may be occupied by a supermarket use, provided it complies with all other requirements for a Corner Building; c) No building may be used as a supermarket unless the Corner building is constructed on the lands zoned C1 -56; and d) The Corner Building is exempt from on site loading space requirements." 18 -2 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD- 017 -11 PAGE 3 2.4 The applicant has already confirmed concurrence with the above proposed revisions. 2.5 Regarding the request to remove the Holding (H) provision, the imposition of the Holding provision is standard practice for all new commercial development in Clarington. Section 23.4.3 of the Official Plan provides for the use of a Holding (H) Zone to ensure that prior to development or redevelopment, matters such as technical studies, mitigating measures, servicing and the execution of appropriate agreements, and policies in the Official Plan have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Staff has provided their comments on the site plan submission to the applicant. However, at the time of writing this report a revised set of site plan drawings have not been submitted by the applicant nor have the conditions of site plan approval been issued or agreed to by the applicant. The site plan is, however, close to being finalized. To expedite the matter, Staff will bring forward the by -law directly to the Council to have the H- provision removed once the owner has entered into a site plan agreement with the Municipality. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The above report, read together with Report PSD- 017 -11, provides the necessary basis and merits for the approval of the revised site specific Zoning By -law. Attachment 2 to this Addendum Report replaces Attachment 4 of the original report. Staff recommends that the site specific Zoning By -law be approved. Staff Contact: Dean Jacobs Attachments: Attachment 1 — Report PSD- 017 -11 Attachment 2 — Zoning By -law 18 -3 Attachment 1 Addendum to Report PSD- 017 -11 Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: February 28, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report #: PSD-017 -11 File #: ZBA 2010 -0022 (X -REF: COPA 2010 -0004) Subject: PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD STORE OF 2,829M2 AND TWO SMALLER BUILDINGS OF 783M2 AND 185M2 RESPECTIVELY FOR RETAIL/SERVICE COMMERCIAL USES — 680 LONGWORTH AVENUE, BOWMANVILLE APPLICANT: 1804603 ONTARIO INC. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD - 017 -11 be received; 2. THAT the rezoning application submitted by 1804603 Ontario Inc., be approved and that the proposed Zoning By -law contained in Attachment 4 to Report PSD - 017 -11 be passed; 3.. THAT the interested parties listed in Report PSD -017 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. i� l � ' Submitted by: David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services DJ /FUdf 22 February 2011 18 -4 Reviewed by: -Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 REPORT NO.: PSD -017 -11 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: 1804603 Ontario Inc. 1.2 Rezoning: To change the zoning from Holding - Urban Residential Type Three Exception ((H) R3 -25) to an appropriate zone to permit the proposed development of a food store of 2,829m2 and second and third buildings of 783m2 and 185m2 respectively for retail/service commercial uses, and to implement the recently adopted Official Plan Amendment. 1.3 Location: 680 Longworth Avenue, located on the northeast corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street, Bowmanville. 1.4 Site Area: 1.43 Hectare (3.53 Acres). 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On August 4, 2010, the applications submitted by 1804603 Ontario Inca for an Official Plan and Zoning By -law amendment for a parcel on the northeast corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street, Bowmanville, to permit the development for retail/service commercial uses, were deemed complete. 2.2 The applicant also submitted the following background studies in support of development applications: • Planning Rationale Report, prepared by R.G. Richards & Associates; • Supermarket Impact Analysis, prepared by UrbanMetrics Inc.; • Traffic Study, prepared by HDR Corporation; and • Noise Impact Study, prepared by Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd. 2.3 The statutory Public Meeting with respect to the Official Plan amendment and rezoning applications was held on September 13, 2010. This was followed by an Open House with residents of the neighbourhood on September 23, 2010 and a staff recommendation report (PSD - 111 -10) on October 4, 2010 with respect to the application to amend the Official Plan. 2.4 Council received and approved.report PSD - 111 -10 which included the Official Plan Amendment No.79 to permit a "Neigbourhood Centre" designation on the site. 2.5 A recommendation report on the rezoning of the site was to be brought back to Council subsequent to a further open house with the residents and a resolution on site plan matters. 2.6 A second open house with residents was hosted by the applicant on Thursday, November 25, 2010 at St. Stephen Catholic Secondary School. 18 -5 REPORT NO.: PSD -017 -11 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS PAGE 3 3.1 Prior to the second Open House, Staff held an urban design session with the proponent and his architect. The meeting focused on the Municipal expectations regarding the development of the site (e.g. traffic, pedestrian movements, parking, landscaping) and the design quality of the building (e.g. elevations, massing, materials, facade articulation). The expectations were developed based on Official Plan policies, neighbourhood character, Council and community input. 3.2 The second Open House was held on November 25, 2010. It was attended by approximately 28 people. The Open House format consisted of a panel display followed by a PowerPoint presentation and a question and answer period. The applicant presented a revised site plan concept with some minor improvements to the site plan concept and the elevations. The applicant also presented colour drawings of the building elevations and landscape plan. Some residents expressed the opinion that the street facades of the food store, particularly the roof design and the high building walls along Scugog Street and Longworth Avenue, needed improvement. They also reiterated that the location of this development proposal within a residential area warranted a compatible design with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and which is different to the conventional grocery store design typically found in commercial districts. 3.3 Based on further input at the second Open House and follow -up discussions and meetings between Staff and the developer during December 2010, the applicant made additional revisions to the elevations. The most recent revisions include a pitch roof over the grocery store entrance, more articulation (recessions and progressions of the facade) along the street elevations and better integration of certain design elements (e.g. pillars around the building). The site plan concept has been revised to incorporate tree planting on the west side of Scugog Street to provide off -site landscape buffering to address compatibility with the adjacent residential uses. Copies of the latest site plan, elevation and landscape drawings are contained in Attachment 3. 3.4 Staff are generally satisfied with the latest modifications to the site plan drawings as they create a more uniform architectural theme, enhance the appearance of the principal building on the site and provide a more prominent and attractive landmark to compliment the corner site and the neighbourhood. 3.5 Staff are of the opinion that the latest site plan and elevations generally address the resident's concerns, and enhances the development. proposal. It implements the key urban design components contained in the adopted Official Plan amendment, therefore the rezoning can be finalized. Any additional details are being addressed as part of the site plan review process. The applicant made a formal site plan submission on December 24, 2010. The site plan process will be finalized after the successful completion of the rezoning of the lands. its: REPORT NO.: PSD -017 -11 PAGE 4 3.6 Official Plan Amendment No.79 contains a policy requiring the implementing Zoning By- law to contain performance standards to ensure that the new development will be compatible with the physical character of the established residential neighbourhood. Staff drafted a site specific Zoning By -law amendment in accordance with the latest site plan concept which contains regulations on built form and other site plan elements. The proposed Zoning By -law Amendment provides for.: • A variety of appropriate commercial uses and potential second storey residential uses above grade (the latter is not proposed at this time); • Basic site layout restrictions; A requirement for a publicly, accessible square; • Facade and roof requirements along Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street; A minimum of 960 m2 of smaller commercial retail units to serve the local neighbourhood; • Allows outdoor patios for restaurants that don't serve alcohol; and • Prohibits drive - throughs. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The above report, with the approved Official Plan amendment supported by PSD -111- 10, provides the necessary basis and merits for the approval of the site specific Zoning By -law. It is recommended that the Zoning By -law enclosed as Attachment 4 to this Report be approved. Staff Contact: D6an Jacobs Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — The adopted Official Plan Amendment: Amendment No.79 Attachment 3 — Proposed Site Plan, Elevations and Landscape Plan Attachment 4 — Zoning By -law List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Erik & Kathrene Peterson R.G. Richards & Associates Kelly August Zelinka Priamo Ltd. Jennifer Remillard Metro Ontario Inc. Valerie Kowal Christina Rose Shaun Asselstine and Kim Sullivan Michele Wynne Amanda Kocklay and Nathan Cook Neil Murray Michael and Donna Stephens Sam McBride and Amanda Hyde Carl Pokoski Marie O'Hare Triston Hymus Ken and Maria Hilts Michael Webber and Jennifer Tremain Gordon and Lucille Sturrock Dale and Don Sturrock Andre Bos Tom Keen Andrew and Lindsay Wray 18 -7 REPORT NO.: PSD -017 -11 Corey Robbins and Lindsay Highmore Raymond Scimone Jason & Jody Coulas Dawn Tighe Joseph & Sharon Reader Geoff Bryann Shirley McLean Bob Harty Robert & Amanda Hall Gerry & Diane Harness Heather Beveridge Francis Williams Wayne Moores E. Greenham Gerry & Luise Lens Kelly Rainey Ken Lee Melissa Pallant Steven O -melia am PAG E 5 Attachment 1 To Report PSD- 017 -11 E 0 �t� 7jQ(y ) 63N7 NvDOH N E•C v ,a I+ p d Q 0 p Q Q 2 p 4 a g c C r 3 D m r Q r IL r p O c N �a v c o• O o , a � mm a aw O a o o CL N V o 00 IL V 0ets0 I � ,\ GO -- \ 0 1iLL�l JyLI.' V \ ° }eej }S WnoS Attachment 2 To Report PSD- 017 -11 AMENDMENT NO. 79 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a Neighbourhood Centre designation on the north -east corner of Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street to permit 'a grocery store and a multi- teriant building_for retail and service commercial uses. BASIS: The application is based on an Official Plan Amendment application (COPA 20010 -0004) submitted by. 1804603 Ontario Inc. ACTUAL AMENDMENT; -The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. By including an exception. to Section 23.14 to create. Sub- section 23.14.14 as follows: `23.14.14 Notwithstanding Sections 10.6.1 and 10.6.4 c), the lands located at 680 Longworth Avenue and described by assessment roll number 1 81 70200201 5000 shall be developed with: • A grocery store having a maximum gross floor area of 3100 m2 with the main pedestrian access within 18.5 metres of Scugog Street;. • A public square in accordance with the policies of- Section 10.6.5, which shall be located adjacent to the intersection of Scugog Street and Longworth Avenue; A use intended to complement and interact with the public square having a maximum gross floor area of 200m2, either as part of, the food store. or as an independent business establishment_ Said use shall face Scugog Street and have the main pedestrian access at the Longworth Avenue and Scugog Street intersection; A multi - tenant building for retail, personal services and business, professional and /or administrative offices, with a minimum gross floor area of 700 ml and a maximum gross floor area of 790 m2. The maximum size of an individual business establishment shall not exceed 250 m2, with the exception of an eating establishment of which the gross floor area shall not exceed 350 m2; and 18 -10 Residential dwelling units are encouraged as an accessory use either as its alone or part -of a mixed use building. The site ' specific Zoning By -law associated with the development of this site shall only be. considered after site plan and elevation drawings for this Neighbourhood Centre have been prepared to the satisfaction of the Municipality. The site plan and elevation . drawings shall address the following urban design principles: a) Compatibility: The commercial development shall be compatible with the established neighbourhood. b) Focal Point: The commercial buildings located at the intersection of Scugog Street' and Longworth Avenue should be treated as a focal point. It shall include articulated building elements that emphasize the focal point nature of these buildings. c) Building Design: The commercial development should . incorporate high quality architectural treatments, building materials that provide visual interest at the scale of pedestrians, reduces building mass. impacts, and respects the character -of the established neighbourhood.. d) Landscaping: Landscaping will be integrated in the development to visually enhance the site, to soften hard edges, to screen parking- and loading areas, to mitigate potential conflicts arising from noise, emissions and visual impacts and to contribute towards - environmental sustainability. e) Active Street Life: The commercial building located at the intersection of Scugog Street and Longworth Avenue shall include a specific area dedicated to contribute to an active street life and public square. f) Pedestrian Network: Interior walkways and private connections will be designed to complement and extend, but not replace, the role of the street as the main place for pedestrian activity. - - They should be accessible, comfortable, safe and integrated into the local pattern. of pedestrian movement with direct, universal physical and visual access from the public sidewalk and clear path - finding within the site_ The . developer will be required to provide off -site landscape buffering to address compatibility with the adjacent residential neighbourhoods: 18 -11 The implementing Zoning By -law will contain performance standards to ensure that the new development will be compatible with the physical character of the established residential neighbourhood. 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. 18 -12 Exhibit "A ", Amendment No. 79. To the Municipality of Clarington Officlal' Plan, , Map. A3, Land Use, Bowmanville Urban Area 18 -13 m =g m < A �i v oZn g_ZxZ O m a �m >ZO A y Q, � m m O m � 3u r �8rypje'�m OR 0D mg 3 3 3 s u X a u D yq Q r0 �$g�o �n > �mmm 8 �' W; I °o n 18 -14 M-am ULM c N W 00 0 M too wy D 3 ? a) Attachment 3 To Report PSD -017 -11 i 0 LONGWORTH AVENUE `J Q, � O c y /77 • I °o n 18 -14 M-am ULM c N W 00 0 M too wy D 3 ? a) Attachment 3 To Report PSD -017 -11 i 0 LONGWORTH AVENUE `J 4! .,�'� �.� 5!n �N .: tp Y •� [ r`i � _ n 'K � ;;' /Q f tlrYttlkfu`I�p t'1ppf�ij {�j��ibt#tA� ! ��3?�+f II! t�xfF Utl lt! lyrglrl�lr�rfrr r sr►l {I{jb. — ��{ ht '!�,tlt,nria�m�t„mt�r*,�r[nr�nr !NillAt,tlF Bluo� �7f n►1 �,olo�oor WPM fr1 F!I!4l41iNtF i`�x ?nn npyI,Y�!sgnq�ftm!untnnaf 4 ��l (�li�Et%'R � � "�i1oli� fill "• ,ndfl�� a �I�lifaif��{ X81' � '��. • fl i:lNRyilt �, p= . PROW AN? fil-1141"i W&S - t:mrtfix roro, 1 .!a+xean•:nnnurrtm anon.., anr- .nnmmn v Fresher. Chi ...rrcrcmartrsuen -. r�illlillld�i�f{! i1lFi�ttRpn: A6lt 9�' i, iltfl !rtlltK'�Epe'#5�F{gfil!tNtlgtil, u1n�i(iflllllY'fB�f�r(l�..: µ+a�tit1mIB ---. L, Miffimm". 00 I j Q) 1 VIH CICVATION 4 IR I'd m!7 ARCNI1ECi6 INC ElEl- Train g Building Contractors Inc. rr.mv. ran oua , Goldmanco .+9. a�u•n Mx x9 �u H�a +�o-i ioi �: Ni %39, -CCBO [EXTERIOR MMENOIAL DEVELOPA�ENT 680 Lmigwartla Avenue LARINGTON, .ONTARIO EIUILDNG 'B' EI_EVA I IONS .., A -3b Attachment 4 To Report PSD- 017 -11 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NO. 2011- being a By -law to amend By -law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By -law for the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By -law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2010 -0022; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 16.5 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — GENERAL COMMERCIAL (Cl) ZONE is hereby amended by introducing a new Sub - Section 16.5.56 as follows: "16.5.56 GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXCEPTION (C1 -56) ZONE Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 3.13 c., 16.1, 162 and 16.3, those lands zoned "C1 -56° on schedule "A" of this By -law shall be used subject to the following definitions and permitted uses: a. Definitions Comer Building shall mean a building sited close to the intersection of Scugog Street and Longworth Avenue and designed with translucent glass on all street and public square facades and a door on the street fagade of the building. Drive- Through Facility shall mean the use of land, buildings or structures, or part thereof, to provide or dispense products or services, either wholly or in part, through a window or an automatic machine, to customers remaining in motor vehicles, which are located in a stacking lane. A drive - through facility may be established in combination with other permitted non - residential uses. Public Square. shall mean an area of at least 400 m2 established and designed to provide a community gathering space and shall be open to the public at all times. b. Residential Uses Dwelling units as part of a building containing non - residential use(s). c. Non - Residential Uses i) business, professional or administrative office; commercial school; convenience store; IV) day nursery; V) dry cleaners distribution centre; vi) eating establishment; vii) eating establishment, take -out; viii) laundry — coin- operated; ix) library; X) medical or dental clinic; . xi) place of worship; xii) retail commercial establishment; 18-17 xiii) service shop, light; xiv) service shop, personal; xv) supermarket; and xvi) veterinary clinic. d. Regulations for Non - Residential Uses i) Non - residential uses shall consist of the following: a) A Supermarket b) A minimum of 960 mZ of non - supermarket uses c) A public square ii) Floor Area, Total a) Supermarket (maximum) 3100m2 b) An eating establishment (maximum) 350ml c) Any individual business establishment other than the supermarket or eating establishment (maximum) 250ml iii) A drive- through facility is not be permitted. iv) Yard requirements: a) Front Yard (maximum) 3.5 metres Front Yard (minimum) 2.5 metres b) Exterior Side Yard (i) Stand -alone multi- tenant building (maximum) 3 metres (ii) Supermarket (minimum) 5 metres (iii) Comer Building (a) to the closest point of building 2.5 metres (b) to the furthest point of building 7.5 metres c) Interior Side Yard (i) Other building(s) (minimum) 5 metres (ii) Supermarket (minimum) 22 metres d) Rear Yard (minimum) 3 metres v) Lot Coverage of all buildings (maximum) 27% vi) Landscaping a) Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 21% b) All parking areas shall be separated from abutting public streets and adjacent residential uses by a landscape strip having a minimum width of 3 meters. vii) Building Height (minimum) 5.5 metres (maximum) 12 metres viii) No building may be used as a supermarket unless the Corner Building is constructed on the lands zoned C1 -56. ix) Garbage areas shall be fully enclosed within a roofed structure and outdoor storage is prohibited. x) The Comer Building is exempt from on -site loading space requirements. xi) An Outdoor Patio associated with an easting establishment shall not be permitted if the easting• establishment has a license to serve alcohol. xii) Building elevations a) The roofline on the elevations of the building containing the grocery store facing Longworth Avenue will contain three thanguiar pediments; 18 -18 xii) Building Fagade Materials a) A minimum area of 9% of the street fagade of, the building containing the supermarket facing Longworth Avenue, between finished grade and the elevation up to a height of 3 metres shall be required to be constructed of spandrel glazing. b) A minimum area of 50% of the street fagade of the Corner Building between finished grade and the elevation up to a height of 3 metres shall be required to be constructed of transparent glazing. 2. Schedule "3" to By -law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Holding — Urban Residential Exception ((H) R3 -25) Zone " to "Holding - General Commercial Exception ((H) C1 -56) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 3. