Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2011• arm n Energizing Ontario GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: April 4, 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 Regular Meeting of March 21, 2011 5. PRESENTATIONS 4-1 (a) Pam Lancaster, Stewardship Technician, Regarding the Clean Water- Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program 6. DELEGATIONS (Draft List at Time of Publication - To be Replaced with Final 6-1 List) (a) Carmela Marshall Regarding the Top Ten Risks of the Commercial Fill Operation (b) Mary Ann Donahoe Regarding the Sign for the Proposed Newcastle Fire Hall (c) Don Igbokwe, Chair of the Multifaith World Religion Day Committee, to Present a Plaque to Council for their Support of World Religion Day 7. PUBLIC MEETINGS (a) Application to Amend the Official Plan to Reflect the Location of 7-1 Provincially Significant Wetlands Applicant: Municipality of Clarington Report: PSD-030-11 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 G P & A. Agenda - 2 - April 4, 2011 8. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) PSD-030-11 Proposed Amendment No. 80 to the Municipality of 8-1 Clarington Official Plan to Revise the Limits of the Environmental Protection Areas Based on the Identification of Provincially Significant Wetlands (b) PSD-031-11 Request for Extension of Draft Approval 8-21 1-37 Kings Court, Bowmanville (c) PSD-032-11 Addition to Municipal Register of Properties of Cultural 8-27 Heritage Value or Interest 5658 Bethesda Road and 7500 Highway 35/115 (d) PSD-033-11 Durham/York Residual Waste Project 8-35 Integrated Waste Management Committee 9. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) EGD-016-11 Huntington Subdivision Phase 1, Courtice, Plan 40M-1929, 9-1 `Certificate of Acceptance' and `Assumption By-Laws', Final Works Including Road and Other Related Works (b) EGD-017-11 Newcastle Memorial Park -Proposal to Rename 9-8 10. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT (a) OPD-005-11 Cemetery Tariff of Rates for 2011 to 2014 10-1 11. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT No Reports 12. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT No Reports 13. MUNICIPAL CLERK'S DEPARTMENT (a) CLD-010-11 Appointments to Hall Boards 13-1 14. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) COD-010-11 RFP2010-12 Energy Audit Services 14-1 15. FINANCE DEPARTMENT No Reports G.P. & A. Agenda - 3 - April 4, 2011 16. SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT No Reports 17. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE No Reports 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (a) Addendum Proposed Fence Construction Cost Share By-law 18-1 to Report CLD-001-11 19. OTHER BUSINESS 20. COMMUNICATIONS 21. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 22. ADJOURNMENT Clari~gton General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Minutes of a meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on Monday, March 21, 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: Acting CAO, M. Marano Municipal Solicitor, A. Allison Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Director of Engineering Services, T. Cannella Director of Planning Services, D. Crome until 3:03 p.m. Deputy Treasurer, L. Gordon Director of Operations, F. Horvath Manager of Development Review, C. Pellarin starting at 3:03 p.m. Director of Emergency & Fire Services, G. Weir 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 regarding Ron Richard's delegation and Addendum to Report to PSD-017-11. Councillor Neal indicated that he would be declaring an interest in Report EGD-010-11. -1- 4-1 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 ANNOUNCEMENTS Councillor Hooper announced that he and Councillor Traill attended the 36t" Annual Purple Woods Maple Syrup Festival which was very successful. He noted that most of Council also attended the opening of two new businesses in the downtown core: Touch of Dutch and Salon Amara on Saturday, March 19, 2011. Councillor Hooper also announced that the Clarington Older Adults Association (COAA) "Euchre Extravaganza", held on March 19, 2011 broke attendance records with 50 tables of four people each for a total of 200 people. The COAA Board Meeting was held on March 18, 2011 and he noted that the COAA has increased their membership to 1400 people. Councillor Neal announced that he attended a Property Law Forum, in Ajax, fast week. Councillor Partner announced that on March 16, 2011 she attended the "Raise the Roof' fundraising event, held at the Orono Rebekka Hall, to raise funds to replace the roof. She added that they have raised over $12,000 to date and the goal is to raise $25,000. She reminded everyone that the dinners are held every 3~d Wednesday and tickets can be purchased from Connie Hooey. Councillor Partner announced that she dropped the puck at the recent Orono Juvenile All Ontario Playoff Game 3 hockey game. On Sunday, March 20, 2011, she attended a 90t" birthday celebration for Meda Stapleton and presented her with a recognition certificate on behalf of Mayor Foster and Council. Councillor Partner also announced that she had received a thank you from Wally Boughen thanking Council for the picture of the old Town Hall which was presented to him on his 80t" birthday. Councillor Woo announced that he and Mayor Foster attended the citizenship ceremony, on March 16, 2011 at the Region of Durham, where 40 new Canadians were sworn in. Mayor Foster reminded those present that on Saturday, March 26, 2011 everyone is requested to wear purple for Epilepsy awareness. Mayor Foster, on behalf of Council, conveyed Council's thoughts and prayers for the victims of the recent disaster in Japan. MINUTES Resolution #GPA-236-11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the minutes of the Special meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on February 25, 2011, be approved. CARRIED -2- 4-2 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Resolution #GPA-237-11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the minutes of the regular meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on February 28, 2011, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. DELEGATIONS Councillor Hooper declared a pecuniary interest with respect to the delegation of Ron Richards speaking to the Addendum 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. Ron Richards, R.G. Richards & Associates was present regarding Addendum to 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 783mZ and 185mZ respectively for retail/service commercial uses. Mr. Richards indicated that his company has met with staff and that he is in favour of the recommendations contained in the Addendum to Report PSD-017-11. Councillor Hooper returned to the meeting. Gary Jeffrey, Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC), was present regarding the AACC Annual Report for 2010. Mr. Jeffrey noted that Council has been distributed a copy of the AACC 2010 Accomplishments. He noted that new officers have been elected and meetings are held on the second Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. and hopes to see Members of Council attend at least one meeting each year. He thanked previous members for their contributions. Mr. Jeffrey highlighted the following accomplishments: DEAC Award (to Algoma); Zone 2 Soybean Production Award (to Ceresmore Farms); DFRA received Trillium funding for Agricultural Awareness Program; and the runner-up Premier's Award (to Algoma). He noted that the Committee is currently focussing on such issues as buffers between agricultural and urban, input on various agricultural issues, and comments on road design and 407 issues. He thanked Council for setting up the AACC, which has become a role model for other municipalities. Mr. Jeffrey confirmed that the Farm Tour will be held in Uxbridge in September. -3- 4-3 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Resolution #GPA-238-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the delegation of Gary Jeffrey, Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC), regarding the AACC 2010 Accomplishments, be received with thanks; and THAT Members of Counci{ are very interested in the AACC's activities and request, from the AACC, dates of upcoming events. CARRfED Kim Gavine, Executive Director, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (ORMF), was present regarding Eight Different Reports which the Foundation is working on and the Effectiveness of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and the Foundation. She made a verbal presentation to accompany a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Gavine noted that there is currently approximately $50 million dollars worth of projects across the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). She noted that, in 2009, funding stopped from upper levels of government and they had considered closing. Ms. Gavine stated that, due to overwhelming response from stakeholders, they are continuing their work and have changed their focus. She informed the Committee that the ORMF began preparation for the 2015 ORMCP review. She noted that this began with the stakeholder survey, which indicated that the ORMCP is a good plan, but changes were needed by 2015. Eighty percent of the stakeholders felt that the ORMF has provided positive contributions, but that there are weaknesses, including: promotion of successes and achievements, partnerships with development, and aggregate industry. She noted that one of the key findings centred around compliance, including the fact that some municipalities have not competed their watershed plans. Ms. Gavine stated that another key finding concerns the ecological health of the ORM, including the watershed context within the ORM. She informed the Committee that there have been improvements to the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail, but that there is still more work to be done. Ms. Gavine noted that more than 5,582 acres of conservation lands have been protected through acquisition, donation and conservation easements. She stated that ORMF has supported research efforts and education programs. Ms. Gavine noted that the provincial obligations have not been met, in particular: a data management system, monitoring program for the Greenbelt, insufficient provincial assistance regarding interpretation and application of policies, lack of provincial oversight or tracking of decision-making to comply with requirements. She informed the Committee that the following items still have to be done: the trail is not completely an independent trail, continued land restoration, securement to protect key water resources, continued education/research, and monitoring in preparation for 2015. Ms. Gavine concluded by explaining the continued role that the ORMF has to play leading up to the 2015 review. She added that there is currently an $11 million request to the Province to cover policy, monitoring, land restoration and securement, and education and outreach. -4- 4-4 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Ms. Gavine requested that the Committee forward a letter of support to the Province regarding the ORMF. Resolution #GPA-239-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the request of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation for a letter of support be referred to the Council meeting of March 28, 2011. CARRIED Councillor Traill chaired the following portion of the agenda. PUBLIC MEETINGS (a) Subject: Public Meeting Regarding the Proposed Building By-law Amendments for New Regulations and Increases to the Building Permit and Inspection Fees Report: EGD-011-11 Rick Pigeon, Chief Building Official, made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation to the Committee regarding the proposed building by-law amendments for new regulations and increases to the building permit and inspection fees. He spoke to most of the issues outlined in Report EGD-011-11. No one spoke in opposition to or support of the proposed changes. Councillor Novak chaired the following portion of the agenda. (b) Subject: Application to Amend the Clarington Zoning By-law Applicant: Dunbury Developments (Courtice) Ltd. Report: PSD-025-11 Lisa Backus, Senior Planner, made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation to the Committee regarding the application. Phyllis Milburn, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. She presented a neighbourhood petition, containing 132 signatures, as well as letters from Shannon Newman, Missy Miller, Gary Lambert, and Tiffany Wilbur. Ms. Milburn stated that she is extremely upset that she has to attend a meeting, during the day, to defend her home. She informed the Committee that she has already forwarded a letter to the Planning Department outlining her concerns. Ms. Milburn informed the Committee that she is concerned about the construction of the driveway. She stated that, with this proposal, her home will decrease in value due to lack or privacy, air quality, storage/use of -5- 4-5 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 hazardous materials and noise issues. Ms. Milburn also stated that she will not be able to enjoy her backyard. She informed the Committee that the Ministry of Environment has frequent reports, from similar businesses, with regard to accidental spills of materials which have run off the property, affecting other properties and having potential health affects. Ms. Milburn stated that she is concerned that the application has not addressed any of the health issues, including air quality. She noted that there are already similar businesses close by and this addition will add to potential health problems. Ms. Milburn stated that she believes that a 3m fence will not solve the noise problem. She stated that the traffic congestion is already a problem and is getting worse. Ms. Milburn suggested that the proposal will add to the traffic congestion. She informed the Committee that this area is not an appropriate location for this type of business. Ms. Milburn informed the Committee that she has had her home broken into three times and that she is concerned that the addition of this business will invite more break-ins. She added that this proposal will add to the garbage problem which will affect her family's quality of life. Ms. Milburn concluded by urging the Committee to not approve the proposal. Steven Onanis, local property owner, spoke in opposition of the application. He appreciated the fact that property owners have the right to request a rezoning, but he hoped that Council will be cognizant of the implications of decisions of Council. Mr. Onanis stated that he has similar concerns to Ms. Milburn and questioned what measures have taken place to address the concerns, and in particular, the environmental issues. Kevin Bidgood, General Manager of Shoeless Joes, spoke in opposition of the application. He stated that Shoeless Joes is concerned about the current traffic congestion and future congestion as a result of the proposal. Mr. Bidgood informed the Committee that he is also concerned about the change in the location of the parking for the restaurant patrons. He added that the patio consists of approximately 30°l0 of their business. The patio will be facing the Master Mechanic, and he believes his customers may not appreciate the view of a Master Mechanic. He concluded that he acknowledges that another development in the location may happen, but that a Master Mechanic is not compatible with the restaurant. Terry Choloniuk, owner of Valeo Draperies, spoke in opposition of the application. He stated that he is concerned about parking. Mr. Choloniuk confirmed that currently Shoeless Joes customers park in his tenants' parking lot. He also noted that his shipping door is blocked on a regular basis and is concerned that this problem will be compounded. Mr. Choloniuk added that he is also concerned about the noise and environmental concerns which have already been raised. -6- 4-6 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Missy Miller, local resident, spoke in opposition of the application. Her main issue with the proposed development is privacy as she has a pool which backs onto the subject property. Ms. Miller added that she is also concerned about the noise and environmental concerns, previously stated by the other delegates. No one spoke in support of the application. Steve Goldenberg, the applicant and owner of the property, informed the Committee that the image showing the parking plan is not correct as the overlay was not properly scaled. As such, Shoeless Joes parking will not be impacted as shown in the incorrect image. He confirmed that with, the Shoeless Joes parking spots (45) and the proposed parking for the Master Mechanic (12), there should not be any further overflow parking issues currently experienced by neighbouring business. RECESS Resolution #GPA-240-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the Committee recess for 10 minutes. CARRIED The meeting resumed at 11:28 a.m. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-BAY MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR GARAGE APPLICANT: DUNBURY DEVELOPMENT (COURTICE) LIMITED Resolution #GPA-241-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report PSD-025-11 be received; 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 -7- 4-7 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 THAT the interested parties listed in Report PSD-025-11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMM{TTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 3, 2011 Resolution #GPA-242-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD-026-11 be received; and 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. CARRIED GO EXTENSION TO BOWMANVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Resolution #GPA-243-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD-027-11 be received; THAT Council endorse the staff comments noted in Section 4.0 of Report PSD-027-11 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 Report PSD-027-11 will be satisfactorily addressed prior to the conclusion of the EA approval process; 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; -8- 4-8 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 THAT staff be authorized to approach GO/Metrolinx to negotiate a cost sharing agreement for the Green Road grade separation; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-027-11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED, AS AMENDED (See following motion) Resolution #GPA-244-11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the foregoing resolution #GPA-243-11 be amended to add the following clause, after paragraph 3: THAT the Province and Metrolinx be requested to confirm that the Oshawa to Bowmanville rail service expansion will be undertaken as one phase. CARRIED The foregoing resolution #GPA-243-11 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON DRAFTING AND IMPLEMENTING AN AIR QUALITY BY-LAW Resolution #GPA-245-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report PSD-028-11 be received; 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); 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; -9- 4-9 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 THAT if Council determines that air quality improvement should be identified as a priority in the Strategic Business Pfan, the issue be referred to the 2012 budget for municipal initiatives; and THAT all interested parties fisted in Report PSD-028-11 be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED, AS AMENDED (See following motions) Resolution #GPA-246-11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report PSD-028-11 be tabled until the Council meeting of March 28, 2011. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA-247-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing resolution #GPA-245-11 be amended by deleting the words "in the Strategic Business Plan" from Paragraph 4. CARRIED The foregoing resolution #GPA-245-11 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF PART LOT CONTROL APPLICANT: MAPLE WOODS LAND CORPORATION Resolution #GPA-248-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD-029-11 be received; THAT the request for removal of Part Lot Contro{ 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 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. CARRIED -10- 4-10 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 REVIEW OF REGION OF DURHAM'S APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR ENERGY-FROM-WASTE FACILITY Resolution #GPA-249-11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the Director of Planning Services be authorized to re-engage SENES Consultants Ltd. to prepare comments on the application to the Minister of Environment for Certificates of Approval for the Energy-From-Waste facility at a cost of approximately $15,000 with a report and presentation to the General Purpose and Administration Committee; and THAT the funds be allocated from account # 100-00-000-00000-2926, Consulting and Professional Fees Reserve. CARRIED (See following motions Resolution #GPA-250-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing resolution #GPA-249-11 be amended, by adding the following clause at the end of the motion: "THAT Council formerly adopt the comments made by SENES Consultants Ltd which were made as part of the Energy-From-Waste Peer Review process of 2009." MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA-251-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing resolution #GPA-250-11 be amended by adding the following clause at the end: "THAT the 2009 Energy-From-Waste Peer Review process comments by SENES Consultants be addressed at the time of the SENES Consultants report regarding the Certificate of Approval." MOTION LOST The foregoing resolution #GPA-249-11 was then put to a vote and carried. -11- 4-11 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 ALTER THE AGENDA Resolution #GPA-252-11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the agenda be altered to discuss the matter of the Addendum to Report PSD-017-11 at this time. CARRIED PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD STORE OF 2,829M2 AND TWO SMALLER BUILDINGS OF 783MZ 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 the Addendum 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-253-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Addendum to Report PSD-017-11 and Report PSD-017-11 be received; THAT the rezoning application submitted by 1804603 Ontario {nc., be approved and that the proposed Zoning By-law contained in Attachment 2 to Addendum to Report PSD-017-11 be passed; THAT the Holding (H) provision on the zone be removed once the owner has entered into a site plan agreement with the Municipality; and THAT the interested parties listed in Report PSD-017-11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED Councillor Hooper returned to the meeting. -12- 4-12 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 HARD COPIES OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE ENERGY-FROM-WASTE FACILITY Resolution #GPA-254-11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the Municipality of Clarington make available, upon request, hard copies of the Certificate of Approval documents for the Energy from Waste facility. WITHDRAWN (See following motions) Resolution #GPA-255-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the foregoing resolution #GPA-254-11 be amended to add the