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law- 4. This By -law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. BY -LAW read a first time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a second time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2011 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 18 -19 18 -20 Attachment 2 Addendum to Report PSD- 017 -11 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NO. 2011- being a By -law to amend By -law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By -law for the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By -law 84 -63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2010 -0022; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 16.5 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — GENERAL COMMERCIAL (Cl) ZONE is hereby amended by introducing a new Sub- Section 16.5.56 as follows: "16.5.56 GENERAL COMMERCIAL EXCEPTION (C1 -56) ZONE Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 3.13 c., 16.1, 16.2 and 16.3, those' lands zoned "C1 -56" on schedule "A" of this By -law shall be used subject to the, following definitions and permitted uses: a. Definitions Corner Building shall mean a building sited close to the intersection of Scugog Street and Longworth Avenue and designed with translucent glass on all street and public square facades and a door on the street fagade of the building. Drive- Through Facility shall mean the use of land, buildings or structures, or part thereof, to provide or dispense products or services, either wholly or in part, through a window or an automatic machine, to customers remaining in motor vehicles, which are located in a stacking lane. A drive- through facility may be established in combination with other permitted non - residential uses. Public Square shall mean an area of at least 400 m2 established and designed to provide a community gathering space and shall be open to the public at all times. b. Residential Uses Dwelling units as part of a building containing non - residential use(s). c. Non - Residential Uses i) business, professional or administrative office; ii) commercial school; iii). convenience store; iv) day nursery; V) dry cleaners distribution centre; vi) eating establishment; Vii) eating establishment, take -out; Viii) laundry — coin - operated; ix) library; X) medical or dental clinic; xi) place of worship; xii) retail commercial establishment; 18 -21 xiii) service shop, light; xiv) service shop, personal; xv) supermarket; and xvi) veterinary clinic. d. Regulations for Non - Residential Uses i) Non - residential uses shall consist of the following: a) A Supermarket; b) A minimum of 760m2 of non - supermarket uses; and c) A public square. ii) Floor Area, Total a) Supermarket (maximum) 3100m2 b) An eating establishment (maximum) 350m2 c) Any individual business establishment other than the supermarket or eating establishment (maximum) 250m2 iii) A drive - through facility is not be permitted. iv) Yard requirements: a) Front Yard (maximum) 3.5 metres Front Yard (minimum) 2.5 metres b) Exterior Side Yard (i) Stand -alone multi- tenant building (maximum) 3 metres (ii) Supermarket (minimum) 5 metres (iii) Corner Building (a) to the closest point of building 2.5 metres (b) to the furthest point of building 7.5 metres c) Interior Side Yard (i) Other building(s) (minimum) 5 metres (ii) Supermarket (minimum) 22 metres d) Rear Yard (minimum) 3 metres v) Lot Coverage of all buildings (maximum) 27% vi) Landscaping a) Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 21% b) All parking areas shall be separated from abutting public streets and adjacent residential uses by a landscape strip having a minimum width of 3 meters. vii) Building Height (minimum) 5.5 metres (maximum) 12 metres viii) Comer Building a) A Corner Building with a minimum of 185 mZ shall be .constructed on the lands zoned C1 -56; b) The Corner Building may be occupied by a supermarket use, provided it complies with all other requirements for a Corner Building; c) No building may be used as a supermarket unless the Corner Building is constructed on the lands zoned C1 -56; and d) The Comer Building is exempt from on site loading space requirements." ix) Garbage areas shall be fully enclosed within a roofed structure and outdoor storage is prohibited. 18 -22 x) An Outdoor Patio associated with an eating establishment shall not be permitted if the eating establishment has a license to serve alcohol. xi) Building elevations a) The roofline on the elevations of the building containing the grocery store facing Longworth. Avenue will contain three triangular pediments; xii) Building Facade Materials a) A minimum area of 9% of the street facade of the building containing the supermarket facing Longworth Avenue, between finished grade and the elevation up to a height of 3 metres shall be required to be constructed of spandrel glazing. b) A minimum area of 50% of the street facade of the Corner Building between finished grade and the elevation up to a height of 3 metres shall be required to be constructed of transparent glazing. 2. Schedule "3" to By -law 84 -63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Holding — Urban Residential Exception ((H) R3 -25) Zone " to "Holding - General Commercial Exception ((H) C1 -56) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 3. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By -law. 4. This By -law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. BY -LAW read a first time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a second time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2011 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 18 -23 18 -24 Unfinished Business 2 Excerpt of Council Minutes March 7, 2011 Resolution #C- 103 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Kaylin Morissette and Julie Cryderman be provided with $1,000 each to assist with funding required for their participation at the U19 World Championship - Women's Field Lacrosse Event in Hanover, Germany in August, 2011. "TABLED" (See Following Motion) Resolution #C- 104 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the foregoing Resolution #C- 103 -11 be tabled to the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of March 21, 2011. "CARRIED" Resolution #C- 114 -10 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the request from Kaylin Morissette and Julie Cryderman with respect to financial assistance for the U19 World Championship — Women's Field Lacrosse, be tabled until the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of March 21, 2011. "CARRIED" 18 -25 Qding the Way MEMO CLERK'S DEPARTMENT To: Mayor Foster and Members of Council From: Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk Date: March 18, 2011 Subject: GENERAL PURPOSE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA — MARCH 21, 2011 — UPDATE Please be advised of the following amendments to the GPA agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, March 21, 2011: R 20. DELEGATIONS See attached Final List. (Attachment #1) PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORTS c) PSD- 027 -11 GO Extension to Bowmanville Environmental Assessment Replacement of Page 1 of the Report (Attachment #2), to change reference of section in Recommendation #2 COMMUNICATIONS Correspondence has been received from Shannon Newman, Tiffany Wilbur, Phyllis Milburn, Missy Miller and Robert Owen (Roy Nichols Motors Limited) in objection to the Master Mechanic (Dunbury Development (Courtice) Ltd.), the subject of Public Meeting (b) — Report PSD- 025 -11. n Gr tree, VDeputy Clerk AG /jeg cc: F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 -623 -6506 Attachment #1 of Update Memo FINAL LIST OF DELEGATIONS GPA Meeting: March 21, 2011 (a) Ron Richards, R.G. Richards & Associates, Regarding Report PSD- 017 -11, a Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment to Permit the Development of a Food Store of 2,829m2 and Two Smaller Buildings of 783m2 and 185m2 Respectively for Retail /Service Commercial Uses — 680 Longworth Avenue, Bowmanville (b) Gary Jeffrey, Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC), Regarding the AACC Annual Report for 2010 (c) Kim Gavine, Executive Director, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, Regarding Eight Different Reports which the Foundation is working on Regarding the Effectiveness of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Foundation Qding die Way ATTACHMENT B a M waft -y- a %y%In, REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: March 21, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: NIA Report #: PSD -027 -11 File #s: PLN 23.2.7, PLN 23.2.5 Subject: GO EXTENSION TO BOWMANVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report PSD- 027 -11 be received; 2. THAT Council endorse the staff comments noted in Section 4.0 of this Report as the Municipality's comments on the Oshawa to Bowmanville Rail Service Expansion and Rail Maintenance Facility Environmental Assessment Study Report dated January 2011; THAT the Municipality of Clarington support the recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Report to extend the GO Train Service to Bowmanville, with the understanding that the comments contained in this report will be satisfactorily addressed prior to the conclusion of the EA approval process; 4. THAT the Municipality of Clarington request the Province and Metrolinx Board to move forward with the implementation of expansion of the GO train service to Bowmanville as soon as possible by completing the Transit Project Assessment Process, detailed design and constructions with all necessary funding earmarked at an early stage in GO Transit's Ten Year Capital Plan; 5. That staff be authorized to approach GO /Metrolinx to negotiate a cost sharing agreement for the Green Road grade separation; and 6. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 027 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 wy� i C _ ®� MOTORS LTD. Municipality of Clarington Y MAR 1 8 2071 v Clerk's Department 2nd Floor 40 Temperance St. MUNICIr'Aii * Ci;.:' RINGTON Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 PLANNING 0eRAi1 T M0dT ATTN: David J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R P.P. Director of Planning Services Planning File No: ZBA 2011 -0001 (X -Ref: SPA 2011 -0001 Dear David: I am writing to oppose the proposed Zoning By -law Amendment submitted by Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Ltd. I was informed a few years ago by Richard Holy and yourself that according to the Municipality's 30 Year Plan there will be no new dealerships or vehicle repair outlets on Hwy #2. You may not remember but I asked to relocate my dealership years ago to the comer of Green Rd and Hwy 2. I also asked if I purchased the old 1867 Restaurant and vehicle repair facility at Courtice Rd and Hwy 401 could I set up a used vehicle sales outlet and repair shop. Your answer was no on both proposals. I was told by Richard who worked for you that the only place where vehicles will be sold and repaired will be in the then new Auto Mall at Waverly Rd. So who changed the 30 Year Plan? As well I have spent millions of dollars upgrading my dealership and service centre which improves the comer of Courtice Rd and Hwy 2. This is good for the Municipality for any individual or businesses considering a move to Clarington. My facility provides quality sales and service for Clarington residents. I employ 70 people which add revenue to the Municipality. Another service facility in this area would dilute the customer base and affect the ability of Roy Nichols Motors to operate an effective business. It would seem very unfair to me if the amendment submitted was approved. Please ensure the decision makers take all the above points into consideration. Yoiss trul , Robert Owen President Roy Nichols Motors Limited cc: Mayor Adrian Foster Toll Free: 1- 866- 885 - 8822.905- 436 -2222 • Fax: 905 - 436 -2028 2728 Courtice Road • Courtice • Ontario • L1 E 2M7 www.roynicholsmotors.com Opposing Resident: Shannon Newman Attention: Director of Planning Services Re: Planning File Nos.: ZBA 2011 -0001 (X -Ref.: SPA 2011 -001) Development application by: Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Ltd. Please accept the attached letter as strong opposition to the development of a six bay Master Mechanic commercial building behind the existing Shoeless Joe's Restaurant in Courtice. My family resides in the residence behind the proposed development, which includes myself, my husband and my 80 year old mother -in -law. We were very disappointed to learn by way of Notice of Public Meeting that the Municipality has even contemplated accepting this development to go up in our community. Not only will this sort of development cause traffic congestion on King Street it will also cause huge disruption to the neighboring communities by way of noise and air pollution. Knowing that the municipality of Clarington has been involved in the GTA Clean Air Council since 2000 it would surprise me that it does not know that facilities such as Master Mechanic does in fact expose the surrounding residents to hazards that would ultimately be out of their residents' control. People who are exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations, for sufficient durations, may increase their chances of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems, birth defects, and aggravated asthma. Auto shops repair, repaint, and customize cars, trucks, and other vehicles. Their activities include sanding, cleaning, and painting, all of which may release pollutants into the air and may contribute to health concerns in the shop and in the community. Auto shop operations can produce emissions of toxic air pollutants, including metals and diisocyanates. Paints, cleaners, and paint strippers can release some toxic air pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Chemicals in these substances can also react in the air to form ground -level ozone (smog), which has been linked to a number of respiratory effects. Lead, chromium, and cadmium are metals that form particle pollution during sanding and welding. Breathing particle pollution can cause respiratory problems and other harmful health effects. Diisocyanates are toxic air pollutants emitted during painting operations. These compounds are a leading cause of occupational asthma. I for one am very concerned about these factors as both my husband and my mother -in -law suffer from severe asthma. Will it now be that they cannot enjoy our beautiful yard in the afternoon due to the various commercial buildings that the municipality is approving with no regard for its residents! Can I not dry a blanket in my yard without the smell of exhaust? I would also like to point out that on the attached Clarington Noise -By -Law we are protected against any noise which may be heard beyond the lot upon which it is made at sufficient volume to disturb persons beyond such lot. Knowing that a 6 bay Master Mechanic would be behind my home with automobiles consistently coming in for repair I can assure you that the noise will be beyond what is acceptable to the Municipality and its residents. The grating grinding or rattling noise or sound caused by a condition of disrepair or maladjustment of any motor vehicle, 6'AR i i 20il I MUNICIPALITY OFCiAR!! PLANNING DEPARIIUi- Re: Planning File Nos.: ZBA 2011 -0001 (X -Ref.: SPA 2011 -001) Development application by: Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Ltd. Please accept the attached letter as strong opposition to the development of a six bay Master Mechanic commercial building behind the existing Shoeless Joe's Restaurant in Courtice. My family resides in the residence behind the proposed development, which includes myself, my husband and my 80 year old mother -in -law. We were very disappointed to learn by way of Notice of Public Meeting that the Municipality has even contemplated accepting this development to go up in our community. Not only will this sort of development cause traffic congestion on King Street it will also cause huge disruption to the neighboring communities by way of noise and air pollution. Knowing that the municipality of Clarington has been involved in the GTA Clean Air Council since 2000 it would surprise me that it does not know that facilities such as Master Mechanic does in fact expose the surrounding residents to hazards that would ultimately be out of their residents' control. People who are exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations, for sufficient durations, may increase their chances of getting cancer or experiencing other serious health effects, such as reproductive problems, birth defects, and aggravated asthma. Auto shops repair, repaint, and customize cars, trucks, and other vehicles. Their activities include sanding, cleaning, and painting, all of which may release pollutants into the air and may contribute to health concerns in the shop and in the community. Auto shop operations can produce emissions of toxic air pollutants, including metals and diisocyanates. Paints, cleaners, and paint strippers can release some toxic air pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Chemicals in these substances can also react in the air to form ground -level ozone (smog), which has been linked to a number of respiratory effects. Lead, chromium, and cadmium are metals that form particle pollution during sanding and welding. Breathing particle pollution can cause respiratory problems and other harmful health effects. Diisocyanates are toxic air pollutants emitted during painting operations. These compounds are a leading cause of occupational asthma. I for one am very concerned about these factors as both my husband and my mother -in -law suffer from severe asthma. Will it now be that they cannot enjoy our beautiful yard in the afternoon due to the various commercial buildings that the municipality is approving with no regard for its residents! Can I not dry a blanket in my yard without the smell of exhaust? I would also like to point out that on the attached Clarington Noise -By -Law we are protected against any noise which may be heard beyond the lot upon which it is made at sufficient volume to disturb persons beyond such lot. Knowing that a 6 bay Master Mechanic would be behind my home with automobiles consistently coming in for repair I can assure you that the noise will be beyond what is acceptable to the Municipality and its residents. The grating grinding or rattling noise or sound caused by a condition of disrepair or maladjustment of any motor vehicle, motorcycle or other vehicle whatsoever or part or accessory thereof is also clearly stated in the By -Law. How would you protect your residents from this noise at an auto repair shop? Lastly I would like to express my concern about how this development will affect the value of my home. I moved to Courtice 2 years ago to be out of the city. I love the small town feel and the fresh air. I love that I can walk safely at night. It discourages me that the Municipality of Clarington would even consider taking value away from its residents. Not only value but money from the value of their homes that they have worked so hard for! I kindly ask that you DO NOT APPROVE this proposed Zoning By -Law. We do not want this development behind our homes. Please hear us. I would be open for further discussion should it warrant. Thank you for your time. Shannon Newman Marchllt' 2011 To: The Municipality of Clarington, My name is Tiffany Wilbur. I reside at along with my husband and two children for the past 16 years. This letter refers to the proposed zoning by -law amendment submitted by Dunbury Developments Ltd. To permit the development of a 6 bay Master Mechanic commercial building behind the existing Shoeless Joe's restaurant in Courtice at 1419 Durham Hwy 2. I oppose the building of a 6 bay Master Mechanic behind my house. I do not want the noise of mechanical tools, vehicle exhaust smells, the constant sounds of cars ever day behind my back fence. I believe there is not enough room to build this 6 bay building without going right to our back fence. There are other appropriate Clarington areas this can benefit from being built, but not, smack between restaurants, a bakery, gym and bridal wear. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tiffany Wilbur. r E Municipality of Clarington Clerk's Department 2nd Floor Temperance St. Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Date: March 10, 2011 To: Lisa Backus - Subject: Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment for permit'6 bay Master Mechanic Commercial Building' Planning File Nos.: ZBA 2011 -0001 (X -Ref.: SPA 2011 -0001) This is a written submission from me that I strongly oppose the zoning by -law amendment to permit a 6 bay Master Mechanic Commercial Building on the property located at 1419 Durham Highway 2 in Courtice. Also, I would like to be notified of subsequent meetings of the proposed zoning by -law amendment. When I first purchased my property at Courtice in 1997, my beautiful backyard was butt up to a two well treed residential properties. My family spent a lot of time there enjoying gardening, barbeques /eating outdoors, reading & relaxing in lawn furniture on our deck. The residential properties on King St. were sold & the property turned to commercial use. At the time I could not'believe this because all the plazas near Townline & King St East constantly had businesses vacating the stores leaving them empty for long periods of time. The properties were stripped of all the trees except a few butting up to our fences. Fill was brought in raising the level of their property to extreme levels above our abutting properties. Shoeless Joe's was built with no privacy fence installed, so last spring 1 planted 66 white cedars 5 -6' along my fence line. Now the owners of the property are asking you to change the by -law to permit them to build a `6 bay Master Mechanical Commercial building' between Shoeless Joe's and our residential properties. Three bays facing the restaurant & 3 bays facing my backyard, dining room, kitchen & family room, not to mention the upstairs 2 bathrooms & 1 bedroom. We had already had huge machinery working on this property 3 times, shaking our homes, disturbing the roots of our mature trees. I also strongly oppose of the Municipal planned driveway (directly behind my fence) ioining the plazas exiting out Darlington koad. The proposal from Master Mechanic is expecting to use this as a secondary entrance /exit. Enough!!!! 1 am asking the Council. Honestly, would you like this to happen to your home? First of all, my home will greatly decrease in value. 