following: "THAT a hard copy of the Certificate of Approval documents be made available for review, in the Municipal Clerk's Department." WITHDRAWN The amending motion (#GPA-255-11) was withdrawn by the mover and immediately thereafter, the main motion (#GPA-254-11) was also withdrawn. Resolution #GPA-256-11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT a hard copy of the Certificate of Approval documents be made available, for review, in the Municipal Clerk's Department; and THAT three hard copies of the Certificate of Approval documents be made available for the public, on a first come first serve basis. MOTION LOST Resolution #GPA-257-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT a hard copy of the Certificate of Approval documents be made available, for review, in the Municipal Clerk's Department; -13- 4-13 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 THAT copies of the Certificate of Approval documents, or excerpts, be provided upon request in accordance with the photocopy fees as prescribed in By-law 2010-142; and THAT electronic copies (CD's) be made available, for free upon request, through the Municipal Clerk's Department. CARRIED ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROPOSED GOODYEAR DAM FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT Resolution #GPA-258-11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report EGD-009-11 be received; THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the Collaborative Agreement; and THAT all partners in the Collaborative Agreement be advised of Council's action. CARRIED RECESS Resolution #GPA-259-11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT the Committee recess for 30 minutes. CARRIED The meeting resumed at 2:04 p.m. -14- 4-14 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Councillor Traill chaired this portion of the meeting. LONGWORTH ESTATES SUBDIVISION PHASE 2, BOWMANVILLE, PLAN 40M-2242, `CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE' AND `ASSUMPTION BY-LAW', FINAL WORKS INCLUDING ROADS AND OTHER RELATED WORKS Councillor Neal declared a pecuniary interest with respect to Report EGD-010-11 as he acts for the applicant, Mr. Veltri. Councillor Neal left the room and did not participate in discussions and voting on this matter. Resolution #GPA-260-11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report EGD-010-11 be received; 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 THAT Council approve the by-law attached to Report EGD-010-11, assuming certain streets within Plan 40M-2242 as public highways. CARRIED Councillor Neal returned to the meeting. BUILDING PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEE AMENDMENTS AND NEW BUILDING BY-LAW Resolution #GPA-261-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report EGD-011-11 be received; THAT the Building By-Law be revised to reflect the changes necessitated by the new provisions of the Building Code; THAT the building permit fee and inspection fee structure as detailed in the new Building By-Law be approved; THAT the Building By-Law be revised to include the annual indexing percentage of 3%, effective January 1st each year; -15- 4-15 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 THAT the new Building By-Law be effective April 4, 2011; THAT the Building By-Law attached to Report EGD-011-11 as Attachment 1, be recommended to Council for approval to rescind and replace By-Law 2005-145, as amended; and THAT all recorded interested parties be notified of Council's decision. CARRIED MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR JANUARY, 2011 Resolution #GPA-262-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report EGD-012-11 be received far information. CARRIED MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR FEBRUARY, 2011 Resolution #GPA-263-11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report EGD-013-11 be received for information. CARRIED PROPOSAL TO CLOSE AND CONVEY A PORTION OF A ROAD ALLOWANCE (GIVEN ROAD) SITUATED tN LOT 30, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE Resolution #GPA-264-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report EGD-014-11 be received; 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 to Report EGD-014-11); THAT Council authorize the publication of a notice that Council intends to declare part of the road allowance (Attachment 1 to Report EGD-014-11) to be surplus and to pass a by-law to close that part of the road allowance; -16- 4-16 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 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. CARRIED CLARINGTON BOULEVARD AND STEVENS ROAD INTERSECTION - BOWMANVILLE Resolution #GPA-265-11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report EGD-015-11 be received; THAT Council approve the proposal for the construction of traffic signals at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Stevens Road; THAT construction of the recommended traffic signals be completed in 2011; 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 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. CARRIED Councillor Woo chaired this portion of the meeting. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT 2010 WINTER REPORT Resolution #GPA-266-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report OPD-004-11 be received for information. CARRIED 17- 4-17 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERV{CES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be cansidered under this section of the Agenda. CLERK'S DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CL2011-08, OSBORNE STREET RECONSTRUCTION & ENERGY DRIVE CONSTRUCTION Resolution #GPA-267-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report COD-009-11 be received; THAT Hard-Co Construction Ltd., Whitby, ON with a total bid in the amount of $2,512,297.64 (net HST rebate), 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; THAT the funds required in the amount of $3,624,000.00 (which includes $2,512,297.64 for tendering, design contract administration and contingencies) be drawn from the Account # 110-32-330-83334-7401 and Letter of Credit #G198126; 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. CARRIED -18- 4-18 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS Resolution #GPA-268-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the benefit consulting firm who recently undertook the comprehensive market review and analysis of the Municipality of Clarington's benefit program, be requested to provide a report to advise if the benefits provided by the Municipality of Clarington's benefit program are reflective of standard and comparable benefits in the municipal sector and, if it is possible, this statement also include some comparable private companies. CARRIED FINANCE DEPARTMENT MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS' REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES FOR 2010 Resolution #GPA-269-11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report FND-005-11 be received for information. CARRIED BUILDING PERMIT FEES ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010 Resolution #GPA-270-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report FND-006-11 be received for information. CARRIED REQUEST FOR REPORT -WEEKLY PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES Resolution #GPA-271-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the Director of Finance prepare a report on whether or not a weekly payment program for payment of residential property taxes may be instituted. CARRIED -19- 4-19 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT CLARINGTON ATS. ST. MARY'S CEMENT COURT FILE NO: 09-CV-375276 Resolution #GPA-272-11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Report LGL-004-11 be received for information. CARR{ED CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE FROM KAYLIN MORISSETTE AND JULIE CRYDERMAN, REQUESTING FUNDING FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION AT THE U19 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP -WOMEN'S FIELD LACROSSE IN HANOVER, GERMANY IN AUGUST, 2011 Resolution #GPA-273-11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the correspondence item from Kaylin Morissette and Julie Cryderman be lifted from the table. CARRIED Resolution #GPA-274-11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT Kaylin Morissette and Julie Cryderman be advised that their application for funding for their participation at the U19 World Championship of Women's Field Lacrosse does not qualify under Clarington's Community Grant Program; and THAT the applicants be invited to consider having the team to apply for funding. WITHDRAWN -20- 4-20 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Resolution #GPA-275-11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the request from Kaylin Morissette and Julie Cryderman for funding for their participation at the U19 World Championship of Women's Field Lacrosse be denied; and THAT the Municipality of Clarington wish Ms. Morissette and Ms. Cryderman well in their endeavours. CARRIED OTHER BUSINESS CHANGE OF COUNCIL MEETING DATE Resolution #GPA-276-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the Council meeting of June 6, 2011 be rescheduled to June 7, 2011 to accommodate the Members of Council attending the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference. CARRIED EARTH HOUR Resolution #GPA-277-11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Partner WHEREAS climate change and energy consumption are two of the biggest environmental threats to our planet; WHEREAS participating in Earth Hour is about creating and demonstrating leadership for making a difference towards climate change and energy conservation by switching out lights for one hour on the 26th of March 2011; WHEREAS participation in Earth Hour is a symbolic gesture that recognizes the threat of climate change, recognizes that it is a global problem, recognizes that individuals can help to mitigate the problem, and that collectively we can make a difference; -21 - 4-21 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 WHEREAS participating in Earth Hour would demonstrate the Municipality's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption and highlight how small conservation efforts can add up to substantial energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; WHEREAS Earth Hour provides Clarington with the occasion to build a positive image and demonstrate environmental leadership; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, at 8:30 pm on March 26, 2011, the Municipality of Clarington will join other cities around the world in literally "turning out the lights" by shutting off all non-essential lighting in a1f of its buildings, where feasible, and without jeopardizing safety, for one full hour; and THAT the Municipality of Clarington's participation in Earth Hour be widely promoted in order to raise awareness about this important issue and in order to encourage every individual, household and business in Clarington, and beyond, to join in by turning off their lights for one hour at 8:30 pm on March 26, 2011. CARRIED FIRE FIGHTERS IN LISTOWEL Councillor Hooper noted that two volunteer fire fighters lost their lives in Listowel recently and that the thoughts and prayers of Council are with their families. PROCEDURAL BY-LAW AMENDMENT REGARDING NOTICE OF MOTION Resolution #GPA-278-11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Novak WHEREAS a `Notice of Motion' delivered before Council forces the introduction of an item on the following Council agenda, without discussion, debate or staff input; AND WHEREAS good and meaningful governance requires fulsome debate, due consideration, and open public consultation; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Procedural By-law, By-law 2011-016, be amended by deleting Sections 7.12.1, 7.12.2 and 7.12.3 `Notices of Motion', and related sections, to remove the opportunity to introduce new motions at Council without suspending the rules. CARRIED (See following) -22- 4-22 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 Prior to calling the vote on the foregoing resolution #GPA-278-11, Councillor Neal rose on a Point of Order requesting Mayor Foster yield the Chair as he believed him to be entering debate on the matter. The Chair ruled that it is within his rights, as outlined in the Procedural By-law, to provide his opinion while in the Chair. Councillor Neal immediately appealed the ruling of the Chair. The Question "will the ruling of the Chair be sustained?" was put to a vote. The ruling of the Chair was sustained. COMMUNICATIONS CORRESPONDENCE FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS AS WELL AS A PETITION REGARDING THE DUNBURY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (ZBA 2011-0001) Resolution #GPA-279-11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the correspondence from Roy Nichols, Phyllis Milburn, Shannon Newman, Missy Miller, Gary Lambert, and Tiffany Wilbur, as well as the petition, regarding the Dunbury Development application (ZBA 2011-0001) be referred to the Planning Services Department for processing with the application. CARRIED CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS CONFIDENTIAL VERBAL REPORT FROM THE MUNICIPAL SOLICITOR REGARDING THE ENERGY-FROM-WASTE HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT Resolution #GPA-280-11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT in accordance with Section 239 (2} of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing a confidential verbal report from the Municipal Solicitor regarding the Energy-From-Waste Host Community Agreement, a matter that deals with advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. CARRIED -23- 4-23 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes March 21, 2011 RISE AND REPORT The meeting resumed in open session at 4:40 p.m., with Mayor Foster in the Chair. The Mayor advised that one item was discussed in "closed" session in accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and one resolution was passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolution #GPA-281-11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the meeting adjourn at 4:41 P.M. CARRIED MAYOR -24- DEPUTY CLERK 4-24 DRAFT LIST OF DELEGATIONS GPA Meeting: April 4, 2011 (a) Carmela Marshall Regarding the Top Ten Risks of the Commercial Fill Operation (b) Mary Ann Donahoe Regarding the Sign for the Proposed Newcastle Fire Hall (c) Don Igbokwe, Chair of the Multifaith World Religion Day Committee, to Present a Plaque to Council for their Support of World Religion Day 6-1 OFFICIAL CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTCPUBLIC MEETING - PLAN NOTICE OP P.UBlIC MEETING ~ REPORT# PSD-030-11 REVIEW Municipality of Clarington Compass to our future PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATED BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON TO REFLECT THE~LOCATION OF PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider the proposed Official Plan under Section 17 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. DETAILS The purpose of the Public Meeting is to receive input. on proposed amendments to the Clarington Official Plan. In keeping with the, identification of Provincially Significant Wetlands by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the local Conservation Authorities, the proposed amendments would have the effect of: ' • Removing lands from the Green Space; Hamlet Residential; Country Residential; Waterfront ' Greenway; Prime Agricultural Area; General Agricultural Area; and Urban Residential designations and, adding those lands to the Environmental Protection Area designation; and • In some instances, removing lands from ~ the Environmental Protection Area designation and adding those lands to the Urban Residential designation. The proposed amendments generally apply to lands- throughout the former Townships of Clarke and Darlington and within the Courtice .Urban Area. See attached Exhibits for the proposed changes to the land use schedules. Planning File No: COPA 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 amendments. The public meeting will be held on: DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2011 TIME: 9:30 A.M, PLACE:_ Council Chambers,~2"d Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance St., Bowmanville, Ontario ANY PERSON' may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting commences. If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on. this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting on Monday, April ~11, 2011 commencing at~7:00 p.m. Should you, wish to appear before Council, you must register with the Clerks Department by Wednesday noon, April 6, 2011 to have your name appear in.the Agenda. MATERIAL FOR REVIEW, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? The proposed Official Plan Amendment and related information will be available Tuesday March 15, 2011. It is available for.inspection between 8:30 a.m: and 4:30 p.m. (8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. during August) at the Planning Services Department, 3`~ Floor, 40 Temperance. Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6. It will also be available for review on the Official Plan Review Website www.Clarington.net/ourplan. Please contact Anne Taylor Scott at (905) 623-3379 extension 2414 or by e-mail at ataylorscott@clarington.net with questions or comments about the material. availability or content. APPEAL If a person or public body does.not make oral submissions at this public meeting or make written submission to the Municipality of Clarington before the proposed Official Plan Amendment is adopted, the person: 7-~ 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 to add the person or public body as a party, Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this 11~' day of March 2011. David J. Crome, MCIP, ftPP 401'emperance Street, Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6. Municipality of Clarington Cc: LDO 7-2 -----• HAMLET BOUNDARY ~ GREEN SPACE ----~ ORM BOUNDARY ®NATURAL CORE AREA URBAN RESIDENTIAL ® NATURAL UNKAGEAREA COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONIi GREENWAY HAMLET RESIDENTIAL . DISTRICT PARK RURAL RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER • HAMLET PARK UTILITY ~ PRIME AGRICULTURAL ARE L4n:a.:.9 EXTRACTION AREA A. ~ Y o U PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL Pusuc E Y SCHOOL MAP Al (CLARKE) ELEM NTAR LAND USE ------- SPECIALPOUCYAREA CLARKERURALAREA ......... SPECIAL STUDY AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON TDURISM NODE JANUARY 2, 2007 A • GOLF COURSE ~~D ®D Metres THIS CONSOLIDATION IS PROVIDEOFOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND REPRESENTS REOUESIED MODIFICATIONS ANDAPPRO+ ~~. 1-3 "Exhibit."A ", Amendment No.80 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan", Map Al (Clarke), Land Use, Clarke Rural Area. 7-4 MAP A7 (DARLINGTON) __. URBAN BOUNDARY ~ URBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DARLINGTON RURAL AREA _____ HAMLET BOUNDARY COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL OFFICIAL PLAN ----- ORM BOUNDARY ~ HAMLET RESIDENTIAL MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON R RURAL O JANUARY 2, 2007 ~ RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER MIS CONSOLIDATON IS PROVIDED FOR COMIENIENCE ONLY AND REPRESEMS REOUESTEO MODIFlCATONS AND APPROVALS $DD 250 0 500 iD00 7,500 MefreB ® ~ UTILITY ~' TOURISM NODE ® GOLF COURSE ® NATURAL ~ ~ AGGREGATE CORE AREA ~ ' EXTRACTION AREA ® NATURAL PUBLIC LINKAGE AREA ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - WATERFRONT SEPARATE GREENWAY ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL S COMMUNITY PARK ....... SPECIAL POLICY AREA • DISTRICT PARK ® HAMLET PARK "Exhibit."B ", Amendment No.80 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan", Map Al (Darlington), Land Use, Darlington Rural Area. "Exhibit."C", Amendment No.80 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan", Map A2, Land Use, Courtice Urban Area. ~ SPECWL y SPEC ~1R~ 5 SNCY L AREA5 ~~11 .'1 -_ ~ URBAN BOUNDARY 5 FUTURE M 1 ~ URBAN RESIDENTIAL .~ ~ URBAN RESIDENTIAL ~ • O MEDIUM DENSITY • • . . ~ ~~ RESIDENTIAL _ ~_ _ . ~ ~ O M I O HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 ~ ~F ' I I r ~, TOWN CENTRE 1 F COURTICE WEST ® ~ r ' O M SHOPPING DISTRICT , I , M ® I NEIGHBOURHOOD ~ M CENTRE 1 J O 1 ~ HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL A q~ j M ~ ~ PRESTIGE H~sH popo EMPLOYMENT AREA O ~ ' M O LIGHT ~ INDUSTRIAL AREA ~... ' ® GENERAL .,'...~ L POUCV ' i.r INDUSTRIAL AREA ~ sPECU . . ~~ F'~ Q r ~ BUSIN R H = •• .. ~ F S PARK 1 ~ O sPecuE P , E ~ UTILITY Im M sivrn /~~~ . ~. O' ENVIRONMENTAL D 13 PROTECTION AREA to ~ O L® GREEN SPACE O ~ o O M WATERFRONT GREENWAY I i ~ COMMUNITY PARR ~ ~ ® '~ ® ~ F ® DISTRICT PARK ~ M NEIGH BOURH000 , ® PARK PUBLIC I SECONDARY SCHOOL ~ / ~ SEPARATE O M / SECONDARY SCHOOL M 1 Q PUBLIC ~ O H ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~ O O M ELEMENTARY SCHOOL l ~M -- ~ SECONDARY ~ ~ PLANNING AREA ~OM ('~ ~{ ~~~~~~~~~ SPECIAL POLICY AREA ~ _ iJ f{ ~ f •.......... SPECIAL STUDY AR EA 1 j GO STATION / /// ~ o in no mo ~m tooa M.v~ LAKE ONTARIO MAP A2 LAND USE COURTICE URBAN AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JANUARY 2, 2007 Lands to be added to Environmental Protection Area Designation ®Lands to be removed from Environmental Protection Area Designation - • ~~ Leadtng the Way Resolution #: PLANNING SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: April 4, 2011 Report #: PSD-030-11 File #: COPA 2011-0001 REPORT By-law #: N/A Subject: PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN TO REVISE THE LIMITS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS BASED ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-030-11 be received; 2. THAT Clarington Official Plan Amendment (COPA 2011-001) continue to be processed, including the preparation of a subsequent report considering all agency comments and concerns raised at the Public Meeting; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-030-11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by:~~ Da id lCrome Director, Planning Services ATS/CP/df/av 24 March 2011 Reviewed by: Fr nklin Wu .' l) 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-030-11 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Municipality of Clarington 1.2 Purpose of Application: PAGE 2 This Official Plan Amendment initiated by the Municipality of Clarington forms part of the Official Plan Review process. The proposed Official Plan Amendment would have the effect of: Removing lands from the Green Space; Hamlet Residential; Country Residential; Waterfront Greenway; Prime Agricultural Area; General Agricultural Area; and Urban Residential designations and adding those lands to the Environmental Protection Area designation; and In some instances removing lands from the Environmental Protection Area designation and adding those lands to the Urban Residential designation. 1.3 Subject Lands: Affected lands are located throughout the former Townships of Darlington and Clarke and within the Courtice Urban Area. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The existing Clarington Official Plan was adopted in 1996. As with any planning document, as new and revised information becomes available, it is necessary to revisit the document and make necessary amendments. The Planning Services Department is currently in the midst of an Official Plan Review which will have the effect of: Reviewing Official Plan policies that have been in effect since 1996 Bringing the Plan into conformance with new and revised provincial legislation, including: ^ Changes to Planning Act ^ New Provincial Policy Statement ^ Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ^ Greenbelt Plan Bringing the Plan into conformance with the Durham Regional Official Plan as amended by Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128 2.2 To allow for continuous implementation, the Official Plan Review has been broken into several themes and special projects, each of which will culminate in an Official Plan Amendment to implement the policy changes. The first of such amendments will be brought forward sometime in the Spring 2011. 8-2 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 PAGE 3 2.3 At the time of the approval of the 1996 Official Plan, land use mapping was derived based on the most current and up-to-date mapping available from different agencies. This included mapping of the natural heritage system, such as wetlands, significant valleylands and significant woodlands. Significant wetlands were identified under the land use planning policies of the day, in consultation with the province and the local conservation authorities. The wetland areas were placed within the Environmental Protection Area designation which states that no development is to occur versus other designations which can imply that development can occur, subject to all other applicable policies of the Official Plan. 2.4 Since the mid-1990s, the province has placed a greater significance on the protection of natural heritage features such as wetlands, and through the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, wetland areas have been assessed based on the biological, social, hydrological, and special features of land. Through these evaluations, the Ministry of Natural Resources, in consultation with the local Conservation Authorities, has identified additional Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), including the identification of the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach Wetland Complex (2005) and the Maple Grove Wetland Complex (2004), among others. Once identified, the natural heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement apply and all decisions on planning applications must be consistent with its direction. 2.5 The accuracy of mapping has increased with the advancement of digital data, geographic information systems (GIS), and aerial photography. Therefore, refining the limits of the Environmental Protection Area would result in lands being added, and lands being removed where more accurate data is available. 2.6 The Natural Heritage System mapping (Maps C1, C2, C3 and C4 are included as Attachment 1) within the Clarington Official Plan is automatically updated from time to time as additional information becomes available. The update to these maps does not require a formal amendment process and is authorized by the implementation policies of the Official Plan. In consultation with the local Conservation Authorities, planning staff refer to the up-to-date Natural Heritage System mapping when determining: the proximity of a property or development to a significant feature; and, whether or not an Environmental Impact Study is required to assess the impacts of the proposed development on the identified feature. 2.7 It is the Land Use mapping (Map Al for Clarke and Darlington and Map A2 for the Courtice Urban Area) which does not currently reflect the location of these newly identified PSWs. Therefore, all PSWs identified since 1996 are not represented by the land use designation which reflects the level of protection required. 2.8 The proposed Official Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 2. The exhibits to the amendment illustrate the lands to be added or removed from the Environmental Protection Area. For the purposes of providing a conceptualized Environmental Protection Area, a 30 metre buffer has been added to the wetland feature, recognizing the exact limit would be determined through any prerequisite Environmental Impact Study, without an amendment to the Official Plan. 8-3 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 PAGE 4 3.0 PROVINCIAL POLICIES 3.1 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The 2005 PPS provides policy direction on matters that are of provincial interest, including the protection of PSWs: "2.1.3 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in significant wetlands... " -and- "2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to significant wetlands unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions..." Refining the limits of the Environmental Protection Areas to reflect the location of PSWs and a buffer area of approximately 30 metres is consistent with the PPS. Through the Official Plan Review, additional amendments will be brought forward to ensure consistency with the PPS. 3.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe has been prepared under the Places to Grow Act, 2005, and came into effect on June 16, 2006. The Growth Plan is a framework for implementing Ontario's vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth. Official Plans are required to be in conformity with the Growth Plan. The proposed amendments to the Clarington Official Plan to reflect the location of PSWs will assist in the eventual Growth Plan conformity exercise as the lands to protect will be clearly identified on the Land Use schedules. The majority of the Growth Plan conformity exercise will be undertaken as part of the Growth Management and Intensification components of the Official Plan Review. 3.3 Greenbelt Plan The Greenbelt Plan contains many detailed policies in favour of the protection of the Natural System within the Protected Countryside areas. Much of the rural area in Clarington is within the Protected Countryside area. The proposed amendments to reflect the location of PSWs and buffer area will not fully implement the policies of the Greenbelt Plan at this time. The balance of this exercise will be fully executed through the amendment dealing with the Sustainable and Healthy Communities theme. $-4 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 4.0 OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES PAGE 5 4.1 The Durham Regional Official Plan (DROP) is also in a state of change. The .DROP has been amended to be consistent with the Planning Act amendments, 2005 PPS and the Greenbelt Plan. The decision on the Regional Official Plan Amendment 128 (ROPA 128) issued by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is currently under appeal by several parties, including the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington. Amendment 128 deals with Growth Plan conformity. The proposed PSWs would form part of the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System & Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features. PSWs would be considered a type of "Key Natural Heritage and/or Hydrologic Feature." Development within the feature and within its "vegetative protection zone" is not permitted. 4.2 Within the Clarington Official Plan, the proposed amendments would refine the limits of the Environmental Protection Area to accurately reflect the location of PSWs and a typical buffer area. Environmental Protection Areas (EPAs) are recognized as the most significant components of the Municipality's natural environment. These areas and their ecological functions are to be preserved and protected from the effects of human activity. No development shall be permitted on lands designated Environmental Protection Areas, except low-intensity recreation and uses related to forest, fish and wildlife management or erosion control and stormwater management. The policies recognize that the limits of the EPAs are subject to refinement through required Environmental Impact Studies which would accurately define the limits of the feature itself, and a buffer area which would be maintained in a natural state. The policies within the Natural Environment Section of the Official Plan will continue to apply. Development within 120 metres of an identified PSW can only be considered where an Environmental Impact Study is prepared which satisfactorily addresses the policies of the Official Plan and is subject to the approval of the Municipality of Clarington and the local Conservation Authority. This Study must demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in the loss of wetland functions or wetland area, would not conflict with existing site-specific wetland management practices, and would not create subsequent demand for future development which will negatively impact on existing wetland functions. 5.0 ZONING BY-LAW CONFORMITY 5.1 Generally, the underlying zones on the affected lands would not conform to the Environmental Protection Area designation. As the comprehensive Zoning By-law is updated for the Municipality, the lands would be placed in the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone which would prohibit development in keeping with the Official Plan designation. 8-5 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 PAGE 6 5.2 At such time the zoning by-law update is undertaken, consideration will be given to placing existing conforming uses (i.e. lots of record with a dwelling already constructed on the property) within a special exception zone which would legalize the existing non- conforming use to prevent affected landowners from seeking arezoning/minor variance to make alterations to the property (i.e. an addition to the dwelling, or the construction of an accessory structure). Alternatively, development within the Environmental Protection Zone could only proceed through arezoning/minor variance, and likely be subject to the completion of an Environmental Impact Study. 5.3 The proposed amendment would not prevent agricultural uses currently permitted by the Zoning By-law from continuing. When the Zoning By-law is updated, lands within the Environmental Protection Area designation in the Official Plan would be placed in the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone. The current EP Zone provisions permit normal farm activities provided the site is not altered by grading, excavation and the placement of fill that would change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site. The construction of new buildings or structures is not permitted in the EP Zone and is required to have a minimum 3 metre setback from the EP zone limit. 6.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 6.1 Public notice was given by mail to each individual or group which asked to be included as an interested party to the Official Plan Review process. The public meeting notice pertaining to Official Plan Amendment No. 80 was also placed in the local newspaper and posted to the municipal website. A draft copy of the proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 80 was available for viewing prior to the public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act. 6.2 At the time of writing this report, staff have received ten (10) inquiries relating to the proposed amendments. Seven (7) of the individuals were seeking clarification on the proposed amendment specifically relating to private property. One individual expressed an objection to the Environmental Protection Area limit which now includes a single detached dwelling, while another had concerns about the impacts to their farming operation. A developer in the area questioned the need for a buffer area, and the impacts it would have on developable lands. 7.