1 have worked hard to pay for my home that I love. Are you forcing us to move? I want to enjoy my beautiful home, backyard. I want to continue to garden, barbecue, eat outdoors, read & relax on my deck. Municipality of Clarington Clerk's Department 2nd Floor 40 Temperance St Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Planning File Nos.: ZBA 2011 -0001 (X -Ref.: SPA 2011 -0001) Dear Mr. David J. Crome: IIINAR14 PU2•14•25 MAR 1 �j 2011 MUNICIPHUfYO: CLARINOTON In regards to the proposed Zoning By -law Amendment submitted by Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Ltd., I am writing to you my reasons for opposing: I currently reside at 90 Foxhunt Trail, which backs right onto the proposed property. My family and I are most concerned, if construction is granted, about the noise and environmental pollution this 6 bay Master Mechanic commercial building will cause with or without a 9 foot barrier. Not to mention, the many days of construction to develop an unnecessary lane way to accommodate the traffic from one plaza to another. My husband and I have two small children, 8 and 2 years old, who thoroughly enjoy playing in our backyard and swimming in our swimming pool. We want them to be able to continue to do these things they love without the noise of greater vehicle traffic, mechanical power tools and mechanical machinery. The Municipality of Clarington currently holds the following Noise By -Laws that will affect my family and neighbors directly: 1.1 No person shall ring any bell blow or sound any horn or cause the same to be rung blown or sounded or shout or create cause or permit any unusual or excessive noises likely to disturb any other inhabitant of the Municipality of Clarington 1.2 Without limiting the generality of section 1.1 the following are deemed to be noises likely to disturb the inhabitants of the Municipality of Clarington: (C) the grating grinding or rattling noise or sound caused by a condition of disrepair or maladjustment of any motor vehicle motorcycle or other vehicle whatsoever or part or accessory thereof (G) any noise which may be heard beyond the lot upon which it is made at sufficient volume to disturb persons beyond such lot We also are very concerned about the lower air quality this mechanical building will bring. We don't want to continually be poisoned by inhaling vehicle exhaust fumes, paints, or any other hazardous materials involved in automobile repairs. We have spoken to our Real Estate agent who assured us our property value will decrease if this commercial is built right behind us. Unfortunately we are not in a financial position to just pack up our life and move somewhere new —we love our house and property, and we are going to fight for it. We want to continue to enjoy our time outside our house. Why turn a previous Clarington Residential Zoned Lot into a Clarington Commercial Zoned Lot that will directly affect Clarington Residents, when there are currently vacant commercial lots on the north side of Highway #2? Why does Clarington not suggest these lots to potential business owners? In conclusion: This proposed building of a 6 bay Master Mechanical will deteriorate my family's health, disturb our day to day living with enormous impact, cause significant traffic issues, as well as disobey current Clarington Noise By -Laws on a regular basis. I will be present at the Public Meeting planned for March 21ST alongside my neighbors to have my voice heard. I want to be notified of any future meetings regarding the above mentioned issue. Sincerely, Missy Miller I am concerned about the noise of the vehicles, coming early in the morning, leaving at night. The noise of the power tools when the garage doors are open, three bays will be directly facing us. The noise of big trucks dropping off supplies, emptying dumpsters. We already have that problem with the dumpsters in the existing plazas. You think a wall barrier will solve this: Both my children work shift work. Will they be able to sleep? I am concerned about the hazardous materials they will be using in bulk. The smell of exhaust fumes, oil, grease and other hazardous materials. Spillage /leaks!! Should this be an environmental issue? Will our children be able to safely play in our backyards, I babysit my Granddaughter. Will we be able to eat outdoors /relax on our deck or even open our windows? Another huge concern is the traffic. The congestion of vehicles entering & exiting the existing plazas from Townline to Varcoe /Darlington St has enough traffic without adding an additional business that would steadily increase the volume of vehicles. Parking is another issue. I think the property is too small to construct a 6 bay mechanic shop that will require parking for employees as well as vehicles in for repair. The proposal states the overnight vehicles will be left inside. Who will monitor this? Will there be excessive /overflow of vehicles from this business parking in the existing plazas parking lots? "Will this have to be monitored? Personally, I do not believe this is the place for a'six bay Master Mechanic commercial building. I understand the Council is happy to have an interested business wanting to locate in their area creating jobs. There was a garage on the corner of King & Varcoe St. Maybe the proposed business could locate there. The Bowmanville Canadian Tire is relocating & expanding their auto centre to 14 auto service bays & 4 quick lube bays. Would this mean in a few years the 6 bay building would close down & the building left vacant. Finally, since this area is not zoned for this type of commercial building. Why would you be willing to change this? I feel this is totally in disregard for the residents who live in this area, especially me as my complete backyard abuts this proposal. This proposal would also violate a few noise by -laws not to mention the air quality regulations. You will never convince me that it will not create health problems for the ones we love. The planned Municipal drive through is not the correct solution either. The noise, exhaust fumes & lights from the vehicles using this driveway at all hours day /night would also affect the quality of life at my home. I understand some commercial building will go there. But a business of this type & magnitude is NOT the solution. I will be attending the meeting on March 21/11, saying a few words to try & save my home. Thank you Phyllis Milburn 92 Foxhunt Trail Courtice 905- 432 -9651 HANDOUTS /CIRCULATIONS GPA Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington 2010 Accomplishments Guests and presentations topics: Highlights: ✓ Cliff Curtis, Durham Region — Used Tires, Agricultural Bale Wrap & Household Hazardous Waste ✓ Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk — urban agriculture, request for backyard chickens ✓ Greg Bales, MNR; Brian Souch, Livestock Valuator; Patti Barrie, Clerk; Mayor Abernethy - Coyote Issues ✓ Dennis Yellowlees, agricultural representative on Greenbelt Council - Greenbelt Council ✓ Mark Peacock, GRCA — Source Water Protection ✓ Bill Hasiuk, John Bertrim, Paul Vaneyk — Rural Speed Limits ✓ Peter Doris, OMAFRA— MDS, Nutrient Management, NASM, definition of corporation versus farmer and the fines that apply ✓ Kathryn Kram, Kathy McPherson, Friends of Greenbelt Foundation —Value-added Agriculture Study ✓ Gary Jeffery, Update to the Pesticides Act and regulations ✓ DEAC Award to Algoma ✓ Zone 2 Soybean Production (Yield) Award to Ceresmore Farms ✓ DFRA received Trillium funding for Agricultural Awareness Program ✓ Premier's Award (runner-up) to Algoma Provided Comments on: Definition of Farmer vs. Corporation to John O'Toole Proposed provincial levy on fertilizer PPS- buffers and need for appropriate urban /rural buffers Deadstock Issues (coyote kills) Resolution to Province Agri- tourism vs. Agri- entertainment definition for Zoning Bylaw and O.P. policies Alternative Energy Issues — impacts to individual farmers on signing leases for Solar or Wind Pesticide Act regulations (monitoring) Non - Agricultural Source Material Regulations (Nutrient Management Act) Committee involvement in: Clarington Farmers' Market Farmers Parade of Lights Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee Durham Farm Connections Clarington Board of Trade Durham Federation of Agriculture Promotion: Orono Fair Booth DAAC Tour I �I�irt �Y n x 1 1 LI nionzwoutwnere your ;X� food comes from? People in agriculture answer them with the straight goods. T rty I n- 9 to ndei mod ho r o e • pesticides and antibiotics? t d x.41.• la..• ,•• b '¢,,. �y to coast, what r es it look like? W % _•..�.._y ��N�iIY WYY..v•,.Y.wbY e.W. �uWYYa9 YY Yw�i6._.:_.i��w v,e �... ,,�., ".....�L,.e.a:itli�.i:.t.,. vw ws .xY Y�. �+W'ml�.... `•r.._ A LETTER FROM CANADIAN FARMERS 1 FARMING -THE BIG PICTURE ..................... ............................... 2 The Economics of Farm Size ............................ ............................... 2 Regional Roundup ................................... ............................... 4 PopQuiz .......................................... ............................... 5 SAFE FOOD STARTS ON THE FARM ................ ............................... 6 What Pesticides and Animal Health Products Do and Don't Do .. ............................... 6 Let's talk Antibiotics .................................. ............................... 8 What You Need to Know about the things that concern us ..... ............................... 10 Making Food Safety a Routine Farm Chore ................ ............................... 12 What about Organic? ................................. ............................... 13 RAISING FARM ANIMALS ......... ............................... . ................ 15 Animal Care: Basic Principles ........................... ............................... 15 A Quick Tour of Farm Animal Real Estate .................. ............................... 18 Animal Welfare or Animal Rights? ....................... ............................... 25 LET'S TALK CROPS . ............................... 26 Fruits and Vegetables ................................ ............................... 26 ReliableLabour ..................................... ............................... 27 Corn, wheat, soybeans, canola and pulses ................. ............................... 28 SO MUCH MORETHAN FOOD ....................... ............................... 30 Where's Agriculture? Everywhere! ....................... ............................... 30 Plants for Energy ................................... ............................... 31 Biodiesel and Ethanol ................................ ............................... 31 FARMERS;THE ACTIVE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ..... ............................... 32 Animal Agriculture and our Environment .................. ............................... 32 What about Greenhouse Gas? .......................... ............................... 34 Harvesting the Sun .................................. ............................... 37 Farmingthe Wind ................................... ............................... 37 THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN PRODUCING OUR FOOD . ............................... 38 What is Biotechnology? ............................... ............................... 38 What is Genetic Engineering? ........................... ............................... 38 IN CLOSING ............................... 40 WITH THANKS ........................... ............................... Inside Back Cover �r` l�P,G/v �eC;cceiv, x e We hope you've had the opportunity to visit a local fair, farmers' market, roadside stand, or pick - your -own farm recently. These are among the too few opportunities we have to meet face to face. Usually there's a crowd of people between us —food processors, distributors, supermarket managers ' and restaurateurs — so it's not easy for us to get acquainted. It seems incredible that a century ago, over half of Canada's population was farmers. Today, it's down to two per cent. Just as remarkable is the leap in our productivity. where our grandparents or great- grandparents could produce enough food for 10 people, today's farmer can feed well over 120. Our productivity has jumped by 300 per cent since the 1950s but at the same time, we're using fewer resources, less land and newer, better technologies to produce more food. r l` a� Continual innovation, specialization and persistence have brought us light years ahead in the k production of top quality, abundant, safe and well - priced products of which we're proud. But this demographic shift has put no small distance between us, the entrepreneurs who grow our food and the people who eat it. As our most important customers, your needs, concerns and preferences are very important to us. In these pages, we hope to answer some of the common questions we hear in the news, clear up misconceptions, and generally give you some insight into what's up, down on the 21st century farm in Canada today. We'd like you to know more about us and our way of life. Despite all the technology in the world, it's ` still hard work and no one knows better than us that Mother Nature can be a tough boss. No matter what we do to care for our animals and our crops, she's ultimately responsible for the weather and for the health of the livestock and products that we raise. But, at the end of the day, even if we are combining our fields in the middle of the night to get our crops in or missing a family dinner because we're helping a cow give birth, we farm because we choose to. We're committed to this way of life and most of us wouldn't trade it for anything. j If you have questions that we haven't answered or you'd like more information on anything related to food and farming, please contact any of the groups listed at the end of the book. Thank you for taking the time to find out about us and how we grow your food, and thank you for buying our di a products. We truly appreciate it. ,s cGa� t� z.l 3 Pr a y; � rming T e Ng Picture THE ECONOMICS OF FARMING Farming is unique —a way of life and a business. Like most businesses in recent years, many farms have become larger and more specialized to stay competitive. That said, ( anadian agriculture is big business: $41.8 billion in sales from horticulture, poultry, crops and livestock production in 2008. What's Going Up? • Productivity, productivity, productivity — we're using fewer resources to produce more food on less land. • Farm size is expanding — while it varies from province to province, the average Canadian farm grew by eight per cent from 2001 to 2006. • Productive land — we can now grow crops on land that we couldn't use before, like in the Prairies for example, because we have better tools and technologies. • Our age — the average age of a Canadian farmer is 52. • Education levels — 38 per cent of men and 48 per cent of women who farm have post- secondary degrees. What's Going Down? • The overall number of farms has been falling steadily for years. Statistics Canada counted 229,373 farms in its 2006 census — compared to 728,623 it recorded in 1931 ! • The number of small and medium sized farms is decreasing -39 per cent of Canadian farms have gross sales of $25,000 or less, and 27 per cent of farms have gross sales of $25,000 — $100,000 (2001 - 2006). • The number of young people in farming is slipping: just over nine per cent are under the age 35, which leaves many wondering about the future of this industry. • In 1931, one in three Canadians lived on a farm. Today, it's only one in 46! 2 T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G Have big corporations taken over farm ownership? No. About 98 per cent of Canadian farms are family -owned and operated, and are often handed down from generation to generation. It's difficult to describe a "typical" farm or ranch in Canada because every one of them is unique. Family farms come in several forms: some are managed by families with one or more members having a job outside the farm to ensure adequate family income; some are "retirement" farms or acreages; and some are farms that are structured like a corporation but often have primarily family members working on them as well as additional paid employees. These larger farms are still family -owned and operated. One key difference is that the family may not need off -farm income to maintain a good standard of living. Brent Royce raises turkeys in southern Ontario, where he farms with his wife and two young daughters. His farm is a corporation, but one owned by his family. "It's almost unachievable for most young farmers to buy a whole farm outright as land and buildings have become very expensive," he says. "With a farm being an incorporated business, it makes it easier for the next generation to take over the farm because it allows young farmers to assume the farm piece by piece instead of having to buy it all at once." Brent was able to take over his farm from his own parents in this way — but farm size or structure doesn't affect how crops or animals are cared for There are farms of many different sizes in Canada, says Brent, but all produce safe food and at the end of the day, people farm because they love working with animals and the land. Can we return to smaller, more traditional farms? The beautiful thing about farming in Canada is you can choose to have five acres or 5,000 acres. With only two per cent feeding the rest of us, it's impossible to go back to many small farms and still feed our country. It's also important to note that the majority of the income of Canada's small farmers comes from off -farm jobs and not actually from the farm itself. Source: www.stalcon.g(.ca/ daily- quotidien /080125 /dgOB0725a- eng.him People may feel nostalgic for the imagery of farms of yesteryear —but those people who lived and worked on them are rarely nostalgic for that very challenging way of life. The farms' low productivity supported much smaller populations; environmental awareness was much lower and food quality and quantity were highly unpredictable. The challenge today is to feed a growing world population — we're expected to reach seven billion people in 2011 and nine billion by 2050 — without damaging, depleting or destroying our water, air and soil. For this unprecedented global population, the past can't provide all the answers. Ok Only 27 per cent of an entire week's worth of groceries for a family of four (ranging from four percent for grain products to 35% for dairy products) goes back to the farm — and although consumer food prices go up, the amount that goes back to the farmer stays the same or even goes down. A study conducted in Manitoba showed that even though the cost of a week's worth of groceries for a family of four rose to $194.23 in 2009 from $188.24 the year before, this increase was not passed along to farmers. Consumers paid $6.01 more for groceries during that time period, and farmers received $0.86 less. The study also showed: • In 2009, the average cost of two loaves of bread was $4.94, but the farmer received only $0.22. • Two cups of red pepper cost consumers an average of $4.99 in 2009, while the farmer got $0.22 — compared to $0.40 of the $3.99 cost only the year before. • 1.2 kilograms of strawberries that cost you $9.78 at the grocery store paid only $1.31 to the farmer who grew them in 2009. In 2008, the farmer received $1.64 out of the $7.98 price. • The beef farmer received $2.05 in 2009 for the 600 grams of sirloin tip beef that cost you $9.15 in the store. In 2008, the farmer also received $2.05 — but from a consumer price of $4.61. (Source: Keystone Agricultural Producers, "The Farmers' Share', 2009, hnp:// www. kap. mb. ca/ KAP% 20Release %2OFarmers %27 %2OShare %2009.pdf) And at restaurants... Eggs Benedict $11.92 $0.27 (egg former) All- dressed pizza (medium) $16.25 $0.69 (dairy farmer) Grilled chicken breast on rice $12.00 $0.19 (chicken farmer) 1 Tinch turkev sub $5.99 $0.21 (turkey farmer) (Source: SM -5 — Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers, 2009) REGIONAL ROUNDUP Canada has one of the most diverse agricultural bases 0 beef cattle 01 all other types in the world. This table shows the number of farms in fruit potatos . dairy 0 specialty farms each province as well as their dominant farm types. N park (like Christmas trees) grain & oilseed 0 greenhouse wheat vegetable F79.0 5 4 1 1 1 R'. Note: based an 2006 Census of Agriculture data. For comprehensive statistics, please see Statistics Canada at www.statcan.gc.ca. 4 T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G Qrovince.. `Lr ' 0 has the largest farms in terms of amount of acres farmed? a) Alberta b) Manitoba c) Saskatchewan © has the smallest number of farms? a) Ontario b) New Brunswick c) Newfoundland =Nd © does not have cattle as its most common farm type? a) Newfoundland & Labrador b) British Columbia © has the most dairy cows? a) Quebec b) Ontario c) New Brunswick t 0 raises the most chickens? a) Ontario b) Quebec c) British Columbia Oraises the largest number of pigs? a) Ontario b) Quebec c) Manitoba Ohas the highest number of farms producing tree fruits (e.g., peaches & cherries), berries? a) Ontario b) British Columbia c) Nova Scotia has the largest percentage of certified organic farms in Canada? a) British Columbia b) Prince Edward Island c) Saskatchewan • r has the largest percentage of certified organic farms in Canada? a) British Columbia b) Prince Edward Island c) Saskatchewan (I Sae Food Starts ' WHAT PESTICIDES AND ANIMAL HEALTH PRODUCTS DO -AND DON'T DO! 1 Safety first. Canada has one of the most stringent product approval, residue monitoring and control systems in the world, with a strong focus on applicator safety and efficacy (how well a product works). When used as directed, any approved pesticides or animal medicines do not harm people, animals or plants, or affect food safety or quality —in fact, they are largely used to improve these attributes. 2 They work. For example, pesticides —in tandem with other methods of crop protection — have helped raise the yields and quality of our fruits, vegetables and field crops, as well as the reliability of supply. They've also helped keep food prices affordable. The some is true with the responsible use of animal medications, which have helped improve animal health and overall productivity. 