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 7.1 The proposed amendment has been circulated to staff and agencies for comment, including the local Conservation Authorities and the Regional Planning Department. 7.2 The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) fully supports the initiative to update the limits of the Environmental Protection area in their jurisdiction. 8-6 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 PAGE 7 7.3 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) also supports the initiative and offers the following comments: Within the Hancock Neighbourhood, there may be some areas where previous re-located rare plant species exist beyond the limits of the proposed Environmental Protection (EP) Area -these lands should be added to the designation; The limits of the EP area proximate to Solina Road may be adjusted where it includes existing residential dwellings; and, The limits of the EP area near Townline Road, north of Nash Road, may need to be refined to ensure the 30 metre buffer is included. CLOCA also supports further updates to the EP designation to include other natural features, such as forest blocks, and to reflect the most current floodplain mapping. 7.4 At this time, Planning Staff are awaiting comments from the various circulated staff and agencies. 8.0 STAFF COMMENTS 8.1 The purpose of the Public Meeting is to gather public input in accordance with the Planning Act. 8.2 The nature of the proposed amendments is largely a housekeeping exercise to place the lands identified as PSW areas and an additional 30 metre buffer (approximate) within the Environmental Protection Area designation on the Land Use Schedules of the Official Plan. In certain areas where more accurate information is provided, it is proposed that the Environmental Protection Area be removed and refined. 8.3 To clarify some questions and concerns raised to date, in order to trigger the completion of an Environmental Impact Study, the lands subject to a development application would have to be within 120 metres of an identified significant wetland as shown on Map C, not within 120 metres of the limits of the proposed Environmental Protection Area on the land use schedule which already has incorporated a conceptual 30 metre buffer. 8.4 If the results of an Environmental Impact Study find that a suitable buffer is a distance greater or less than 30 metres, an Official Plan Amendment would not be required to further identify the limits of the EPA. However, in recent years, providing a minimum 30 metre setback to a Provincially Significant Wetland is very typical where an EIS has been prepared. 8.5 The proposed amendment relies largely on consultation with the local Conservation Authorities, who provide the technical and environmental expertise, and the Region of Durham who will be seeking to ensure that all mapping is consistent with regional and provincial direction relating to the protection of natural heritage features. 8-7 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 PAGE 8 8.6 Public concerns relating to the impacts to private property and the importance of environmental protection will also be key considerations throughout the process. 9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 It is recommended that Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. 80 continue to be processed, including the preparation of a subsequent report considering all agency comments and concerns raised at the Public Meeting. Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott Attachments: Attachment 1 -Maps C1, C2, C3 and C4 of the Clarington Official Plan Attachment 2 -Draft Official Plan Amendment No. 80 Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Allan Kirby Althea and Greg Chaffey Amy Burke Angie Darlison Anne Messore Anne Virely Annie Krabi Arlene Hugo Dalby Bert Weigel Bill Cawker Bill Humber Bob Craig Brian Bordignon Bryan DeCunha Bryce Jordan Carol Laing Carolyn Bonta Chris Darling Cindy Ward Clare Werry Cliff Curtis Cora Tonno Craig Murdoch Cynthia Bird Dave Davidson David Lukow David Phalp Debbie Dunham Donald B. Kirkup Doug Robertson Doug Rombough Ed Vanhaverbeke Edward Oegema Eid Attia Elaine Wotten Elizabeth Gillin Elva Reid Frederic Dufault Gillian Bellefontaine Glen Severn Glenn Genge Glenn Weigel Greg Milosh Greg Walsh Greg Wells Hannu Halminen Jacqueline Vaneyk James Bujak Jane Eccles Jason Carrier Jass Gill Jay Sweet Jeff Brooks Jeremy Holkema Jill Vandal Jim Arnott Jim Watson Joe Fracz John Colville John La Chapelle 8-8 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 PAGE 9 John Koke John Stephenson Jose Brito Justin Hawkins Katherine Krizsan Keigh and Lois Worden Ken and Nicky Macdonald Kerry and John Maydem Key Vickery Libby Racansky Lisa Robinson Louis Bertrand Lucy Stocco Mara Samardzic Marianne Wilde Marlene Stacey Mary Lofthouse Michael Hackenberger Mike Domus Nakda Hooframp Nick Coleman Orest Rojik Paul and Jenny Svetec Paul Sobil Peter and Joyce Erb Clarington Older Adult Centre Board Peter Pitino Ramona M. Burgess Richard Szarek Rob Freeman Robert Schickedanz Ronald Armstrong Ruby Ingleton Sandy Little Sharon Dionne Sheila Hall Sherry Robinson Sue Coolahan Templar N. Trinaistich Tim Tufts John P. Sewchuk Jordan Clements Judith and Tony Maxwell Karina Isert Katie Tuma Kelvin Whalen Ken Sherbanowski Kevin Singh Kim Little Linda Gasser Liz Yellowlees Louis Bitonti Luigi D and Don Mastroianni Maralynn Cherry Mark Foley Mary Anne Martin Maurice Luchich Mike Domovich Mike Ricciuto Natalie Boodram Nick Mensink Padre David & Marion Saunders Paul Chetcuti Pete DeJong Peter Campbell Peter M. Petriw R.M. Larocone Richard Neshevich Rita Kostyan Robert Neshevich Roland Weigel Roslyn Hauser Sandra McInnes Kevin and Sandy Shannick Sheila Costanzi Sheila Wynberg Steve Comway Suzanne Lebrecque Terri McCabe Tom Albani Tom Barrie Tom Van Camp Victor Suppan Viola Ashton Walter Frail Wayne Hooey William S. Colville Ministry of Agriculture and Food Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Environment Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal Hydro One Networks Peterborough-Victoria Northumberland Clarington R.C. Separate School Board CMHC Norman Breitner Marion Weber Steven Holliday 8-9 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-11 PAGE 10 Leo Palozzi Historic Downtown Bowmanville Business Improvement Area 8-10 y.., r ~ ~ ~ m Eo 0 U ~ ~ Fw, p o N y d. ~_ ,-. ~ Z ~ ~ 4 Q m z N D z ~~ ~ wK ~ ~ ~ z ar ~ ~ C9 Z aJ rz gc CL w~ Q Z U ~ W Q O p W ~ Q: a- Q ..l p~ U _ O ° ~ a o o a~ a w ~ ~ ~ a0 irW w~ J p~ y Y > 7i aQ FZ K w Q lfJ O ~~ z°r ~~ O z O `L o tO ~ Z Y Z U r 4 ~ S S u..J $ w o a `y ~ o °' ~ o w a ~ a cn ~LL a 3 .~ ~ Oa ~ ~~ t) ~ ~? o z ~ 4 Q ~- m W a K f~ r g Z Z Z W w ~ ~¢ = y. Z ~. ~ rd m L ~ q Y W ~ sn N ~ at ~ ~ Q `~ ga r = o g x I z ~ ~ ® I 1 ; f i ~ 1 ~ :; ~ g-11 F 2 W ° ~ ~ ° ~' ~ ~ o m ^ ~ z W ? U g g z ~~ ~ O ~ ~Z z ~ 'fig ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ° J W ~ ~ ~ 0 Z ° U a ~ o } ~ g < ~z ~ y C z ~~ °° 5 a U r~ U z o ~ m w W o w z z ~ ~ z~ w ~ 7 ~, U Q ~ a~ ~o ff a a m ~ ~ ° ~ O Z LL ~ ~ o~ 3 3 a~~ ¢o YN rcw ~o . ~ Y ~ } ~ ~ ~ < ¢ S ~ Q O g W W ~ ~ C7 ZZ¢ KU O Q ~ _= ~ I~iJ ~rc ~ ~ U I I = ~ I = ~ ~ y ~ C7 ¢m U I J ~ O Oa LL v ~ ~e a a ~ ~ ~ I ~ ® ® ® Z ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ .. I Z i Z 1 i Z 1~ 06'Oa 3NI lNM013NaV70iJOlONi latlO U \tlOa NMOaB OtlOa NOXIN ~j""~~ %~%~~~~~~ - v ~~ r NMOl 3 NOlONIILfdO /~ atl~nHdanw °a y atloa3 la & . , o Ui 0 U K ovoa yintlsoNOl ovoa a3~+v ~ ovoa s3a r q H'i`~OH ,~ ~ ' 1 y o S ~ O ti ~ ovoa y nyy \ _ ~~' ^ , 2 O OyOti J -YybO, end ~ddOy¢ o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ v ! m is ovoa lvNOio3a I ° I = ~,,,. /. ovoa w 7 ~ ~y~ j ~~ 0 0 ro w ~y y' ~ atl~ o ~ / ~ i /I ~ looHOSa y w 8 ,y~v a ~ i ~ \ U OtlOa IOONOS NOINn ~ `. ~ OVOa `tlNlll ' om r~ t ~ / ovoa N3110M ~ \ ~ ~ b ••M a p < K < ` O ~ ' O ` ~ Ov0 NOlSIWHO O r I ~ w ~ o i ~ - K U OvOa d - O131~N3 lC w Q ( ~ C ~ ~ A S ~J o m m g ~ w ~` o oa c9 0 ` \ ~' 3 H000 J `~ l HlaoN otloa 3NIlNM01 ) 133a1s t ~s ovoa is ovoa l~ ~~~ i 3 1lOH I 3laNna t °"%~.~~a~ I Ov0 OlONIHSVM ~Oa 1S3N d C L "` U I ~ ~ - IOa Ol31jN3) 4f OtlOa NN0103a I~ , 1 j ;~i~ L ~ ovoaorcwoNVt i 6 ' 1 atloa NSV3l ~~.W tlOa S301i 8-12 r w 0 LL J .-. ~ ~ Z 7 fN N N z ~ ~r g ~ Z q ~ g 5 o aW ~ n u rc ~iO ¢ z ~ ~ J fl ~~+ N a 4 Q V ~ O Y Y ~' ~ ZLL F- Z 6 ~ Z ~ ° ~- W ~ g ~ Uf W a Z O U Z = V ~ O~ O " ~w ~ K a o . o '~ d °~ `a K 4 x = ~ N N ~ - ~r , ~ N ~ , , ~; ~ ~ , v a t ` a`' z . ~ ~ ' z ~ 3aOW140 avoa ~ -rnrnaao3o y . "' ~,, rnaoa NS~ak` 1. i_ oaoa ~--' R1M '~1N OVOa woa 0 ~ ~ ~r ~ z oa Nosslo 0 ' U f03a r.//n Z y H. f. W Z ~~ 0 N rU' „ '~~ N W ZrL ~~ M U V a 0'"w g J F- o 4 N ?j y 36 11.~ ~ W ~ J W L U s a~ ~ I ~ z Z ~ 7 ~~' ~ ~~ ~ ' Boa 3NIl O1 "/ y' S'tOHOIN avow y~pIT13 u/y//~~ ~I ~~; b 0 ~~1 r - LLL 0 2 LL J ^. ~ !n ~ N W Z ~n `~ ~ W = Z ° 5 Z z ~~ ~ ~ o ai r ~ ~g ~ a > 4 o ~ U 7 ag ~ O rn ~ F rn W ~ °W 5 ~ ~ O o- ~ ~ /r ai rn ¢ ~ z ~ a' u iW ~ Y (~ ~ z ZK : i2 g g = rn tBSi s z ~ a ~ a y r - a¢? w w r V Q~ o_ c..> ~ o ff~ t7 m m ~ r rn ~ a z Q ~= UU ~N ~~ 0. Z W C7 a o O ~ a ~ LL v O g LL ~ ~ O Z ~ ~ _ ~ m ~ ~ o ~» a ~ F , . ~ ~ ~ _ = c~¢rnv ~ Z v ~s~ a v ~ a a ~ I ~ i I J ~ 1 ~ ®~® ~ a ~ z ~ W I 1 z ~ 1~ ~ , I Z i ~ Z 1 . s~ s a,aa ~~~/ / N /s~ ~~ NI~NMOl Sb3 / ~/ y ~/// avoa ., ~ ~ dOS . o 4 K ` ~.` / ~ ~'••. ~ .. j %/// ~ w S O ~ aVOa ~ ~ u I~'' ~ ONVI / ~. ~ j a 5 ~ ~ HOIIHS ~ ~ ~ ~ ; / ~ ~y14 / 1 a ; aaoa ' ~ ~ ~ !'//~ 1 < ~ ~ ' ~ avoa ciao 3H1 ± eL ola N ~• 4 V~ r, _' ~ o " ~ ~Oa 3 IHM / ~ ~ ~' ~ , ~~ ' O Q Q ~i 1 o ~ avoa ~ ~ Q j N3l'lIH ~ C Z Q ~ ~ m N3 ~ WOa % Z avoa CI ~ ; SM3aoNV ' _~ \ '~ y ~ y ~ .. ~+ ~- 1 aYOa vW '~ OVOa ~~AaN3H y/ ~- I ~_ ~ ` o r~ 1 ` ~ ~ avaa ~ avoa a ' , ~ iooHOS X ~ NO1aOW 1LVd / 1 ( w , \ / ~ ii'''''"""yyyy/ ` ~y~~ 1 avoa o ~ ~ ! ~ Y s ` 1 ' slawH avoa i Mar ~ x ~~ ' oy ~ ~ 3 ~" 1 avoa \ \ 1 = avoa NOSMVO avoa A3N000 Aa3M0"I / Oa Sa A SLLlSf AtlMHOIH ~ ~~~ , aV ~ I SLL/SfA OIH aA9SWtl0 ~ o Q ~I ~~Y Y ~ "' O y/.GHy/ „ ~~~ ~~ . ~ ~- ~ v G "w('+s ~ , p N WOa NIIT " O y ' Z O ` I~\\ ' {k1 U ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ W avoa Lsaa avoa y is3s m N z 9 ~„~ o sA J/ ~ ~J+~ f L rc a avoa J as avoa N HOO w 6 . // ° iaoasow y N . ~, ~ ~ . ~'°~ ~ avoa ~ y q~i jj,., U ~~ ,~ 2 O .. i / s, %///{~ ..k Z - N U 2 \ `\ U~ o%K ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ O y U \ VOa NMOaB avoa NOXIN / i y~~ ~~ avoa 3NIlNM013Xav10-NOlONIIaVa /r~^\ /~~" 1, _MOl -NOlaNllaVa Y ~i 8-14 Attachment 2 To Report PSD-030-11 FFICIAL N EW Cass t0 out's Municipality of Clarington Planning Services Department March 2011 8-15 AMENDMENT N0. 80 TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN FILE NO.: COPA 2011-0001 MARCH 14, 2011 PURPOSE: To amend the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington by adjusting the designated Envirotrrriet>~al Protection Areas to include Provincially Significant"Wetlands as identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources in. partnership with the local Conservation Authorities; ~ and fa-' ::remove lands from Environmental Protection ~Are~s where revised information has been received, as illustr~~ed on the attached exhibits. .~ LOCATION: The subject lands are locat °~ ithin the C~urtice Urban Area, the Darlington Rural kArea and the Clarke Rural Area within thelunicipality of Cla~i~g~ton. BASIS: Since the a rowal of the current'±Clarin ton Official Plan in pP _ ~. 9 1996, new aril revised ~~rrt~pping of Provincially Significant V1/etlands has `been provid by the Province to local ~Coriservation Authorities and the Municipality of Clarington. ` As part of defia~led review of certain development :applications, Environmental Impact Studies have also providec~°refir~emts to the limits of significant natural "_ ~~~3 "' heritage ~ feafu~s. As part of the Official Plan Review f °f "~ „ process. this amendment would update the Land Use ~~= :schedules ,~~by providing a more accurate depiction of ~` ~ '" Environ~aental Protection Areas on the affected Land Use Sched~'les. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: ~ ~ ;-t, ..'= The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: .; . _, ~ ~`' (i) By amending Map Al (Clarke) Land Use Clarke Rural Area by removing lands from the Green Space, Hamlet Residential, Waterfront Greenway, Prime Agricultural Area and General Agricultural Area designations and adding those lands to the Environmental Protection Area designation as illustrated on Exhibit "A"; 8-16 (ii) By amending Map Al (Darlington) Land Use Darlington Rural Area by removing lands from the Green Space, Country Residential, Hamlet _Residential, Prime Agricultural Area and General Agricultural Area designations and adding those lands to the Environmental Protection Area designation as illustrated on Exhibit "B"; and (iii) By amending Map A2 Land ,• '°~~ourtice Urban Area by removing lands fro the ""Urban Residential designation and addT ~~~ ,hose lands to the Environmental Prote ' on A designation, and by removing lands fr•Q~n~`=t;~e End' ~_ :~ ental Protection Area designati~c~`~=adding thos ds to the Urban Residential de,~onation as illustrate xhibit "C". IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set fort's he Municipality of Clarington Official Pia , as amendme arding the implementation of the Plan s~l~aggly to this a ~cnent. INTERPRETATION: The provision ial Plan, a h'~= y n shall a ®Municipality of Clarington ~endme `~. egarding the interpretation of to this a endment. 8-17 ----- nnm~u avurv I j onetrv arr,~e ~°h,-O~ ~~CTION AREA ~~~~~ ORM BOUNDARY NATURAL PUBLIC ® CORE AREA ~ SECONDARY SCHOOL URBAN RESIDENTIAL ® NATURAL ~ PUBLIC LINKAGE AREA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WATERFRONT COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL ~~~~~~~ SPECIAL POLICY AREA HAMLET RESIDENTIAL ® GREENWAY DISTRICT PARK ••••••••• SPECIAL STUDY ® RURAL RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ® HAMLET PARK ~ TOURISM NODE UTILITY ~ PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA GOLF COURSE i ~®, N a MAP Al (CLARKE) LAND USE CLARKE RURAL AREA " OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JANUARY 2, 2007 500250 0 500 1,000 1,500 Metres eN EIJCE OrvLV ® - MO MPRfi/h5 "Exhibit."A ", Amendment No.80 To The Municipality of Clarington ®fficial Plan", Map Al (Clarke), Land Use, Clarke Rural Area. MAP Al (DARLINGTON) _ _ ~ URBAN BOUNDARY ~ URBAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DARLINGTON RURAL AREA _____ HAMLET BOUNDARY ~ COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL OFFICIAL PLAN ~~~~~ ORM BOUNDARY ~ HAMLET RESIDENTIAL MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON RURAL ® JANUARY 2, 2oo7 ~ RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER '~CONSOLIMTION IS PROVIDED FO0. CONVENIENCE ONLY REPRESENTS REOUESTEO MODIFICATIONS ANO APPROVALS 500250 0 500 1,000 1,500 Metres ® UTILITY ® NATURAL ~ AGGREGATE .. CORE AREA EXTRACTION AREA ® NATURAL PUBLIC LINKAGE AREA . ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WATERFRONT SEPARATE GREENWAY ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ® COMMUNITY PARK .-..... SPECIAL POLICY AREA ® DISTRICT PARK ~ TOURISM NODE ® HAMLET PARK G1 GOLF COURSE °'Exhibit."B °', Amendment No.~O To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan", Map Al (Darlington), Land Use, Darlington Rural Area. "Exhibit."C", Amendment No.80 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan", Map A2, Land Use, Courtice Urban Area. srrr.:+~as+n~ss~ ~ w y / : ~~FFF!!! SPECIAL s'niDY ~ •~ Nq ~ URBAN BOUNDARY SPEC L s A 5 AREA 5 •1 ® FUTURE URBAN RESIDENTIAL F ~ URBAN RESIDENTIAL ~ • O MEDIUM DENSITY • ••• A• • __ ~ _ _ ~_ RESIDENTIAL M O I O HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1 1 TOWN CENTRE I ~ y ~ ~ COURTICE WEST 1 ® ~ 0 'r § I 1 ,.°''~ ® SHOPPING DISTRICT ~ NEIGHBOURHOOD I M Np g I CENTRE 1 4 O 0 M M ~ 1 1 ~ HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL M1sH ROnD M I ~ PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT AREA O ~ O LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA .•.•~ •y~~•• LILY I _ I O . _.. _ _ cP O '-~1 ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA • SP • ECIAL PO AµEpP _~.. • ~~ O ~ M ® BUSINESS PARK 1 I~ R •• ••1 Q M P ~ ~~y. E M. • UTILITY ENVIRONMENTAL 1 j O ~ PROTECTION AREA O O to O i O GREEN SPACE 1 O M OM WATERFRONT o ~ - GREENWAY I °a ~ COMMUNITY PARK ~ F ® OM ~ F ~ DISTRICT PARK 1 d M ® NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK PUBLIC 1 SECONDARY SCHOOL ~ ~ SEPARATE OM / SECONDARY SCHOOL M O ~ PUBLIC 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ' ~ O O H M ~ ~ ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 O ~~~~ ~ SECONDARY ~~ N CY o 1 j O ~~~~~~~ SPEC AL POLI AREA t NP o / • •••• •• SPECIAL STUDY AREA j GO STATION / / I ~ • r•SPECIAL POLICY AREAD ~•: ~ ~ , ~ ^ Nel 0 1l5 2511 ~0 ]50 i¢s 1 '. LAKE ONTARIO MAP A2 LAND USE COURTICE URBAN AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JANUARY 2, 20W THIS CONSgJDATION IS PROVIDEDFOR CgJVENIENCE ONL AND REPRESENTS REWESiED MOOIPICATIONS PND APPRC 1' ar.~ n Leadin t~e wa REP R T O S Y PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: April 4, 2011 Resolution #: By-law #: Report #: PSD-031-11 File #: C-C-2007-0001 Subject: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DRAFT APPROVAL 1 - 37 KINGSCOURT, BOWMANVILLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report PSD-031-11 be received; 2. THAT the request to extend the lapsing date for the draft approved Plan of Condominium until April 2016 be approved; 3. THAT the by-law authorizing the entering into an Condominium Agreement between the Owner of the lands and the Municipality of Clarington be approved as contained in Attachment 2; and 4. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-031-11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted b f ~~~~f' `~ Reviewed b Y Y Davi J. rome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu Director, Planning Services ~~ Chief Administrative Officer C P/df 24 March 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 8-21 REPORT NO.: PSD-031-11 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: 1.2 Proposal: 1.3 Area: 1.4 Location: 2.0 BACKGROUND 1709599 Ontario Inc. o/a Kingscourt Terrace To extend the lapsing date for the draft approved Plan of Condominium until April, 2016. 0.39 hectares (0.98 acres) 1613 Highway 2 2.1 In 1994 the property owner at that time filed an application for condominium conversion under Section 41 b of the Rental Housing Protection Act for the subject property. The application was approved by Clarington Council in September 1995 subject to a number of conditions. No further action was taken by the Owner, and application for Draft Plan of Condominium was not submitted until 2007. 2.2 On February 7, 2007 the Owner submitted an application for condominium approval, to the Municipality of Clarington, to permit condominium tenure of eighteen 18 existing rental townhouse dwelling units. A public meeting was held Friday June 8, 2007. No one spoke in opposition to, or in support of this application. 2.3 8-22 This townhouse development was constructed in1967 prior to site plan control being implemented in Clarington. ~ . F ;. , ~ :, ~~_ ~ ..~:,~ , t r t~~-;, :> In June 2007, the applicant r ~ ~; „ submitted an application for ~7~ ~ ~ -~f ~ _ ' ~ - ,~~~, ,~: site plan approval as per fir` - .a~ ,'~, 1, -. Condition 1 of the Conditions ~ ~ ' s ~~ of Final Approval for - ~~ r ~,~,.,; Condominium Conversion. Q '~~ ~-~ ~"' `' ~ e"°~'~~ 5 ~ ~ - 4 ~~ `"'"' ~ ` ~ The site plan application was '~'? +'~"~'~~ i4 ~' ys ~" .; ~v ,Y - ~ ~- approved on February 4, • '~~ '-~;~ :,,a ~ -~. t f 9 2008. On February 11, 2008, ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~ "~~ ~ f ,~, after considering report PSD- "~~`~ ~,'t ~ ,~~~,~ ~ ! ~ ~~ ~~ `~ 016-08 Council authorized `` '' ~'~~ " qY~~,' ~ the Director of Planning to ~ ~~ ~ /~ ~ ~ ?~~~ss~ issue draft plan of ~!•rr^ ~ = ~ ` ~~ -~"~~' 4~r~, ,~: ~ ~ f ... } as ,nf i condominium approval. The ~ ti ,.~- ~`~` ~~ ~: ~ ~~ ~~" application was subsequently ~~~~-~~r`~~~...; .. _~.~ 'F. ~~. •~ ~~ =`~ ~~~~ r a ~~~.~. W ~ ` ~ -~ draft approved April 8, 2008, ~ S ,f~ , _ ._~~r ~;~._ ~ s .~ ~•~ with a condition that draft .~ `- ~ '~"~= ~ ~= t ~~~~ approval will lapse after 3 - _ t `'` years. / r _ .~ ~~~~';~~ REPORT NO.: PSD-031-11 PAGE 3 2.4 On March 17, 2011, a request and fee was received for extension of draft approval for a further three (3) years. The Owners have advised that due to the economic environment they will not be proceeding with the project at this time. 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS 3.1 The purpose of this report is to consider whether the conditions of draft approval should lapse on April 8, 2011 as scheduled or be reasonably extended. 3.2 The applicant's request is to extend the draft approval period an additional three (3) years, until April, 2014. As shown on the air photo on the preceding page, the driveway entrance to Kingscourt Terrace is at the termination of Church Street where it intersects with St. George Street. As a condition of approval, the applicant agreed to realign the driveway to access the easterly extension of Church Street, and eliminate the current jog (see Attachment 1). Said extension of Church Street is to occur on the neighbouring land owners property which is subject to a draft approved plan of subdivision, S-C-2005- 001. Last summer the applicant of Kingscourt Terrace commenced discussions to amend the site plan approval and finalize the condominium plan for these lands. However, without the Church Street extension proceeding, the reconfiguration of the driveway cannot occur. In consideration of this and given the current economic conditions the applicant does not see merit in moving forward with finalizing the condominium approval at this time. 3.3 The current servicing restrictions of the Port Darlington Water Pollution Control Plant means that the abutting draft approved lands cannot proceed in the immediate future as a result of a lack of sanitary service capacity. Although construction of the plant expansion is expected to commence as early as next January, additional plant capacity is not expected to be available until at least sometime in 2014. 3.4 Given the current servicing situation in Bowmanville an extension of draft approval for three (3) years, as requested, may not be sufficient to allow for servicing capacity to be available. As a result staff recommend an extension for five (5) years. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, including current capacity constraints in Bowmanville, it is recommended that draft approval be extended for a period of five years, ending April 2016. Furthermore, Staff recommends the passing of a by-law authorizing the execution of an agreement as described by the attached by-law (Attachment 2). Staff Contact: Carlo Pellarin 8-23 REPORT NO.: PSD-031-11 PAGE 4 Attachments: Attachment 1 -Key Map Attachment 2 - By-law Authorizing Subdivision Agreement List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Robert Feldman, President, c/o Rossland Investments Inc. 8-24 Attachment 1 To Report PSD-031-11 k r i 4 a c d W ~ 1 3~V NOSdW6 3ON3~V H0 ~ w, W _ O •L_ • ~I ~~ 133W5MN`/tli Q ~ O L ~ O to C u~ 1 3s 3 Q Q i ~ ~ ~ V ~ Y J ~ is ltl3ewn 3Nw ~ ~ G C ~ HNO5133tl15 Al N1LON 133tl15 A1tl~ O Q a ,d N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~"` ~/ a d ~ ~~ 20 's 2~ ~~ ~~ mod, '~s yJ d ~ tiv ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' dd0?J l~1flO~SJNI~I ~ ^ ^ ^ --- w w ~ i U 2 U 8-25 Attachment 2 To Report PSD-031-11 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2011- being a by-law to authorize entering into an Agreement with the Owner(s) of Plan of Condominium S-C-2007-0001, any Mortgagee who has an interest in the said Lands and the Municipality of Clarington in respect of S-C-2007-0001 WHEREAS the Owner(s) of Plan of Condominium S-C-2007-0001 is developing the Lands municipally known as 1 - 37 Kingscourt which requires an Condominium Agreement; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and seal with the Corporation's seal, a Condominium Agreement between the Owner of Draft Plan of Condominium S-C-2007- 0001. 