3 Getting better and safer. The chemical and medicinal products coming on the market are getting better and better — narrowly targeted, fast - acting, breaking down benignly (in the case of pesticides) and with precise withdrawal* timing (in the case of animal medicines) to minimize the possibility of drug residues in our food and adhere to safety standards and regulations. meaning how long it takes the product to leave the animal's body More behind - the - scenes in chemical safety Testing, testing — and more testing.! • Before getting anywhere near our food production system, both chemical and animal health "`r I products undergo years of testing and trials to prove their safety and effectiveness. They must meet stringent government requirements before being approved. • An entire agency of Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), regulates and monitors pesticides in cooperation with provincial authorities. The PMRA employs hundreds of independent scientists to test all pest control products to ensure they can be used safely before they are approved for use in Canada (www.pmro- arlo.gc.ca). • A similar process is in place for animal health products. Depending on the type of product, it could be regulated by either Health Canada or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Pharmaceuticals are regulated by the Veterinary Drugs Directorate, and animal pesticides, such as ear tags to help keep flies away from cattle's faces or some flea treatments for cats and dogs, are under the jurisdiction of the PMRA, both of which are part of Health Canada. Animal biologicals, like vaccines and feed additives must meet the regulatory requirements of the Canadian Centre for Veterinary Biologics or the Feeds Division, both part of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. • Getting approval does not mean they're home -free. Government oversight continues — in the form of residue testing and monitoring to make sure our food and water are safe. T H F D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G Beyond chemistry • A system called Integrated Pest Management (see page 8) has expanded the range of tools farmers can use to reduce losses to pests and reduce pesticide use too. • On -farm biosecurity programs — a series of preventative measures to reduce the risk of disease — together with vaccinations and good nutrition, help us keep animals and crops healthy. This cuts down the need for medication or treatments, which is good for the animals and the plants, and saves farmers both time and money. Common sense • Farmers live where they work, so they breathe the air and drink the water from their own wells - they also eat the food they grow and take pride in feeding consumers with it too. If they thought using medications and crop protection products responsibly was harmful, they definitely wouldn't be using them! • Crop protection and animal health products represent an expensive cost of doing business, so farmers only use them when absolutely necessary and in the recommended amounts. • There's no incentive for farmers to over -use expensive products or to over - medicate their animals. They work hard to keep their costs low so your food costs can remain low as well. Products used as directed by their labels are at their most effective and efficient. • If our food products were found to have residues, they would be condemned — which means they're destroyed and farmers do not get paid for producing them. This represents a significant loss in farm incomes and farmers can also face significant fines. Farmer education • Farmers are always taking courses and attending workshops to make sure they're up to date with latest technologies and farming practices. • In most provinces, farmers must take a course and pass an exam in order to become certified to purchase and use pesticides. They learn about pest management techniques, preventing pest resistance, how to protect the environment and avoid health risks, proper storage, maintenance of application equipment, and the importance of record - keeping. To keep current, they must be re- certified every five years (see www.pesticidesafety.ca for more info). • On -farm food safety programs for livestock farmers teach the "quality assurance" basics for safe food, including the importance of proper use of veterinary medicines, with proper withdrawal times before treated animals go to market. Courses for fruit and vegetable growers focus on proper growing, storage and packing techniques to assure safe produce gets to our tables. Half the pesticides! In 1983, Ontario farmers and the provincial government set a goal to cut agricultural pesticide use in half within 20 years. By 2003, farmers had reduced their use of agricultural pesticides by 52 per cent - and it continues to decrease by about three per cent every year. Other provinces have seen similar declines. 1 11 f D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G BIOSECURITY IN EFFECT. But when animals do get sick... Just like humans, animals need medicines too. Biosecurity measures and disease prevention programs do not provide total protection from disease. Veterinary medicines are needed to make sick animals healthy — and keep people and other livestock from getting sick. New diseases are always emerging, so research and innovation for treating animal disease is important. New technologies will be needed to treat new diseases, including innovative treatment and prevention approaches to managing disease — like genetically modified products and technologies yet to be discovered. LET'S TALK ABOUT ANTIBIOTICS Keeping animals healthy is a top priority for farmers and veterinarians. A serious health problem can wipe out a farm's or even a whole industry's animals, in addition to causing animals to suffer. Prevention is always preferred over treatment. Antibiotics — more accurately called "antimicrobials" in farming — are used for the following main reasons: 1. to treat animal diseases that occur, such as pneumonia in individual animals, herds and flocks. 2. to prevent typical and recurring diseases, especially during stressful times of an animal's life like when piglets are weaned from sows and put together with other piglets in a pen. 3. to enhance production by preventing disease, which leads to improved growth and feed efficiency. Not all farmers use all options. For example, the new organic standards prevent the use of antimicrobials if a farm wants to maintain its organic status. Farmers are careful in their use of these products, most of which require veterinary supervision to be used on farm. Antimicrobials are also expensive and farmers work to minimize their use wherever possible. When their use is called for, they're used in small doses that can be given to individual animals or incorporated directly into the animals' feed or water. A lot of ongoing research is being conducted into alternative treatment options. The use of antimicrobials for growth promotion is controversial at this time with the main concern being the potential for development of antibiotic resistance by certain bacteria as a result of this use. This is why any product for use on farm animals must meet Health Canada's strict standards for human and animal safety. A major component of research studies required to support new animal health products coming to market must address the potential for resistance development. Also, the Public Health Agency of Canada's "Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance" (CIPARS) monitors for resistance on the farm, during processing and at the retail level. Visit www.phac- asp(.gc.ca /cipars -picro /index - eng.php to learn more. Good housing, hygiene, nutrition and vaccines are additional strategies farmers use to maintain and improve herd and flock health. T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G What about antibiotic resistance in people? ESTROGEN EVERYWHERE Many human diseases are increasingly found to be resistant to antibiotics. Some people point the finger at agriculture, but it's important to remember that as individuals, we have a major role to play here as well. We should only take antibiotics for conditions or problems where antibiotics will actually help — and we must be sure to follow instructions on dose and usage very precisely. Farmers apply those some principles to using these products for their livestock. It's a complicated topic and the jury is still out on it. Farmers continue to watch this issue closely. A dress code for the barn? Did you say shower before you go into a barn? Some farmers might ask you to take a shower or wear overalls and plastic boots over your shoes before entering. Other farms don't allow any visitors at all— people or animals. Any guesses why? This is called "biosecurity" and it is one part of an animal health program that helps to keep our herds or flocks healthy. Not allowing visitors into the barn helps to keep germs or sickness out. Farmers can give their livestock medicine when they're sick, but they always prefer prevention over treatment. Why are hormones sometimes used in beef cattle? Hormones occur naturally in animals, plants and people. Some beef cattle farmers will use hormone implants to improve how efficiently an animal converts the food it eats to muscle. Improving "feed efficiency" means fewer resources — less feed and water — are used and less manure is produced. This is good for the environment. However, keep in mind that the level of hormones in beef from cattle given hormonal growth supplements is virtually no different than the level found in beef from cattle not given the supplements. There is more variation in hormone levels of animals of different sexes than between treated and untreated animals. Hormone treatments have been safely used in the Canadian beef industry for more than 30 years. More importantly, farmers and ranchers take their jobs of producing safe food very seriously. They continue to invest in research into this area and keep a close watch on any new studies to be sure they're using the safest options available. Check out www.beefinfo.org /hormones for more info. T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G The level of estrogen in a serving of beef is very low compared to the amount of hormones that we produce naturally in our bodies. A pre- pubescent girl produces 54,000 nanograms (a nanogram = one billionth of a gram) of estrogen daily and a pre - pubescent boy produces 41,600. Adult men and women produce considerably more. • A single oral contraceptive pill contains 20,000- 50,000 nanograms of estrogen. A tablespoon 0 5 ml) of soybean oil contains 28,773 nanograms of estrogen - equivalent activity in the form of "phytoestrogens." • A 250 ml glass of milk naturally contains 36 nanograms of estrogen. By comparison, a 100 gram serving of beef from i cattle not given growth promotants normally contains about 1.5 nanograms of estrogen. Beef from cattle treated with growth promotants contain only about 2.2 nanograms of estrogen. In the U.S., a product called rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin) is approved for use in dairy cows to increase how much milk they produce. It's a hormone which actually occurs naturally in the pituitary glands of all cattle that can be given to cows to boost their milk production. This product is not used in Canada. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE THINGSTHAT CONCERN US Here are six examples of animal and human health issues that we take very seriously. The agri -food industry has invested millions of dollars into research, prevention and emergency preparedness for issues like these — and we continue to do so to ensure we have the healthiest animals and safest food supply possible. 0 HI NI influenza: Why was it called "swine flu "? This virus was originally referred to as "swine flu" because laboratory testing showed that many of its genes were very similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs (swine) in North America. After some study, though, the virus turned out to be quite different, having genes from pig, bird and human flu viruses. In the past, it has been practice to name a virus by associating with a geographic location or an animal species — in this case, pigs. It is not possible to get H1 N1 from eating pork. The virus lives and is entirely contained in the lung of a pig and never goes into the blood or muscle of the animal, so it does not affect the meat. Just like the seasonal flu, the virus can be spread from person to person if someone infected with H1 N1 coughs or sneezes. Avian influenza: Could I catch bird flu from eating eggs or chicken or turkey? No. As always, follow safe food handling practices and cook poultry meats thoroughly. It is worthwhile knowing that there are no known cases anywhere of someone getting bird flu from eating eggs, turkey or chicken. About bird flu: First, the bird flu that grabbed headlines in the past was one specific and especially virulent strain of avian influenza known as H5N1. For this strain to infect a person, he /she would have to be in close contact with a great number of infected birds. In some parts of Asia, where humans first contracted this strain of bird flu, it's common for humans to live in close contact with their chickens. It's also part of the culture to purchase chickens at "live markets." Even under these circumstances, it is extremely rare to contract bird flu. In Canada, during the largest outbreak of a strain of avian influenza (11-170) in 2004, only a few cases of conjunctivitis (pink eye) were found in farm workers who were exposed to live, sick birds. Despite the severity of the illness in domestic birds, the situation did not pose a human health risk. While the risk of a large -scale disease outbreak is very low, it's important that poultry farmers continue to work with public health experts to do everything possible to prevent such an occurrence. That's why Canada's egg industry is a partner in the production of eggs used to create vaccines as part of Canada's preparedness plan. 1 0 T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G E.coli: The good, the bad and the ugly The digestive systems of all animals, including humans, are home to billions of essential bacteria. Escherichia coli (or Ecoh) are one group of naturally- occurring bacteria in our intestine. Most types of E.coli do not cause illness in healthy humans and some actually assist in the production of vitamins. But some, like Ecoli 0157:1-17, can cause severe illness or even death. This strain is found naturally in wildlife, cattle and other farm animals and enters the environment through their manure. A new vaccine — developed and produced here in Canada — is now available that aids in the reduction of the amount of E.coli 0157:1-11 that cattle may shed into the environment. This and other innovations will be important in helping manage food safety hazards. We need to be vigilant against E.coli by ensuring meats are cooked to their proper temperatures and by washing our hands regularly with soap and water after using the washroom or petting animals, and before handling food. Listeria: What do I need to know about Listeria? Listeria is a bacterium found in food and elsewhere in nature. It can cause a rare but serious disease called listeriosis, especially among pregnant women, the elderly or individuals with a weakened immune system. Most people who are exposed to the bacteria will either never get sick or show only mild symptoms — often called food poisoning — but in severe cases, it can lead to death. A tragic outbreak in 2006 made Listeria a household word across Canada. Unlike most bacteria, listeria can survive and sometimes grow on foods being stored in the refrigerator, and more importantly, Listeria- contaminated foods will still look, smell and taste normal. Listeria contamination is not related to how animals are raised and cared for on the farm. Following strict food safety procedures during processing and adhering to proper cooking and handling techniques at home will help prevent listeriosis. Health Canada provides information to consumers to help them have the tools to stay safe. Check out: www.hc- sc.g(.(a /hl- vs /iyh -vsv /food - aliment /listeria - eng.php for more info. Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Can I catch mad cow disease from eating beef? Canada's food safety system protects the safety of Canadian beef and ensures Canadians are not exposed to bovine spongiform encephalopothy (BSE). BSE — more commonly known as mad cow disease — is a rare but fatal disease of the central nervous system of cattle. One of the causes of BSE is believed to have been an increase in the use of meat and bone meal in cattle feed, a practice which was banned in Canada in the late 1990s. There are many strong measures in place to slop the spread of BSE, including a ban on the use of specified risk materials (SRM). SRM are tissues that, in BSE- infected cattle, contain the agent that may transmit BSE. In Canada, SRM are removed from all cattle, which, according to the Canadian government, is the single most important step in protecting human health. SRM must also not be used in animal feeds, pet foods or fertilizers. For more information on BSE, see www.bseinfo.co or www.inspection.gc.ca Foot- and -mouth disease: How contagious is it? Foot - and -mouth disease (FMD) is an extremely serious and highly infectious disease that affects cloven- footed animals like cattle, hogs, sheep, goats and deer. FMD is not a food safety issue, though, as meat and meat products from infected animals will not harm humans and our meat inspection system has rules in place to ensure these do not enter the food chain What's Canada doing to keep us and our food supply safe and healthy? Traceability is an important word in food production. Essentially, it means being able to trace exactly what went into raising an animal or growing a crop all the way through harvest and /or processing and delivery to consumers. Hillside Gardens, in Bradford Ontario, is a farm packing operation that has implemented a traceability program for the carrots and onions they grow, as well as the products they broker, sell and package for other farmers and buyers. Their "gate -to- plate" traceability program earned them a Minister's Award for Agri -Food Excellence in 2009. Using specialized software, they keep track of every input along the way — seed lot- codes, fertilizer and crop protection, whether the product came from their own farm or someone else's, which field it came from, the truck and the driver, and the date it went into storage or into the packing- house. This means they know exactly on which day a specific lot of carrots was packed, what customer it went to and even what size bag was used to pack them. This kind of information is invaluable in case of a food safety problem as it allows for quick tracking and determination of the potential causes. As well, this kind of information helps farmers make good management decisions — they always know the quality and volume of crop they have available to sell. To watch a video of Hillside Gardens, check out www.omofra.gov.on.ca /english/ food /foodsofety/ traceability /industryexamples.hWl MAKING FOOD SAFETY A ROUTINE FARM CHORE Safe food is critical. A food scare — well- founded or not — can be devastating to Canadian consumers and farmers alike. We know how important producing safe, high quality food is. One bad product can ruin an industry, or at least do serious damage. Consumers can switch products, but we cannot switch livelihoods. That's why food and agriculture industry groups, farmers and government have developed practical protocols that help farmers prevent a problem from happening at - or, if it does happen, take control of it so it doesn't leave — the farm. The bonus: most of the protocols also help improve general farm management, which can often boost farmers' bottom lines. On -farm food safety programs help identify critical points where food safety could be at risk, like when a new animal is brought on farm or when fresh produce is packed into bins. These same principles are also applied throughout the food chain, such as at animal feed mills and in food processing... and even at your grocery store! 1 2 T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G For farmers, participating in any one of these programs means keeping records of what is done on the farm and having those records — and their farm operation — verified regularly by an independent auditor against the program standards. It's like having a tutor review your homework assignment and then helping you with corrections so you can increase your understanding and do a better job next time. Visit www.onfarmfoodsofety.ca to learn more. YOU CAN HELP TOO! Everyone can take an active role in preventing disease and help us keep our animals and crops healthy. This means following government rules against bringing agricultural products like plants, soil or meats into Canada from abroad. WHAT ABOUT ORGANIC? ..f I Generally speaking, foods considered by some to be organic are those grown or produced without the use of synthetic Frft`� (or man -made) fertilizers and pesticides, genetically modified organisms, growth hormones or medications. 0 , ,\ H.%LI , y PRIN, r To be labeled and marketed as certified organic, however, %',ala,snHe I, they must be produced by farmers who are certified as organic producers by a recognized certifying body and follow prescribed organic standards. National organic standards governing organic products in Canada came into effect in 2009 — products sold internationally or exported to other Canadian provinces must adhere to this national standard. Organic farmers must renew their certification every year. To learn more visit: www.cog.ca I H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N F, 1 3 N_4 What's the deal with raw milk? Government health and safety standards require all milk to be pasteurized — heating it to a high temperature then cooling it rapidly — in order to destroy any pathogens, like salmonella or E.coli, which might be in the milk that can make people sick. Pasteurization also extends the shelf -life of milk and dairy products, making them safer for people to consume. Pasteurized milk is an excellent source of calcium, protein, riboflavin, vitamins A and D, phosphorous, and a good source of thiamin and B12. Raw milk advocates believe that unpasteurized milk is healthier and more flavourful. However, research has shown that calcium absorption is not changed through pasteurization and that riboflavin, niacin and Vitamin A and D are not affected by the heat treatment. It is illegal to sell or give away raw milk or cream products in Canada, with the exception of certain raw milk cheeses. For more information, check out www.milk.org/ corporate /view.aspx ?content =Faq/ Pasteurization. 1 A� Organic farming isn't easy and has its own unique challenges. Farmers need to have a lot of information, available skilled labour, and time. Yields often tend to be lower or less reliable and the work of organic growing is more labour- intensive than with non - organic techniques. Third - party auditing may also be required. These extra costs may be recovered through premium +' prices on organic products. The organic food movement is supported by farmers and consumers who want to enhance beneficial biological interactions and promote biodiversity — and many "conventional" farmers share these goals too. The difference often simply lies in the approach. Certified organic farms comprise about 1.6 per cent of total farms across Canada today. The total annual retail sales of certified organic products in Canada are more than $1 billion. (Source: hnp: / /www4.ogr.gc.ca /AAFC -AAC/ display- offi(heLdo ?id= 1183148510661 &lang =eng) Are organically produced foods healthier or safer? All food must meet the same inspection and food safety standards. Organics serve a niche market of consumers willing and able to pay more for food. Some farmers are benefiting from this niche by receiving higher prices for their products, although it's important to remember that their cost to grow and produce organic products is also significantly higher. All agricultural food products — meat, eggs, dairy, fruits, vegetables and others — are rich in nutrients and part of Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide, regardless of how they are produced. Learn more about healthy, balanced diets in Canada's Food Guide at www.hc - sc.gc.ca /fn -an/ food - guide - aliment /index - eng.php. What does "natural" mean? All meat is natural in the sense that it comes from animals, so it's up to you to find out what lies behind the definition on a specific product you might like to buy. Keep in mind that according to government definitions, the only meat that can legally be labeled "natural" is meat raised with- out ANY human intervention of any kind. This means only meat from animals raised in the wild (like deer, moose, bear and other wild game) can be referred to as "natural ". As a savvy consumer, you have the option of supporting what approach you choose to raising animals, so be sure to ask lots of questions about the methods used. Again, the beauty of our Canadian food system is the amazing variety of food options we have to choose from. 1 4 T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G Raisin farm Animals ANIMAL CARE; BASIC PRINCIPLES Whether it's helping a cow have a calf on your birthday or checking on your chickens before you open your Christmas presents, caring for animals has been at the core of what farmers do every day for generations. All animals have basic needs, like food and water, health, and quality of life. Livestock depend on us for everything — 24/7— and it's something farmers don't take lightly. We're also consistently striving for continual improvement in farm animal care based on new and proven science. TAKING GOOD CARE OF ANIMALS IS TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS Farmers and ranchers choose to work with animals because they enjoy it. Caring for animals properly is simply a matter of doing the right thing. There are also many solid business arguments for treating animals well. Contented animals are more productive animals and lead to higher quality food products. Research continues into farm animal behaviour and housing and will lead to continuous improvements. ► Did you know... • Mature sheep will drink between four and nine litres of water per day. • An average dairy cow will drink 80 -160 litres of water, and produces about 27 litres of milk per day. • According to a 2009 survey of Canadian attitudes on water, ' we think we use about 66 litres per person per day. But we S actually use an average of 329 litres of water per day — the second highest rate in the world! (Source: www. probeinternational.org /EV[iles/ 2009_ Canadian _Water_Attitudes_Study.pd( T H E D I R T O N 1 F P, R M I N G 1 5 7 A Dr. Tina Widowski, University of Guelph What rules are in place for raising farm animals? Farmers, like any animal owners, must follow laws for humane treatment. In addition to laws, farmers have helped to develop "Recommended Codes of Practice for the (are and Handling of Farm Animals," in co- operation with animal scientists, government and many partners. The Codes spell out what's appropriate in the daily care and handling of livestock and poultry. They outline acceptable standards for: • shelter and housing • feed and water • healthcare • breeding • animal identification • handling and supervision • transportation • sales yard and processing facilities, and • emergency procedures The Codes of Practice are internationally - recognized as models of responsible animal care and will continue to evolve. They are currently being updated to reflect new advances in animal care research. For more on the Codes, see www.livestockwelfare.com. Many of Canada's livestock industries have created, or are creating, their own animal care programs, based on the Codes, to provide reassurance to consumers that animals are being raised with the utmost care and respect. An Owner's Manual for Animals plow ® Dairy Farmers of Canada, in collaboration with many partners, such as the National Farm Animal Care Council, government, and animal welfare researchers, �WOo�oo, updated its (ode of Practice in 2009. The new Dairy Code includes up -to -date DAIRY CATTLE science -based requirements and recommendations for caring for dairy cows and ink calves. Requirements include general items such as feed and water and health `101 care, and more specific items such as pain control. This Dairy (ode of Practice is Ftle rst in Canad a to include requirements along with recommendations based on a complete ific review and is the model that many other livestock and equine groups are now following dating their Codes. See all the (odes of Practice for Farm Animals on www.nfacc.co. 1 6 T H E D I R l O f -1 F A R M I fJ 6 r �i Blueprints for humane handling?� Did you know... there are many people with full -time careers in farm animal care? . ice! Specialists dedicate their lives to improving humane handling for farm animals on the farm, on the truck and all the way through to the food chain. f Did you know... that farm animal veterinarians are extremely specialized? A poultry veterinarian will be an expert in caring for chickens or turkeys — but usually won't be experienced in treating a beef cow or a pig. Dr. Temple Grandin is a world- renowned animal handling specialist who designs livestock facilities and audits to improve farm animal welfare. She has done a significant amount of work in Canada and was named a "Hero" on the 2010 Time Magazine list of the world's 100 most influential people for her work with animals. Her remarkable struggle with autism and unique approach to communicating with animals was the subject of an H80 movie released in 2009 that won five Primetime Emmy awards. Visit www.grandin.com. Across Canada, there are also many who have the same passion for improving farm animal care. Are controls in place to deal with farm animal abuse? Yes, there are controls in place and they work on many fronts. Neglect and abuse of animals of any kind is against the law. Farmers and ranchers, like all animal owners, are responsible for caring for their animals and meeting many regulations including the Criminal Code and provincial animal care legislation. It's important to note that most farmers and ranchers are doing a great job caring for animals. In rare cases, the level of care or management of farm animals isn't what it should be. Farm organizations in a few provinces have recognized this issue, and have developed their own peer services to help improve farm animal care. For example: Alberta Farm Animal Care has a confidential Action Line and Resource Team (ALERT). Anyone can call the ALERT toll free line to report farm animal care concerns. A response team member (former veterinarian) checks the animal in question and provides help and advice to the owner. The ALERT service works closely with the Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), contacting it immediately should the animals be in distress. In Alberta, the Alberta SPCA enforces the Animal Protection Act. If and when there's a problem with farm animal care, Canada's farmers are actively working to be part of the solution. In fact, the first farm animal council — dedicated to responsible farm animal care — was formed by farmers in Ontario over 20 years ago and similar organizations now exist at the national level, as well as in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and several in the United States. T H E D I R 7 0 N F A R M I N G 1 7 Farm Tours See for yourself! Ask questions, talk to real farmers at fall fairs and other events, or visit www.virtualfarmtours.ca to see for yourself what real Canadian farms are like. C t F r A QUICKTOUR OF FARM ANIMAL REAL ESTATE The two most common questions we get asked about farm animal care are about animal housing. Let's take a look at them in more detail. Why are most farm animals raised indoors in Canada? Ask us this question in most parts of Canada in January! Kidding aside, some grazing animals like sheep, horses and beef cattle do live outside with shelter and access to food and water. However, many animals, like pigs and poultry, live in barns in Canada. Why, you ask? Barns are designed to provide livestock with the right environment and protect them from extreme weather and temperatures, diseases like avian influenza and, of course, the age -old problem of predators like wolves and coyotes. Barns keep livestock cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Most have fans to help circulate the air. Another reason for indoor housing is for animal monitoring and care. It's much easier to ensure each animal gets the right food, clean water, and general care in a barn than when they are outside on pasture. And many new barns now have side walls made partially of curtains that can be rolled up when the weather is warmer to let in fresh air and sunlight. Did you know... that some barns have water sprinklers to help keep their animals cool and comfortable in hot weather? MIR 1 8 T H E D I R T O N F A R M I N G Why can't they have more space? The first thing we need to do is separate human needs from animal needs — and remember that it's not about us when it comes to animal housing, but about what animals require. This is tough. As people, it's in our nature to put our values onto other creatures to form opinions. However, every creature has different needs. A bat chooses upside down in a dark cave and a Husky dog might actually prefer to live outdoors in a snowy climate. Each type of farm animal is different too. It's not always a matter of more space, but what's available to them in that space and how they can use it. For example, if you put a group of calves in a very large open barn, research shows they choose to sleep very close to each other and against the walls or gates for a sense of 'protection' and sometimes warmth. The other reality is that it's a farmer's responsibility to care for animals that sometimes don't know what the best choice is. For example, there are many accounts of turkeys drowning in rainstorms because they didn't know enough to go into the barn. As farmers, our priority is to provide the best environment that we can for the animals in our care. It's always a balancing act between animal needs, safe food, environmental and economic realities. We invest in animal welfare research to help us learn what's best. Today's farm practices are definitely a combination of practical experience, common sense and above all else, good science. ► WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD? DON'T GUESS, ASK IT YOURSELF. Understanding animal behaviour and needs is a very complicated science. Unfortunately, animals only talk in the movies, so we have to 'ask the animals' what's best for them through scientific animal welfare research. Just like many complicated topics, almost every housing or management practice we use on our farms has pros and cons. There's a reason the systems we have were developed, but we are always on the lookout for ways to improve. Turkeys and chickens — raised for meat do not live in cages. While they can move freely around the barn, the birds tend to stake out their own territories in small groups, generally a few square metres in size. The vast majority are housed in modern chicken and turkey barns where temperature, humidity, light and ventilation are carefully monitored. Water and pelleted feeds made of grains like wheat, corn and soybeans (sort of like hamster food) are always ilable. No chickens, turkeys or egg - laying hens are ever fed hormones. The barn floor is covered with a soft bedding material of straw or wood shavings. Dr. Harold Gonyou, Prairie Swine Centre ► T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G 1 9 EAT LIKE A BIRD? Laying hens in Canada — the ones who lay the eggs we eat — are Did you know... that an average mostly raised in cages. Modern laying hens are descended from jungle chicken weighing 2.2 kilograms at market weight fowl, which used to live in small groups under tree roots. This means it will have eaten four kilograms of a completely is natural for hens to want to live closely together with other birds, and small, enclosed spaces — reminiscent of those ancient tree roots —make balanced feed during its life? Chickens and turkeys are usually fed "free choice," which them feel safe and protected. Birds can be quite vicious to each other; means they can help themselves to the food or the expression "pecking order" came from the poultry world for a water anytime, buffet style. reason! The strongest birds assert their dominance over the weaker ones and control their access to food and water, but in modern housing systems, all birds in the group get equal access to feed and water and don't have to fight for their chance at the trough. Each cage houses the number of birds that mimics those natural groups and with mesh floors, their wastes fall away, keeping the birds and eggs clean. It's a practical and clean housing system that offers benefits to the birds and farmers, and affordable eggs to consumers. Farm organizations continue to invest money in hen housing research to evaluate what best suits the birds and to continually upgrade hens' accommodation. WHAT ARE "FREE- RANGE" AND "FREE RUN" EGGS? Typically, free range eggs are defined as being from hens raised in large, open henhouses with access to outdoor runs. Free run eggs are from hens raised in an open barn or layer house where they can roam but they can't go outside. Other options included enriched environments where cages are furnished with items like dust baths and perches. Of course it's never simple or perfect. In some parts of Europe, where public pressure for egg production without the use of cages has led to legislation on different kinds of hen housing systems, old problems in the hen house, which the cage system addressed, are starting to reappear: elevated levels of dust and ammonia in the hens' lungs, cannibalism among the birds, feather - picking and predators (including foxes!) in or near the hen house. A recent study by scientists at the University of Manitoba looked at how hens responded to "enriched" cages — ones that allow hens to indulge in behaviours like nesting, roosting and scratching. Researchers found that laying performance, exterior egg quality, condition of the birds' feathers and hen health were virtually identical between regular and enriched cages. (Source: hitp: / /ps.fass.org /cgi /(ontent /abstract /88/4/698) 2 0 T H E D I R T 0 H f , R M I r G Market cattle — are moved to feedlots (a penned yard) from the open range and pastures for the final months before they go to market. During their time at the feedlot, cattle are gradually transitioned from a diet of mainly forages and grasses to a high- energy diet of grains, corn or hay silage or hay. The consistent, high quality feed brings them to market weight faster than on grass alone. Their meat will also have a greater level of marbling, which is what helps give beef its flavour. A popular misconception is that grain finishing is responsible for bacterial contamination of beef. This couldn't be further from the truth — in fact, a recently released study by researchers in the U.S. and China concluded that there was no difference in the level of bacteria found in the meat of grass -fed compared to grain- finished beef animals. (Source: www. IieberionIine. com/ doi /abs/10.1089/fpd.2010.0562). Dairy cattle — live in barns that use one of three systems. The traditional tie -stall barn gives each cow its own stall with bedding and free access to food and water in a manger in front. Cows are milked in their stalls and the milk flows into a pipeline that goes directly into a big milk tank. Another design for dairy cow housing is called free - stall. These barns have large areas where cows move freely and go to a central milking parlour area two or three times a day. A few free stall barns have a robotic milker instead of a parlour, where cows can go to the robot to be milked any time they want to — 24 hours a day! STOP IN FOR A VISIT Bakerview Ecodairy in British Columbia is one of Canada's first demonstration farms, showcasing innovative and sustainable dairy farm practices. The farm offers visitors a first- hand dairy farm experience with a tour that includes an interactive learning centre, theatre, robotic milker and animal exhibit. For a virtual tour: www.ecodairy.ca. WHAT'S A RUMINANT? A ruminant is any hooved animal that digests its food in two steps: first by eating the raw material and regurgitating a semi - digested form known as cud, then eating the cud, a process called ruminating. Ruminants have four compartments in their stomachs and include cows, goats, sheep, llamas, bison, buffalos, elk and deer. You can chew on this answer and then regurgitate it as required! 1 H E D I R 1 0 N F A R M I N G 2 1 V lip COW IGLOOS? Have you ever driven past a farm and noticed calves living in what looks like an igloo? These are called calf hutches and are designed to keep calves healthy and comfortable. Hutches allow calves to be fed individually and reduce contact with other animals and 'bugs' that could be in the barn. Farmers give calves extra milk and /or feed and bedding to keep them warm in cold weather too. CARS OR COWS? Dairy farmers provide almost three times as many jobs on farms (51,500) than there are employees at General Motors of Canada and Chrysler (20,000 combined). In fact, it takes almost 2.1 million Canadians or one out of every eight jobs — farmers, suppliers, processors, transporters, grocers and restaurant workers — to bring food to tables in Canada and around the world! Cow tipping myth — Busted! A researcher at the University of British Columbia concluded it would take five people to push a cow over, and that's if the cow was willing to be tipped. Most cows do not sleep standing up and are startled easily by noise and strangers. Now you know! Teats and tweets �4. Did you know... that some dairy cows are active tweeters? That's right —12 Holstein cows in southern Ontario post their daily activities on Twitter. They're part of a social media project led by the Critical Media Lab at the University of Waterloo that looks at the way humans interact with animals and helps link farmers and technology in the minds of consumers by putting a spotlight on the highly technological nature of farming. The cows live in a robotic milking barn and every time they approach the robot for milking, it reads the cows' electronic identification tag. That tag is connected to a computer that generates tweets for the cows — like 1.2 kg of frothy deliciousness for the humans" or "Tried to get into the pen. No such luck ". Learn more or follow the cows on Twitter: www.teattweet.net. EVER HEARD OF BULLYING? Traditionally, milk -fed veal calves have been raised in stalls to provide them with individual care and allow them to drink their milk without the fear of "bullying" from other calves. However, with today's technology, more veal farmers are raising milk -fed calves in group pens, like the one shown on the next page, where the calves drink from an automated milk dispenser (almost like a giant milkshake machine). This allows calves to drink whenever they want and with less competition 2 2 T 11 F D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G The real deal about veal Veal calves are generally dairy bull calves. They live in one of three housing types: hutches, group pens or individual stalls. Veal housing is well -lit, insulated, and ventilated, protecting them from predators, parasites, and weather. Farmers raise veal calves two ways: by feeding a grain - based or milk -based diet. Milk -fed veal calves are raised on a diet that contains all of the essential nutrients for animal health and are sent to market when they weigh about 450 pounds (178 kg). Grain -fed calves are fed a milk -based diet for the first six to eight weeks, after which they're gradually introduced to a diet of corn and protein. Grain -fed veal calves grow to be about 700 pounds (275 kg). One of the biggest misconceptions about veal is that it is meat that comes from a very young and small calf, but 450 — 700 pounds is not small! To learn more about how veal calves are raised, visit www.ontorioveaI.on.ca /pdfs /1467 %201nformationBrochure.pdf — and to tour two real veal farms virtually, go to www.virtualformtours.ca. Sheep — can be raised indoors and out. Some are kept out on pasture all year, with the help of supplied hay and grain during winter. Some shepherds prefer to keep their flocks in the barn year- round, to keep a close eye on Iambs and keep predators at bay. Most farms use a mix of both systems. Working farm dogs play an important role on many Canadian sheep farms — protecting animals from predators and helping farmers with herding. Goats — goats can be raised for meat or to produce milk. Dairy goats are housed and cared for like dairy cows, indoors for the twice -daily milking routine. Other breeds of goats raised for meat may be out on pasture, but need protection from temperature extremes and predators too. One goat will produce about 2.5 litres of milk per day and it takes 10 goats to produce the some amount of milk as one dairy cow. There are people who have to avoid cows' milk and dairy products in their diets because of allergies or intolerances, so some are turning to goat milk. There are approximately 6,700 goat farms in Canada, of which the largest number is located in Ontario. (Source www.stafcon.gc.ca /pub /23 -502 - x/23 -502- x2001001 - eng.pdf) T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G 2 3 JUST HOW BIG ARE THEY? We get asked a lot of questions like: How big is a horse? How much do veal calves or pigs weigh when they go to market? Here's a chart of an approximate weight of average males (females weigh a bit less). Chickens — 2.2 kg Turkeys —12 kg -14 kg I Emu — 45 to 50 kg ■ Pig —100 kg Sheep — 70.125 kg Veal calf — 320 kg Quarter Horse — 544 kg Elk — 420 to 600 kg Beef cattle — 680 kg African Elephant —7, 425 kg `• Pigs — many live in barns specially designed for pigs, with fans or 'curtain-sided barns' that e heard. Pigs like to keep (lean can open if needed to help control humidity and temperatures. To keep the animals disease -free, �at to cool off. Barns most barns have strict sanitation standards and animal health rules. For example, some farms and require anyone entering the barn to shower first or wear plastic boots provided by the farm. pigs cool in the summer. Sows are female pigs that usually birth 8 -12 piglets in a litter and give birth (farrow) twice a year. Sows are put in special areas called "farrowing pens," just before giving birth and while they nurse their piglets. Some people have criticized farrowing pens (see photo on left) because they restrict the sows' movement. The reason for the pen design is to provide the best environment for both the large sow and the small piglets. The bars on the pen give the sow something to lean against when she lies down, and the piglets have a safe area to stay out of harm's way. The area where the piglets sleep can be kept warm with a heat lamp or heating pad. ` ✓!�tyA ���a .At -`� r., r ,r, , Case study: Is this room a pig sty? How difficult can it be to look after pigs? Movies and storybook images of pigs in the mud make it look pretty simple. In the real world there are rarely easy answers to farm animal care questions. Of course pigs don't talk, they didn't get the memo to be nice to each other and they actually prefer a clean, dry pen over a mud hole. It's all about tradeoffs - with no easy answers or perfect solutions. For example, in pig housing, we often trade off free pen space for individual pens. Why? Sows are omnivores and can be aggressive animals when they compete for food. Many pig farms choose to house sows in individual stalls. Pros: • Pigs can eat and drink individually, with no fighting or stress from competition • Farmers can care for individual animals, monitoring health and feed intake each day Cons: • Sows' movement is restricted. They can only move back and forth and lay down. • Pigs can't socialize with other animals There is a reason why we built barns years ago and continue to modify pens to try and work for the animals and the people who work with those animals. Millions of dollars have been invested in pig housing research around the world. For example, Canada's hog farmers, government and agriculture industry have invested over $850,000 in sow housing research at the Prairie Swine Centre in Saskatchewan in the past 10 years. This investment shows the interest, concern and commitment to finding answers on how to improve how we raise animals. What have we learned with all this research? It's too simplistic to look at just one issue in isolation. There are many factors to be considered including animal health and welfare, ®r' a human health and safety, environmental impacts, food safety and economics. 2 4 T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G LOOKING TO THE PAST Heritage breeds are a growing niche. Some farmers are actively raising and marketing livestock and poultry breeds that were common 50 or 100 years ago, but are no longer used in modern food production. Food products from these animals — like Tamworth and Berkshire pigs — are known for their unique flavours and are prized by chefs and discerning consumers alike. They are mostly sold as specialty products and farmers receive higher prices for them because raising them is a slower, more labour- intensive process than with regular livestock. ANIMAL WELFARE OR ANIMAL RIGHTS? Most people believe in animal welfare principles: humans have a right to use animals, but also have a responsibility to treat them humanely. Farmers and ranchers live by these principles. By contrast, animal rights supporters don't believe humans have a right to use animals — whether it's for food, clothing, entertainment or medical research. It can be confusing for the average person to sort out the many positions and groups involved with animal care or animal use issues. Activists of any kind are not usually interested in finding solutions, but prefer to focus on problems and dramatic examples to generate funds and support. Farmers are not interested in fighting with activists. They're interested in caring for their animals and figuring out how to do a better job of it. They support animal welfare research that generates real information based on sound science, they continue to improve their practices and hope that public education efforts help shine a light on what they really do —and do not do! If you want to know more about how farmers care for farm animals, please just ask them. T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G 2 5 x, NEW CANADIANS = NEW CROPS People of Asian heritage make up more than 60 per cent of all of Canada's immigrants today. Chinese and South Asians (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) are now Canada's two largest ethnic communities and it is predicted that they will number close to four million by 2017. New Canadians are actively looking for produce that they are familiar with from their native countries, so some farmers have begun growing crops that aren't traditional for Canadian markets — crops like bok Choy, nappa (Chinese cabbage), mustard cabbage, water or Chinese spinach and Chinese broccoli. Did you know... that carrots come in many colours? Yes, they're not just orange but also grown in varieties that are purple, yellow and white! Just over half of Canada's vegetable crop is grown for processing — the top five crops are sweet corn, green peas, carrots, beans and tomatoes. Apples, blueberries and grapes make up over 80 per cent of Canada's fruit acreage. (Source: hitp: / /dsp- psd.pwgs(.gc.ca/ collections /collection_2010 /statcon /22 -003 -X/22- 003- x2010001- eng.pdf) Greenhouses bloom year -round More and more of the fresh vegetables and flowers we enjoy in all four seasons are grown in greenhouses. Between 2001 and 2006, greenhouse area in Canada increased by 21 per cent. By 2006, there were approximately 5,600 greenhouse operations in Canada, with more than half located in Ontario. British Columbia and Quebec are ranked second and third. Ontario, with 1,800 acres of greenhouse vegetable production, is the largest greenhouse production sector in all of North America. Vegetable greenhouses grow primarily peppers, cucumbers and tomatoes. The floral sector includes growers of cut flowers, potted plants, bedding plants and /or propagation material. (Source: www4.agr.gc.co /AAF( -AA(/ display- officher.do ?id= 1 20 516 6 02 60 9 3 &long =eng) Water, water everywhere .. Some high -value and sensitive crops — usually fruits and vegetables— require irrigation. Today's irrigation systems come in a variety of forms, and are made to maximize every drop of water. Water availability and quality are an important issue for all of us. Some land used to grow crops is drained using underground file to remove surplus water from fields. This improves crop quality and yield and reduces water runoff and erosion. In some provinces, farmers must apply for a government permit to take water to ensure that they are using water resources properly and in an environmentally responsible way. Fruits, vegetables and other horticultural production is very labour- intensive as many crops must be planted and /or harvested by hand. Some crops also have very specific — and often short — planting or harvesting seasons so sometimes a lot of work has to be done very quickly. The Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) began in 1966 when a group of 264 Jamaican workers arrived in Ontario to harvest apples. Today, the program is available to only five countries, as stipulated in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). They include Mexico, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean Islands. SAWP is not to be confused with other similar temporary foreign worker programs available to Canadian employers. Often misunderstood, this long- standing program has developed many friendships, improved the lives of thousands and serves as a viable source of labour for Canadian horticulture. The SAWP has always remained a Canadians First program. That means that if there is a suitable Canadian for that job, he /she is offered employment. The SAWP also comes with many unique features that set it apart from other temporary foreign worker programs including: • A formal Memorandum of Understanding exists between the Government of Canada and the governments of each of the five individual source countries. • Suitable accommodation, at no cost to the worker, must be provided by farm employers. • Health coverage is available immediately upon arrival. • Canada Pension Plan and some Employment Insurance benefits, like parental leave longer be grown here. (Source: Stevens Associales 2003 - Ouest are available on approval to eligible workers. • Provincial employment standards programs and workers' compensation standards for a Reliable Workforce in the Horticullure Industry). apply, just like for Canadian workers. For more information, visit www.farmsontario.ca. • A formal, four -way employment agreement between the employee, employer, foreign government, and government of Canada is in place. #� • Same provincial minimum hourly wage rate is paid as it is to Canadian workers doing i the same job — and many can earn a much higher rate. In fact, wages they earn ` , ; working on Canadian farms for exceed what they would be able to earn during the same time in their home countries. T H E D I R T 0 N f A R M I N G 2 7 A berry long season! CORN, WHEAT, SOYBEANS, CANOLA AND PULSES Did you know... that you can get fresh strawberries and raspberries outside the traditional picking season? Traditionally, strawberry season has lasted only a few weeks in the spring, usually in June. Berry farms are now growing day - neutral (ever- bearing) strawberries and fall bearing raspberries which means we can now get locally grown fruit from May until about the end of October. Krause Farms of British Columbia, for example, have perfected the art and science of growing these new berries. They plant on raised, plastic covered beds and deliver water and nutrients to the crop through a drip irrigation system. Some farmers are also producing these varieties in greenhouses which can result in harvest in May, a month earlier than the traditional strawberry season. Canada's principal grain and oilseed crops are corn, wheat, soybeans and canola. Corn and wheat are widely grown across the country. Soybeans are found mostly in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba while canola is grown principally in Western Canada. (anola was developed in large part by Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada scientists and is now the oil of choice for millions around the world because of its nutritional attributes? Canolo oil is free of trans fat and has the least saturated fat and the most omega -3 fatty acids (ALA) of all common cooking oils. This year, Canadian farmers will grow 1.5 million acres of specialty canola in Western Canada that will be made into stable, trans fat free oil for McDonald's Restaurants. •� Honey bees play a critical role in the production of fruits, vegetables and other crops — they pollinate blossoms on the plants to turn them into fruits (like apples for example) or vegetables (like pumpkins). In fact, it's estimated that every third bite of food we eat relates back to honeybees and pollination! Canada produces about 75 million pounds of honey every year. The centre of every beehive is the queen bee, surrounded by a cluster of worker bees tending to her every whim. Many queens in Canada come from Hawaii — travelling to their new home at one to two months of age in a little match -box sized cage with five attendant bees to feed her from a little candy plug at the end of the box that provides nutrition while they're in transit. Did you know... that 100 acres of soybeans can produce enough soy beverages for half a million people. Canada is the world's largest exporter of pulses — not the human kind, but beans, peas, chickpeas and lentils. Pulse crops contain nutrients found in both the vegetable and meat food groups, including significant protein, fiber, folate, iron and other minerals. 2 a T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G The doomsday seed bank Norway has built a seed vault deep in its Arctic region to preserve a wide variety of plant seeds. They are duplicate samples, or "spare" copies, of seeds held in gene banks worldwide and are being stored in this safe place in case of large scale regional or global crises that might threaten food production. "'i, THE IRISH POTATO FAMINE: A CAUTIONARY TALE In 1845, a strange disease struck the potatoes growing in the fields of Ireland. Almost half of the crop was destroyed. What later became known as potato blight was caused by a fungus. At that time all farming was "organic," and there was nothing to be done to save the essential food crop. Today, potato blight can be prevented by modern fungicides which greatly decrease the crop's vulnerability to massive losses. This is a clear case where modern agricultural practices increase the reliability and security of our food supply. If oniv farmers could control the weather! Actually, some of them can ... sort of. Damaging weather can mean the difference between a good year and a bad one on the farm, especially for fruit growers. Hail is a big threat, but some farmers believe a hail cannon can keep fruit safe from damage. Here's how it works: A hailstone is made up of a positive and a negative ion, a dust particle and the right atmospheric conditions. The cannon shoots sound waves into the air, which pick up positive ions and break up the hailstones. The cannon can be activated by a pager whenever the threat of hail approaches. Timing is everything — if you wait too long, it's too late to ward off the hail. And while its benefits are great for consumers and farmers, the downside is the noise it creates. When it's working, it sounds every six seconds. T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G 2 9 A HOUSE MADE OF SOY Believe it or not — it's possible to live in a house built from soy. Ok, so it's not a house built from actual soybeans, but many soy -based products were used to construct and decorate a 1200 sq ft house displayed at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair in Toronto in 2009. Everything from paints and varnishes, adhesives, household insulation, kitchen cabinets, carpet backing, bathroom fixtures, sofas, mattresses, bedding, clothing, food, candles, soaps, and cosmetics, featured soy. Soy oil can be used as an environmentally - friendly, sustainable replacement to petroleum oil in many household products. After the show was over, the house became a Habitat for Humanity home. CANADA AT SOCCER'S WORLD CUP No, Canada didn't qualify to send a team to the 2010 World Cup of Soccer in South Africa, but we still played a key role in the tournament. The world's best were playing on fields sown with ryegrass seeds that a Canadian company grew in Manitoba. They developed the special grass blend — 85 per cent perennial ryegrass and 15 per cent Kentucky bluegrass — for the South African stadiums and practice pitches, supplying 165,000 pounds of seed. The World Cup is the largest sporting event in the world, attracting a cumulative global audience of 26 billion people. WHERE'S AGRICULTURE? EVERYWHERE! Most people think of farming for food. But the by- products of food animals are used far and wide. Check out our list of weird stuff from the farm — as you can see, it's in all aspects of our daily lives. Did you know... that of 10,000 items in a typical grocery store, at least 2,500 of them use corn in some form during production or processing? Biodiesel helps fuel the future Biodiesel is a similar clean- burning alternative fuel produced from renewable resources, like animal fats and plant oils. Current biodiesel markets are in mass transit, marine transportation and other sensitive areas such as mines. Animal fat may someday come to your local gas stations. Biodiesel made from animal fat or tallow has a positive energy balance (meaning it contains more energy than it takes to make), emits almost no sulphur, and unlike petroleum, is a renewable fuel. Look to your farmers for this and other innovative, green energy sources in the future. Good ideas have roots Ethanol is a renewable fuel made from plants. Ethanol made an early debut as a renewable fuel back when Henry Ford designed the Model T but gasoline outpaced it because it was easier to use in engines and the supply was cheap and plentiful. Today, ethanol is fast gaining on its old rival, as consumers want cleaner fuels for the environment and human health. Ethanol is being added to gasoline. In Ontario alone, implementing a five per cent blend of ethanol in gas is creating a market for 50 million bushels of corn annually and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of 200,000 cars. Fun fact: Researchers at the University of Manitoba are using used Tim Horton's cups to make biofuel, like ethanol. Perhaps one day soon Tim's can be "fuelling" both people and cars! Ford and the magic bean Even before biodiesel, soybeans had an important role in the automotive industry. In 1935, Henry Ford used 75,000 acres of soybeans in manufacturing and as a binder in his foundries. From this evolved the notion of using the protein from soybeans as a basis for one of the new miracle plastics just being developed. Protein from soybean meal plus phenol and formaldehyde produced a plastic compound that found its way into gear shifts, knobs, horn buttons, electrical switch assemblies and distributor cases for the Ford cars in the late 1930s. Today, 21st century car makers are again turning to plants like corn, switchgrass and soybeans for making car parts. They're cheaper and often stronger than plastics made from petroleum - and more environmentally friendly to boot! Foam made from soybeans can be found in the seats of nine different Ford vehicles and the Ford Flex uses plastic trays made from switchgrass. Environmentally - friendly engine oils and lubricants are now being made — and used by a growing number of Canadian municipalities and businesses — out of soybean and canola oils. ..- _ _. __- .1 � farmers: Tkc Active: ft' riviron rric,& nta I jsts WAS FARMING ONCE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY? A common misconception is that early agriculture functioned in harmony with nature, and that environmental degradation is a phenomenon of "modern" farming. Historical records reveal a different story. For example, the farming systems adopted by settlers prior to 1850 was wheat monoculture coupled with biennial summer fallow— meaning the production of one crop every second year, with the soil being intensively cultivated but not cropped during alternate years. This system was wasteful of land and ruined soil health and organic matter levels. Many of the early methods of crop protection involved either excessive tillage or inorganic chemicals, such as sulphur, mercury, and arsenic compounds. Many of these older chemicals are no longer used because of their toxicity or inability to be broken down in the environment. Between the 1960s and 1980s, monoculture corn was common, leading to pest problems and soil degradation in many areas. Today, we're learning from our past shortcomings. Crop rotation is the norm, we're much better at looking after our soil's health and crop protection products are safer and highly regulated. As farmers with families whose livelihood and way of life are very close to the land, we understand more than most the importance of healthy soil, water and air. We live on our farms with our families and depend on the environment to create a healthy place to live, as well as the right conditions to M grow crops and raise livestock. 1ENTAL FARM PLAN Q Ontario Through farm groups, we invest in environmental research and help develop programs to disseminate the RUILY A WORLD LEADER IN ON FARM latest findings to our members. In fact, Canada is a (ARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT world leader in on -form environmental programs. ANIMAL AGRICULTURE AND OUR ENVIRONMENT Is it wasteful to use grain to feed animals? The notion that farm animals in Canada use food needed by people in developing countries is simply false. Livestock don't compete with people for food grains. For example, currently only about 10 per cent of corn grown ends up in consumer foods. In countries without excess grain supplies, animal feed tends to consist mostly of grasses and forages or other suitable feeds. Farm animals generally receive feed corn or barley, while humans eat mainly wheat and rice. Animals can consume grass, pest or weather - damaged grains, crop residues like corn stalks, leaves and straw, and by- products from food processing such as unusable grains (or parts of grains) left over from the production of things like breakfast cereal. And of course, Mother Nature can be tough, so even some grains intended for humans are sometimes damaged by insects or weather and can only be eaten by animals. Canada typically produces approximately 50 million tons of grain (wheat, barley, corn, oats, rye) annually, and exports about half of it. High - quality grains used in pasta, bread and other baked goods are not used in livestock feed or in ethanol production. (Source: www.greenfuels.org/uploods /documents /ethanol %20fod% 20sheet %20- %20website.pdf) Hunger today is generally the result of political, economic, and distribution problems, not the lack of productive capacity. Globally, more food per person is available than ever before. 3 2 T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G Sand — what you'd find on the beach Silt — what you'd find beside a river Clay — what you'd find at the bottom of a valley Loam — the perfect mixture of sand, silt and clay — ideal for growing crops! The colour of soil tells us a lot about it, like where it comes from, how old it is and what's in it. Did you know ... animal feed manufacturing plays a key role in recycling? For example, the ethanol industry uses corn as its main ingredient. During the ethanol production process, starch is removed from corn, leaving behind a left over product called dried distillers' grain that has increased concentrations of other nutrients, such as fiber, protein, fat and minerals. It has been found to be an excellent feed ingredient, and feed manufacturers are now using it in pig and cattle diets. Many soybeans are grown primarily for their oils — but once the beans are crushed, the empty shells left behind (an excellent source of protein) are ground into soybean meal and fed to livestock. Does manure contaminate water? If manure isn't managed properly, it could contaminate water, but farmers are tackling the topic head -on. Nutrient management planning —which covers manure, commercial fertilizers, and all other nutrient sources for farm land —is a means of maximizing the benefits of nutrients while ensuring environmental protection. Here's how we're doing it: • Soil and manure testing — by knowing exactly what nutrients we already have and what's needed and when, we apply only what the soil or specific crop can absorb and use. • Calibrating (or adjusting) manure and fertilizer spreaders — so that we know exactly how much we're applying and that we're applying it correctly. • Managing stored manure — ensuring we have the best system(s) for storing and handling manure on our farms. • Locating new farm facilities — so that they are sufficiently for from natural resources and neighbours (determined by number and type of livestock and other factors). • Contingency planning — so that we're ready to respond swiftly and effectively in case of emergency. I R T 0 N F A R M I N G 3 3 V r Good For Water, Good for Wildlife, Good for Society An obvious way of keeping manure out of water is restricting livestock access to waterways. In P.E.I., this is the law. To protect stream banks and water quality, farmers' groups actively promote the creation and maintenance of "buffer" zones around water bodies on private property. What's a buffer zone? A buffer zone is an undeveloped grassy area directly adjacent to a body of water like a stream. These buffers (aka "riparian" areas) have a multitude of benefits: • reduced soil erosion from livestock hooves • cooler water temperatures (afforded by increased shade) that attract desirable fish species • increased biodiversity through rich and varied streamside habitats • and much more! Cattle, sheep and goat producers are also rotating grazing areas and providing alternative water sources, such as using solar powered pumps to provide water for livestock away from a stream. Farmers are stewards of the land who know the value of protecting soil and water quality. And they continue to invest time and money to do so. So what about the smell? There's nothing like the smell of manure to come between farmers and our non - farming neighbours. It's a fact of life in farming - one that's not going to go away altogether anytime soon. Odour can waft out of barns and storages, but is most pungent a few times a year when manure is being spread on fields as a natural fertilizer. We've already learned a lot about odour - reduction through research and innovation, but one of the best tools is called common courtesy. Many farmers let their neighbours know in advance of manure spreading to ensure we're not going to affect their plans. In return, we ask that they understand a bit about our farm and appreciate that some level of odour is inevitable. ��w7P�t A recent study by researchers at Stanford University shows that advances in high tech farming over the last several decades have slowed the pace of global warming by preventing the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Being able to produce more food on our existing land means we're not converting forests and other land into cropping - a process that typically involves the destruction of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Without our technological advances, experts It's not earth- shattering! estimate we would need several billion additional acres of cropland, something Planet Earth just doesn't have. According to a leading researcher into farming and greenhouse gas emissions at University of California — Davis, consuming less meat and dairy is not the way to halt climate change. Real change stems from using fewer non - renewable resources, like oil and coal, for electricity, heating and vehicle fuels. And farmers are leading the way in developing our new global "green economy "! On the frontline of weather conditions, farmers are the first to experience and adapt to changing conditions. Persistent dry conditions in the Prairies, for example, have inspired significant shifts in preferred tillage methods. Tillage is an age -old practice and refers to plowing or working up the soil, something that's done mostly to control weeds. Many farmers in Canada have adopted "conservation tillage" or "no- till" practices. This means crops are grown with minimal or no cultivation of the soil. Any plant materials remaining from the previous year's crop, like corn stubble, is left on the soil, building up its organic matter. In addition, populations of beneficial insects are maintained, soil and nutrients are less likely to be lost from the field and less time, labour and fuel are spent preparing the field for planting, thus reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1991 and 2001, use of these environmental practices jumped from 27 per cent to 63 per cent. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions generated by these practices is equal to taking 125,000 cars off the road! Grains, grass and cattle Many people naturally assume that beef cattle raised on grass will have less impact on the environment than feedlot cattle that are transitioned to a grain -based diet after eating grasses for the majority of their lives. But a new study by researchers in Australia actually found the opposite: grass -fed cattle produce more greenhouse gases per pound than beef from feedlot - finished animals. Scientists from the University of New South Wales Water Research Centre say this is because cattle can more easily digest a grain - based diet, which means they produce less methane — about 38 per cent less in this particular study. As well, feedlot animals gain weight faster and are sent to market sooner, which means they're emitting less gas overall. (Source: www.news.discovery.com /earth /grass- fed - beef- grain.html) , ,,gy�pp 1. E +j� D 1 'eel N Did you know... one acre of corn removes about eight tons of carbon dioxide from the air in a growing season? (Source: United States Department of Agriculture). s WILDLIFE HABITAT — NOT )UST IN PARKS More than 30 per cent of Canada's 68 million hectares classified as agricultural land isn't suitable for planting crops (i.e. too rocky, hilly, wet or dry). Often these areas are put to use as posture for grazing livestock but many do double -duty as excellent wildlife habitat. Many farmers choose practices such as native grass seeding, rotational grazing, and buffer zones around water bodies that sustain wildlife populations and promote biodiversity. Did you know... that greenhouse gas is not actually gas coming from a greenhouse? It's a series of gases like methane and carbon dioxide, which act as a shield that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere — much like the way a greenhouse retains heat. This is thought to contribute to global warming. PROTECTING OUR Food and light from our -, BIODIVERSITY i garbage' Canadian beef farmers own and manage In British Columbia, a greenhouse is using about 30 per ... Vancouver's garbage to grow vegetables and agricultural • as pasture. generate enough electricity to light 6,700 homes. Overgrazing - erosion and ' At the some time, it is reducing carbon dioxide decrease in the amount of native plant emissions by 40,000 tons per year. Methane gas • beef ' ' made from the landfill is piped over to the greenhouse biodiversity and habitat conservation where it is used to generate electricity and heat. major priority. TL, I...,.• :..... A • ...... + l l PESTICIDE USE CAN HELP PROTECT WILDLIFE •• True. Sounds crazy? Think again. The biggest threat to wildlife is loss of habitat. Pesticides help farmers produce more food without increasing the area of y0 cultivated land. The products are precise, safe, and stringently controlled. Scientific surveys show that pesticide residues in foods are 100 to 1,000 times ilower in Canada than levels considered safe by the World Health Organization �-- (www.pestfa(ts.org). CANADIAN CAUL ENIM 5 ASSOCIATI111: Every year, the Canadian Cnitlemen's Association PLASTIC GETS A NUDGE GOODBYE • • • • presents The Environmental Stewardship Award Animal and plant-based products, unlike many MONOCULTURE (TESA) to a beef former who has gone above and biodegrade " " ' of life. Farmers grow a Adding beyond standard industry conservation practices. can speed up the break-down ��� byproducts process. the some crop on the some field year aftei The 2009 winner was the Madley family's year. o p rotation Canyon Ranch in British Columbia, a fifth tions from building up, and is great for soi' generation family ranch. Extensive fencing health. On Prince Edward Island, it is now maintains and protects riparian areas. Installation mandatory to have a three-year crop rotat of water troughs and fencing on a nearby creek on all forms. The common rotation „ potat protects breeding habitats for curlew and other grains (like wheat or barley) and forages. upland bird species. Cattle holding pens are set back from the creek to establish a buffer zone that protects it from nutrient and bacterial runoff and groundwater springs and the creek's side channels were fenced to protect habitat for salmon fingerlings. 3 6 1 1 1 ) 1 R T 0 N F A R M I N G ��pxMFr "T FARMING THE WIND Wind energy developments, usually referred to as wind farms, while common in Europe for decades are now growing rapidly in Canada. In fact, 2009 marked the first year that wind developments were operating in every province and wind - generated electricity is already powering almost one million homes and businesses across the country with clean energy. Despite this growth, the large modern wind turbine is still relatively new to Canadians and most have never seen or experienced a wind farm. People have little understanding of what a wind farm sounds like, how it works or how it is connected to the electricity grid. This has raised some concerns about noise, vibrations and impact on wildlife that groups like the Canadian Wind Energy Association are working to alleviate. For example, the wind industry is committed to keeping the impacts of the tall turbines on birds and wildlife to a minimum. So they're continually conducting studies and research to be sure they're choosing locations for their wind farms that have the least amount of impact on birds' thick wine • One third of all wind farms in Canada are in Ontario. • A modern wind turbine is 80 metres high. • Close to two per cent of Canada's electricity is now produced by wind. • Canada is aiming for 20 per cent of its electricity produced by wind by the year 2025 — which means 52,000 full time jobs mostly in rural areas! • In general, the entire wind farm (including tower, substation and access roads) use only about five per cent of their allotted land. • 86 per cent of Ontarions would like to see their municipal government encourage and facilitate wind energy development. For more information on wind energy, visit www.canwea.co. I II E D I R T O N F A R M I N G 3 7 HARVESTING THE SUN We're all becoming more energy conscious and looking for ways to lower our costs and reduce our environmental footprint. Farmers are turning to the sun and the wind as sources of energy, installing solar panels and wind turbines on their farms. Some use the electricity in their homes and farm buildings; others sell the electricity they generate into the grid to power homes, offices and factories in Canada's cities. In Ontario, solar panels have been installed on five barn roofs at the second largest cattle operation in the province. The 675 kilowatt system will produce enough energy to power 67 average Canadian homes or to light more than 45,000 average -sized compact fluorescent light bulbs. r� WHAT IS BIOTECHNOLOGY? Biotechnology involves bringing desirable traits from organisms and biological substances to another. Bread, beer and wine, which are produced with the help of yeast, are early versions of this science. More recently vaccines, antibiotics, and other medicines have been produced using biological agents. When biotechnology is applied to food, the goal is to influence biological processes in ways that increase the supply, consistency, durability and quality of the plant and animal products we use. The RoIc o Science in Producing our Food A BRAVE NEW WORLD - OR A BETTER ONE? Most of the spectacular gains in agricultural productivity in the past century had their origins in a laboratory. Plant and animal genetics, soil management, pest and disease management strategies, feeds and animal housing, even weather forecasting —every aspect of farming has benefited. Society has been the winner too, as more nutritious, more abundant, more reliable and less expensive food is produced using less farmland. Many of these technologies, such as commercial fertilizers, are reaching their limits. More and different advances will be needed to keep moving forward. For some people, scientific progress is a mixed blessing. Words like biotechnology and genetic engineering can strike fear. Let's take a closer look. Plant biotechnology will mean that crops will be grown for their value as "functional" foods or neutraceuticals— appearing in vaccines and nutritional compounds to prevent or treat disease. Croplands could be the new pharmacies. For consumers, benefits like "herbicide resistance" may be hard to appreciate, but upping the wellness quotient is another matter. Here's a sampling of possibilities: • Tomatoes that contain more lycopene, an antioxidant that reduces the risk of prostate cancer • Nuts without sometimes deadly (to some) allergenic proteins • Tobacco plants (yes!) to produce therapies to fight Crohn's disease • Crops that grow in saline soils or that grow better in drought conditions — think cold - tolerant grape stock to extend the range of grape - growing areas. The man who saved a billion lives After World War II, failing harvests, famine and extreme poverty were haunting the Indian sub - continent — countries we know today as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and others — as well as other parts of the world. Dr. Norman Borlaug grew up on a farm in Iowa never knowing hunger. In 1933, he took a trip to Minneapolis and witnessed riots over food and milk. He realized that peace within a human population could not occur until the population was no longer hungry. He became a visionary plant breeder, developing new wheat varieties that were rust - resistant, strong and high yielding and that could be adapted to the local environment. Together with the introduction of new fertilizer and irrigation techniques, Borlaug helped increase crop yields in Pakistan and India fourfold and helped those countries be able to grow enough food to feed their populations in an amazingly short time. This earned him the title of Father of the Green Revolution. His work was adapted for other crops, such as rice, and eventually went around the world, saving an estimated one billion lives. He founded the World Food �"` Prize and received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his work in India and Pakistan. (Source: vmw.worldfoodprize.org/ index .cfm ?nodelD= 25305&audien(elD =1 #green) T H E D I R T 0 N F A R M I N G 3 9 [?now �� ap i�` tM!i� Yrydl� f It .., .— .,..,, ..,,„,r cur rruu rcau uttu vvutut 1u Uut ununu15 uy none ona used horses to plow our fields. Our crops were planted with a hope and a prayer on the weather and the seed quality, with best guesstimates from the neighbours on how much fertilizer or manure we needed to apply. Fast - forward to today. New technology continues to accelerate change from farm to field to table. We are going further and faster than most ever thought possible. We can use global positioning systems (GPS) to beam precise information on the state of our land in each one of our fields. This level of detail helps us to apply fertilizers and other inputs only if needed, and only where they're needed —good for the environment, and good for the bottom line. From outer space to our fields, the farm office and ultimately all of our dinner tables— what's next? Some of the most important things haven't changed a bit. The ultimate success of Canadian agriculture rests on the commitment of farm families to their land, to their animals, and to this special way of life. And don't forget, Mother Nature is still a tough boss. Ultimately we all want the some thing: a food supply that is reliable, affordable, safe, nutritious and responsibly produced. We live in a country that is blessed with more food choices than most. It's a matter of choice — choice by you as a consumer in what you want to buy, and for the individual farmer as to what to grow and how. Thank you from all of us for buying products from Canadian farmers. We realize this support is a two -way street. As farmers, we feed people who live in cities but we, in turn, also need the support of those cities to survive. By buying local, you invest in us. We, in turn, invest in improving our environment, raising standards for animal care and providing safe, high quality food. Inside and outside cover photo credits: the British Columbia Farm Animal Care Council, Jamie Reaume of the Holland Marsh Growers' Association, the Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan, Carla Buchanan, Carmel Vivier, Kelly Daynord, Mark Bailey, Egg Farmers of Canada, Grain Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Form Animal Council, Terry Scott White Photography and Jeanne Whitehead. 44e6 wel �n� 54_ze,�� Original Text 2006 by: Alison Lane 2010 Version by: Lilian Schaer, Agri -Food Project Services Ltd Design by: Lynn Chudleigh Editor: Kelly Daynard, Ontario Farm Animal Council Published by: The Ontario Farm Animal Council (OFAC), 2010. www.farmissues.com www.ofac.org ALBERTA FARM International � R�FfCentre Information cck omm� Marketing• �.=c7 e�A..sa..o ' •' n• -• o�A,siaraz www.afac.ab.ca www.asaim.org www.beefinfo.org www.cahi- icsa.ca Chicken rwnws C a I'1 W e a offal Dairy Farmers Les Producteurs laitiers NcuLaRPrORB B of Canada du Canada paubt du VW www.canwea.ca www.chicken.ca www.dairyfarmers.ca Cl lfcr Farm Credit Canada FARMS Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services www.eggs.co www.fcc - fac.ca www.farmsontario.co • W TURKEYFARMERS OF CANADA hm F<eJin& Sutcew www.gfo.ca www.ofvga.org www.turkeyformersofcanoda.ca www.wfs.ca 1 ..uAr' ' I_ ) / AGRIBs I 04� FACC � .'� / � CFA FICA F.,o,.�s "" Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan Inc. ��soaAZSO2 www.bcfacc.ca www.cfa- fca.co www.facs.sk.ca www.oaba.on.ca AGCare — www.agcore.org Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario www.christianfarmers.org Grey County Cattlemen's Association Grey Federation of Agriculture Huron Federation of Agriculture — www.hcfa.on.co Kent Federation of Agriculture — www.ofa.on.ca /kent New Life Mills — www.newlifemills.com Ontario Broiler Chicken Hatching Egg Producers Association Ontario Potato Board — www.ontariopotatoes.ca Ontario Processing Vegetable Growers — www.opvg.org Ontario Veal Association — www.ontarioveal.on.ca Simcoe Federation of Agriculture York Federation of Agriculture General support also appreciated from: Ontario Bean Producers, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Town of Blue Mountain and the Federations of Agriculture of Algoma, Prince Edward, Perth, Hastings, Lennox and Addington, Bruce, Blue Mountain, Peel, Glengarry, Leeds, Oxford, and Niagara South. ONTARIO FARM ANIMAL COUNCII. Permission to reproduce this document is given provided credit is made to the "Ontario Farm Animal Council ". Sources, where not cited, are available upon request. 't ONTARIO FARM ANIMAL COUNCIL www.ofac.org • www.farmissues.com l.Y..F . The Ontario Farm Animal Council is the voice for animal agriculture, representing over 40,000 livestock and poultry farmers, associations and businesses on issues in animal agriculture such as animal care, food safety, biotechnology and the environment. ■ S 4r The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation was founded in 2002 as a governing body dedicated to the enhancement and preservation of the Moraine as a healthy and vibrant ecosystem. Comprised of an independent board of directors, the Foundation has diligently distributed in excess w of $14 million in grants to 177 projects since 2002. Working closely with Moraine partners, 'o the ORMF leveraged an additional $35.8 million in funding for land securement; stewardship; s education and public understanding; Oak Ridges Moraine Trail; and research projects. WWW,ORM F,COM STEWARDSHIP The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF) developed a Stewardship Strategy in 2005 to ensure that Foundation funds focused where maximum environmental protection and preservation could be achieved. To date over 1,000 acres of conservation lands have been enhanced through stewardship projects such as tree planting, wetland creation and restoration, habitat management, prairie restoration and livestock diversion. Close to 16 km of stream -bank restoration has also been completed. Through projects like the Caring for the Moraine more than 85,000 Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) landowners received stewardship advice from ORMF partners. ORMF STEWARDSHIP GRANTS: ■ Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto - Stewardship Strategy $10,000 Preston Lake Shoreline Restoration $5,800 Chadwick Restoration Project $2,000 Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan $30,000 Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan Implementation $125,010 Oak Ridges Corridor Park Management Plan Implementation #2 $91,230 ■ Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto /Seneca College - Eaton Hall Wetland and Forest Enhancement $72,465 ■ Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority - Ganaraska Forest Tallgrass Prairie Maintenance $2,500 Ganaraska Plains Initiative $21,000 ■ Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - Reforestation Project $7,500 ORM Research Officer $40,000 Tapping Into Nature -Oak Ridges Moraine Displays $8,997 ■ Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority - Reforestation Project $6,000 Reforestation Project $2,000 Reforestation Project $2,287 ■ Credit Valley Conservation - Reforestation Project $570 Wetland Naturalization $7,155 Reforestation in Wetland Complex $792 Kilmangh Swamp Restoration $1,587 ■ Wetland Habitat Fund - Cold Creek Headwaters Woodland/Wetland Planting $4,000 Orono Creek Riparian and Upland Habitat Restoration $2,000 Red Cloud Cemetery Prairie Restoration and Management Project $2,000 ■ Nature Conservancy of Canada - Rice Lake Plains Initiative $333,290 Rice Lake Plains,Joint Initiative #2 $332902 Caring for the Moraine in the Rice Lake Plains $60,270 ■ York Environmental Stewardship - Rouge Watershed Wetland Creation and Re- naturalization $19,000 ■ Kawartha Region Conservation Authority - East Cross Forest Restoration $19,000 ■ Willow Beach Field Naturalists - ORM Restoration Strategy $12,000 ■ Ducks Unlimited - Wetland Conservation and Enhancement Program $184,400 ■ Citizens Environment Watch - ORM Community-led Monitoring Program $402,000 Strengthening the Oak Ridges Moraine Network: Bringing Together Monitoring and Stewardship $92,428 ■ Oak Ridges Moraine Landowner Contact Program - Funds Distributed to it Conservation Groups for Implementation $200,959 ■ Stewardship Projects in the Conservation Priority Areas of the ORM (Caring for the Moraine Year 1) - Funds Distributed to 15 Conservation Groups for Stewardship Work $474,750 ■ Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority/Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association /Conservation Ontario - ORM Environmental Enhancement Program for Farmers on the Moraine $450,314 ■ Trees Ontario Foundation - ORM Tree Seed and Seedling Management $137,400 ■ Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters - Community Stream Steward Program $159,877 ORM Restoration Database $25,000 Stewardship Rangers $30,000 Community Stream Steward Program #2 $66,414 ■ Caring for the Moraine Year 2 - Funding Distributed to 14 Conservation Groups for Stewardship Work $574,252 Year 3 - Funding Distributed to 14 Conservation Groups for Stewardship Work $802,866 Year 4 - Funding Distributed to 17 Conservation Groups for Stewardship Work $726,632 Year 5 - Funding Distributed Through Small Grants Program $30,000 ■ Evergreen - Phyllis Rawlinson Park: Greening a Growing Community $24,683 ■ Lower Trent Conservation Authority - Caring for the Moraine in the Rice Lake Plains $80,413 LAND SECUREMENT The ORMF helped its partners to obtain land according to its Land Securement Strategy (2003). Lands secured included those that contain significant natural and hydrological features and values, lands within natural core and linkage areas, lands that serve important ecological functions and lands identified in the Oak Ridges Trail Strategy. Securement was undertaken in the form of fee simple purchase, donations or easements. To date more than 5,582 acres of conservation lands have been protected through acquisition, donation and conservation easements. ORMF LAND SECUREMENT GRANTS: ■ Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto - Acquisition of 160 acres $215,000 Acquisition of 30 acres $87,375 Acquisition of 232 acres $270,000 Acquisition of 25 acres $247,000 Acquisition of 5 acres $33,167 Acquisition of 92 acres $322,500 Acquisition of 50.45 acres $895,000 Acquisition of 82.71 acres $82,667 ■ Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - Acquisition of 325 acres $219,834 Acquisition of 216 acres $225,000 Acquisition of 135 acres $140,000 Acquisition of 300 acres $275,000 Acquisition of 630 acres $575,000 Acquisition of 120 acres $40,000 Acquisition of 124 acres $35,000 ■ Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust - Easement Acquisitions 2003 $14,160 Easement Acquisitions 2004 $24,421 Secure Conservation Land and the Oak Ridges Trail $219,943 Acquisition of 25.55 acres $6,833 Acquisition of 49.8 acres $5,248 Donation of Conservation Easement $6,833 RESEARCH ■ Nature Conservancy of Canada - Acquisition of 50 acres $220,000 Acquisition of 96 acres $87,000 Acquisition of 388 acres $156,000 Acquisition of 100 acres $11,000 Acquisition of 226 acres $59,310 Acquisition of 71 acres $230,400 ■ Regional Municipality of York - Acquisition of 60 acres $108,000 Acquisition of 71 acres $80,000 ■ Lower Trent Region Conservation Authority - Acquisition of 107 acres $41,000 ■ Kawartha Heritage Conservancy - Building Securement Capacity on the Eastern Oak Ridges Moraine $92,000 ■ Kawartha Region Conservation Authority - East Cross Forest Land Acquisition and Protection $235,200 Acquisition of 29.5 acres $16,151 Acquisition of 599 acres $427,500 ■ Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority - Acquisition of 115 acres $8,075 Acquisition of 100 acres $23,736 ■ Northumberland Land Trust - Acquisition of 52.85 acres $26,110 The ORMF has supported selected research efforts conducted by universities, colleges, and non - government organizations in order fill knowledge gaps on the Moraine. ORMF RESEARCH GRANTS: ■ Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto - Permeable Pavement/Bioretention Swale Demonstration $25,000 ■ University of Waterloo - Investigation of ORM as a Biosphere Reserve $45,000 ORM as a Biosphere Reserve $66,180 ■ Ecojustice Canada - Understanding the Cumulative Impact of Water Takings on the ORM $50,000 ■ Watershed Science Centre /Trent University - Impacts of Roads and Trails on Forest Bird Communities $24,250 Impacts of Roads and Trails on Forest Bird Communities #2 $32,035 ■ Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto - Evaluating the Natural Function of Headwater Streams $118,750 % OF GRANTS ALLOCATED TO PROGRAM AREAS 7% -P n., . - Research ■ - Oak Ridges Moraine Trail - Education -- and Public Understanding ■ - Land Securement ■'' - Stewardship % OF GRANTS ALLOCATED PER MUNICIPALITY fta to FUNDING ORMF funds have leveraged $35.8 million dollars including: ■ $10 million from the private sector ■ $20 million from the public sector ■ $5.8 million from in -kind contributions As a result, over $49.8 million in new conservation and protection projects have been undertaken on the Oak Ridges Moraine. r . - Peel Region ■ - Northumberland County - York Region - Durham Region ■ - ORM Wide OAK RIDGES MORAINE TRAIL One of the Moraine's greatest assets is a publicly accessible trail system that traverses its entire length. The trail makes the unique features and beauty of the Moraine accessible to anyone who wishes to experience it firsthand. The Oak Ridges Trail Association has been in place since 1992 as a volunteer organization dedicated to securing a trail across the Moraine. The Foundation has supported the work of the Association and has developed an Oak Ridges Moraine Trail Strategy in order to direct and coordinate the efforts of the various stakeholders and funding partners. ORMF OAK RIDGES MORAINE TRAIL GRANTS ■ Oak Ridges Trail Association - Oak Ridges Trail Strategy $43,000 Organizational Support $18,600 Implementation of Trail Plan Recommendations $36,000 ORM Trail Improvements and Raising Public Awareness $123,000 ORM Trail Improvements and Raising Public Awareness #2 $302,000 Organizational Support $67,500 Organizational Support $80,000 Strategic Legacy Building Collaboration $56,025 2009 Selected Strategic Activities $39,500 ■ Township of Uxbridge - Uxbridge Trail Securement $25,201 ■ Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust - Securement of the Oak Ridges Trail $99,769 ■ Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation - Securement of the Oak Ridges Trail $75,000 ■ Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto - Uxbridge Trail Linkage $20,150 EDUCATION & PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING One of the primary objectives of the ORMF is to share information and research gathered from across the Moraine with schools and the general public. The Foundation has developed and implemented programs and projects to help meet this objective. More than 5,700 school children have learned about the importance of water and wildlife protection on the Moraine through in- class education presentations supported by Foundation funds. 1000's more have been educated through a variety of Moraine programs. ORMF EDUCATION AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING GRANTS ■ Centre for Land and Water Stewardship - ORM Stewardship Handbook $27,333 Pond Management Handbook $5,000 ■ Nature Conservancy of Canada - Rice Lake Plains Initiative - Communications $58,850 ■ Otonabee Region Conservation Foundation - Oak Ridges Moraine Education Program $5,000 ■ Rouge Valley Foundation - Community Resource Centre Projects $6,000 ■ Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Educational Materials - Program #1 $100,000 Program #2 $220,000 Program #3 $25,000 Program #4 $15,500 ■ Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority - Oak Ridges Moraine Information Centre $500,000 ■ Town of Richmond Hill - Oak Ridges Moraine Eco -Centre $86,486 ■ Ontario Streams - Newberry Park: Wetland Restoration and Education Facility $40,000 ■ Green Communities Canada - Well Aware in the Oak Ridges Moraine $171,665 ■ Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto - Homeowners Information Toolkit $18,350 Support for Three Children's Water Festivals $30,000 Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation - Outreach and Education In -Class Programming $107,915 Training Partner Volunteers for In -Class Presentations $31,100 2015 Plan Review Preparedness $100,000 Measuring Success on the Oak Ridges Moraine Presented by: Kim Gavine, Executive Director Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation • Stopped funding in 2009 • Considered closure /overwhelming response from stakeholders /still a role to play! • Key focus — ORM co- ordination — Legacy projects i.e. trail kiosks — Preparation for 2015 ORMCP Review —Seek re- investment from the Provincial and Federal Governments • Health of ORM in a Watershed Context • Health of ORM in a Landscape and Municipal Context (Ecological Baseline) • Improvements to the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail • Compliance Monitoring- Assessing Policy and Regulatory Agency Compliance to the ORMCP • Assessment of Stakeholder Awareness, Support and Concerns • Progress in Land Securement • Progress in Land Stewardship • Progress in Education and Research • ORMCP is a good plan but changes needed at 2015 — Harmonization of provincial policies and plans — Longterm governance — Effective monitoring — Aggregate extraction — Hardship on local municipalities and local economies — Transition policies — Simplification of small -scale development — Boundary adjustments — Administration and relationship of the permit to take water — Expansion of urban development into countryside area designations *Over 80% felt that the ORMF has provided positive contributions *Weaknesses — promotion of successes and achievements, partnerships with development, aggregate industry *Funding Priorities —land securement (43%), public education (36 %) and land restoration (23%) •A tremendous amount of effort has been expended by municipalities and others to ensure their respective policies, procedural and regulatory documents address the requirements of the ORMCP *Province has met many of its obligations i.e. approval of all official plans, release of 17 technical guidelines, mapping *Still outstanding obligations — commitment to consult with Aboriginal people, commitment to work with municipalities in developing site alteration by -laws and tree conservation by -laws *Some municipalities have not completed watershed plans *Lack of a monitoring or audit capability to track, assess and report on the compliance of various agencies to the ORMCP *Simple and easily collected datasets that can be used to monitor trends in ecological integrity of the ORM and the effectiveness of the ORMCP *Will need to be updated before 2015 *This report can serve as a baseline against which future changes in natural features can be compared *Natural Terrestrial cover in good shape but more emphasis on restoration of forest interior, prairies and grassland habitat *Streams on the ORM in poor shape —more restoration needed *Lack of sufficient monitoring stations *Lack of committed funding *Excellent basis for establishing monitoring baseline Findings: • Policies of Section 39 of the ORMCP met • Main east -west trail connected across entire ORM • Significant improvements in infrastructure • Establishment of 4 trail gateways • Identification of opportunities for future improvements i.e. off of roads • Maintenance of present trail and realization of potential expansions are probably not attainable under current ORTA model sv 4 . 11 kNzl:i� SK: More than 5,582 acres of conservation lands have been protected through acquisition, donation and conservation easements More than 1,000 acres of conservation lands have been enhanced through stewardship projects such as tree planting, wetland creation, habitat management, prairie restoration and livestock diversion • ORMF has supported research efforts by universities, colleges and non - government organizations in order to fill knowledge gaps on the ORM • More than 5,700 school children have learned about the importance of water and wildlife protection on the ORM • 1,000s more have been educated through a variety of Moraine programs I 37i'til.'Vf:_ . VwYL'L 1-�&Mrizorvlur ,�ifF -WA.1%iii I ..,A WS: ,. , I T 1..:" I'M y 1 i 1 A data management system has yet to be developed in cooperation with municipalities, conservation authorities and appropriate stakeholders • The proposed monitoring program for the Greenbelt (including the ORM) has fallen short of expectations insofar as it has identified an insufficient number of effective performance indicators • Provincial assistance has been insufficient to assist municipalities in the interpretation and application of policies and technical aspects of the ORMCP • Lack of provincial oversight or tracking of decision-making to comply with the requirements of the ORMCP �_ -- - 7 - 7z ' T • Trail still on public roads • Continued land restoration — focus on streams, interior forest and grassland areas • Securement to protect key water resources • Continued education and outreach • Monitoring in preparation for 2015 r Why the Oak Ridges----�_ -- Moraine Foundation:- r _ a • We have a role to play leading up to 2015 • Dependable facilitator of meaningful /substantive results ($15 million into $50 million) • Catalyst for partnership, collaboration and cooperation • Best positioned /equipped to do the work that remains to be done Our Request to the Province • To continue and expand policy and monitoring, land restoration, land securement and education and outreach until review of the ORMCP in 2015 • $4 million • $3 million • $2 million • 2 million $11 million policy and monitoring land restoration land securement education and outreach New uilding ymlaw m and Increase in U ldo g P t Fees I in er i In2005 Clarington reviewed its building permit fees and introduced a new building by -law The purpose of the review was to calculate fees that allow us to recover the full cost of providing Building Code services in accordance with the Building Code Act This review requires us to revisit the building permit fee every five years In the fall of 2010 the Municipality hired Hemson Consulting Limited to update the building permit fee study Council has jurisdiction for the enforcement of the Act by approving the Building By -law Prescribe classes of permits Require payments of fees and refunds Require persons to give notice of mandatory inspections Require that a set of plans be submitted and determine what information must be on the plans Require a person to erect a fence around a construction site when Chief Building Official (CBO) requests one Must hold a public meeting Must ensure that a minimum of 21 days notice of the public meeting is given in accordance with the Ontario Building Code Must provide the following information to the public An estimate of the cost of administering and enforcing the Act The amount of the fees or of the changes to the existing fees The rational for imposing or changing fees On March9,20J.J. the Chief Building Official, the Director of Engineering Services and the Finance Department hosted a consultation session with the Durham Region Home BuildersAssociation, the Building Industry and Land Development Association as well as some local builders who requested to attend the meeting We informed them of the proposed changes to our building by -law and the proposed increase in building permit fees In the provisions of the Ontario Building Code Act the municipalities are permitted to charge fees when issuing building permit The Act states that building permit fees must not exceed "the anticipated reasonable cost" required to administer and enforce the Building Code An annual report must record both the direct and indirect cost of reviewing building permits applications and conducting inspections The Municipality must also report on any building permit reserve funds available Direct costs includes the cost of reviewing building permit applications and inspections Chief Building Official Plans Examiners Inspectors Permit Clerks Percentage of Director of Engineering Municipal Administrative Center Municipal Wide Overhead Planning Services Emergency Services Summary of the analysis of cost Direct cost s1,342,746 Indirect Cost$235,o64 Reserve Fund Contribution sZZO,000 Total Projected Cost X1,687,811 Based on 201i. draft budget The Projected Revenues is based on historical data and on current growth forecast amounts to $1.,450,000 Note that the hospital and municipal buildings are currently exempt from paying permit fees. However the permit fee is added to the total permit fees and reported annually Projected Cost X1,687,811 Projected Revenues X1,450,000 Percent Difference is 16.4% In accordance with the provisions of the Building Code Act, The Municipality is permitted to increase building permit and inspection fees by 16.4% and this should cover the anticipated direct and indirect cost including a reserve fund contribution A provision is included In the Building By -law for an annual 3 percent indexing to all fees, effective January 1 st each year The existing building permit fee for a single family dwellingiS$9.1.2per square metre of area and the proposed fee will increase the permit fee to szo.62 per square metre Additional inspection of air barrier starting January, 2012 Energy efficiency for housing, starting January Zolz. House must be designed using "EnerGuide for new home"' or 13 different compliance packages for insulation Mandated "Occupancy P 2012 New Building Code filed mid zoss, starting in 2012 Technical changes in our by -law "Equivalent Material "has been replaced by "Alternate Solutions" Additional fees to allow for re- activation of dormant permits Overtime fees Permit surcharge fee0f 25% starting when permit is not issued and 50% when there is no application for a permit Orderto comply must be issued Occupancy permits Additional inspections outside mandatory inspections Spatial Separation Agreements approved by (CBO) Duties of Fire Prevention Officers clarified when inspecting Building Code items Public on Meeting 0 0 Planni" ng Applications Monday, March Zi, Zoii Clarington Planning Services Department Application from Dunbury Development ( Courtice ) Ltd . To permit asix-bay motor vehicle repair garage . Claringfon Planning Services Department fitgh waY 2 Rte� Subject Property 1419 Highway 2 1! _ r! {, .. ...� 1 • M . 4#Z ,n �- ' f I ..... __ .. i, F E r- *..1- �• y. Ike i ,.. xhun t Trail .. IN AM Ed Al Claringfon Planning Services Department ra tes ROAD ti • � Li DRIVE w BRIDLI= C{}1JRT • : DALEf ARK Gh RI' b1 CL5S'cS1I i. 9s; srq f�AhK TTf ob°4°b Rho#°a° 1. - - 4 8 p 6 b 6 b a b 4 b a ❑ O # p # 4 8 a ✓ '- p 0 ❑ # b a U 6 U 6 b 6 b 6 8 a # p # p ❑ p O Q 'p 4 # 4 6 4 # 4 6 4 6 p a p 0 ❑ _ 4 4 0 R 4 P ° Q 4 -. -6 4 6 8 6 # O # p # ❑ # ❑ O ❑ 4 ❑ a ❑ 6 b _ _ '• rt_l- �� a aea flpb P#4R a4afl po#aab O Raaa4 o o#G##.0. a Q fl b a 4 4a.O a4P a#a P ab b 4 a4'aP apa##aa QPap,�6 ba#RR aP a po p°a a###a 6aoa4 pa4 o°❑a❑#a##a oa R4 pP fl ao DURHA& a b°bo#.00 aOp oil I a #a'o0" fl 4p4fl❑R44RpR fl a b OF RpR#Rp°#Qp°4apa4op II U 6 # 4 p U p # 4 4 p 6 a p 4 U • MP' o a a o a a o 6 U a b a b aa#Q 6 # 6 # U d Q aobQaob --- ' _ rQn¢nanb a�� anba r`nbQ aa6popQ'O'° a Qa - -� LP U P U b a p Q p o # p # p # 6 b a b # p # p # p d p V p U p P P Q 4 P S] [� u O # p # a 4 p O p O p ❑ p 8 ., . .. a°flaaobQ Qpaao❑aao'popo#apab'Raa#Rpaaa# -. 6 ❑ a ❑ O 6 p p b p # p # p # p p # ..• C3 0 ❑ r, b a a R a ° a g a o a p a P ° � -- .. °aob°ao❑ Rp°#RpR#Rp°#Rpa#Rpa#RpaORpn�opo � - 1� 1 - Qa❑b nC�b Opp#OOp#Opp#ap#44p8#apBappA Op8 ' �� q❑ aQ p�Raa b,R pQbapa#aq°#ap°#Rq°# °# ■ ..�� � F ,,p # p U p # o 8 o 8 p 6 p p W r- - �ry OGG�Pa°4Pfl,#b440p$Q¢p ��❑pp4 z orsnaop OD #RpeB Proposal Motor Vehicle Repair Garage ■ 6 Bay �. M2 ® 363 m (3,900 ft )) I, �1 ■ Not an auto body shop �4 Clarington Planning Services Department Conformity • Provincial Policy Statement • Growth Plan • Durham Regional Official Plan • Clarington Official Plan Clarington Planning Services Department Public Notice and Comments • Visual obstruction; • Property values; • Hazardous materials; • Parking; • Compatibility; • Air quality; • Noise; and • Traffic Clarington Planning Services Department v Clarington Planning Services Department