2. THAT the Mayor and the. Clerk are hereby authorized to accept, on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington, the said conveyance of lands required pursuant to the aforesaid Condominium Agreement. 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 8-26 • ~~ Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, April 4, 2011 Resolution #: Report #: PSD-032-11 File #: PLN 34.15.4 By-law #: Subject: ADDITION TO MUNICIPAL REGISTER OF PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 5658 BETHESDA ROAD AND 7500 HIGHWAY 35/115 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-032-11 be received; 2. THAT the properties identified as 5658 Bethesda Road and 7500 Highway 35/115, be added to the Municipal Register of properties of cultural heritage value or interest; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-032-11 and any delegation be advised of Council's direction. Submitted by: I L/FL/av March 24, 2011 ,Crome, MCIP, RPP of Planning Services Reviewed by: ranklin Wu, ~~ Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 8-27 REPORT NO.: PSD-032-11 PAGE 2 1.0 PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOUCES 1.1 ; In achieving its cultural heritage objectives, the tools that the Municipality has at its disposal are the goals and objectives of the Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement and the Ontario Heritage Act. The Clarington Official Plan sets out the goal of preservation, restoration and utilization of Clarington's heritage resources and the Provincial Policy Statement states that significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 1.2 The Ontario Heritage Act was amended in 2005 to provide municipalities with greater control over demolition of heritage resources along with other matters. 1.3 Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act requires the Municipal Clerk to keep a Register of all properties that have been designated by by-law within the Municipality. The 2005 amendment to the Act permits the Register to include properties that have not been designated but that Council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. Council is to consult with its heritage committee prior to adding a property to the Register or removing a property from the Register. 1.4 If anon-designated property is listed on the Register the owner of the property cannot demolish or remove a building or structure unless they give Council at least 60 days notice in writing of their intentions. The notice is to include such plans and information as Council may require. The 60 day period allows Council to consider whether a demolition permit should be issued or whether the property should be designated. 1.5 The Municipality's Register currently contains properties that have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and non-designated properties which are listed on Attachment 1. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The impact of the Highway 407 on the Municipality's heritage resources has been detailed by MTO's consultant, Unterman McPhail Associates in tables entitled Impact Assessment Tables: Identified Heritage Resources. The Impact Assessment Tables were completed as part of the Environmental Assessment for the highway. The Tables indicate that "highway construction activities may potentially affect cultural heritage resources in a number of ways" and that "the effects may include displacement through removal or demolition". The properties subject to this report have been identified in the Tables for "displacement". 2.2 A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) is recommended in those situations where individual structures will be displaced. A Heritage Impact Assessment of the Recommended Highway Design states that further investigation including the completion of CHERs will be required to determine the heritage value of these properties before recommendations for mitigation can be provided. The heritage resources that lie within the transportation corridor that are significant would be considered for relocation, or for documentation and removal. 8-28 REPORT NO.: PSD-032-11 PAGE 3 2.3 MTO has informed staff that they wilt not be completing CHER's for Clarington's heritage resources until they are instructed to proceed with phase two of the highway project. 3.0 ADDITIONS TO MUNICIPAL REGISTER 3.1 In 2009 the Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC) identified eight built heritage resources that had been listed for displacement in the Impact Assessment Tables for the Highway 407 Project. They include: • 1909 Bloor Street • 5415 Solina Road • 5681 Acres Road • 5531 Bethesda Road • 5658 Bethesda Road • 7500 Highway 35/115 • 4825 Rundle Road • 2064 Taunton Road 3.2 Two of the buildings, 1909 Bloor Street and 5415 Solina Road, are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act so any proposal to demolish or remove these buildings would be reviewed by Council. 3.3 The remaining six buildings are not designated but are on the inventory list. The CHC determined that placing these six buildings on the Municipal Register of non-designated properties would aid in informing the Ministry of Transportation that these buildings have value to the community and should not be demolished. 3.4 The CHC's comments were provided to Council on July 13th, 2009 through Planning Services Report PSD-075-09. The report noted that the 407 Project Team is aware of the heritage resources affected by the route and is working towards a resolution for each property. The majority of these properties were at that time in private ownership. It was recommended that as the properties are acquired by MTO that they be added to the Municipal Register. Council felt that this would alleviate any undue additional duress for the private property owners, since the acquisition of their lands by MTO for the highway was already a concern. 3.5 MTO owned two properties that were identified in the Tables for displacement, 5531 Bethesda Road and 5681 Acres Road. Council approved adding them to the Municipal Register as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest through report PSD-090-09. 3.6 MTO have confirmed that a further two properties that have been noted for displacement, 5658 Bethesda Road and 7500 Highway 35/115, have now been acquired. These houses have been identified in the inventory of cultural heritage 8-29 REPORT NO.: PSD-032-11 PAGE 4 resources as buildings of Primary heritage value. Attachment 2 and 3 indicates the location of the properties and houses in relation to the route of the 407. 7500 Highway 35/115 5658 Bethesda Road 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The Heritage Impact Assessment for the 407 Highway states that CHERs will be completed before a recommendation can be made for building relocation. The ideal situation is for the buildings to be kept on site and reused as part of the Highway project. It is acknowledged that this may not be possible. Buildings that have to be removed should be relocated rather than demolished, wherever possible. 4.2 The Ontario Heritage Act requires a property owner to notify Council of their intention to demolish or remove anon-designated property that is on the Municipal Register. MTO have informed Staff that they are not bound by the requirements under the Municipal Register as they are part of the Province. Nevertheless, placing 5658 Bethesda Road and 7500 Highway 35/115 on the Register will reaffirm to the Ministry the significance of these built heritage resources. Upon Council's approval, MTO's heritage consultant will be provided with a copy of Council's resolution which can be incorporated into the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report as support for relocation of the buildings rather than demolition. 4.3 The final two properties on the list of eight that have been identified for displacement in the Impact Assessment Tables , 2064 Taunton Road and 4825 Rundle Road, remain in private ownership at this time. Once they are acquired by MTO a report will be brought .forward to Council recommending that these structures be placed on the Municipal Register as non-designated properties of cultural heritage value or interest. Staff Contact: Isabel Little Attachments: Attachment 1 -Municipal Register of Non-designated Properties Attachment 2 - 5658 Bethesda Road Attachment 3 - 7500 Highway 35/115 8-30 REPORT NO.: PSD-032-11 List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Ontario Heritage Trust Highway 407 Project Team Unterman McPhail Associates Archeological Services Inc. CHC Ministry of Culture Clarington ACO PAGE 5 8-31 Attachment 1 To Report PSD-032-11 NON-DESIGNATED BUILDINGS ON THE .MUNICIPAL REGISTER.OF PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST MUNICIPAL'ADDRESS STRUCTURE Triple Dorm Boys Training School /POW Camp Kiwanis House 2020 Lambs Road, Bowmanville Infirmary Dining Hall Natatorium Jury House Commercial /Residential 19'/z - 23 King Street West, Bowmanville Building Commercial /Residential 33 King Street West, Bowmanville Building 106 Beaver Street South, Newcastle Village Cement Block House 107 Beaver Street South, Newcastle Village Cement Block House 5531 Bethesda Road, Darlington Township Stone House 5681 Acres Road, Darlington Township Stone House 15 King Avenue West, Newcastle Village Commercial Building 4 and 10 King Avenue East Commercial Building 7755 Old Scugog Road, Enniskillen Accessory building 8-32 Attachment 2 To Report PSD-032-11 z~ m ~~ 0 z voa vasaH~a o. H W U: O U -- - - pp G O ~ ~ H 2 H 8-33 Attachment 3 To Report PSD-03?_-11 8-34 Leading the Woy ~~~~°n REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: April 4, 2011 Resolution #: By-law #: N/A Report #: PSD-033-11 File #: PLN 33.3.10 Subject: DURHAM/YORK RESIDUAL WASTE PROJECT INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report PSD-033-11 be received; 2. THAT a copy of Report PSD-033-11 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the Region of York, and the Ministry of Environment; 3. THAT Attachment 2 the revised terms of reference for the EFW Waste Management Advisory Committee be endorsed as Clarington's comments and suggestions for the terms of reference; and 4. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-033-11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: David y.~~rome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services i~ r~`~ d by: nklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer FUsn/df 28 March 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 8-35 REPORT NO.: PSD-033-11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 1.1 At the February 3, 2011 meeting Regional staff presented 2011-J-15 to the Joint Finance and Administration and Works Committee. One of the recommendations of the report was that the terms of reference for the Integrated Waste Management Committee (Attachment 1) be forwarded to the Municipality of Clarington for input prior to consideration by Regional Council. Report 2011-J-15 was tabled; however, Regional and local staff met with regard to the terms of reference to discuss the issues and work towards an agreed upon terms of reference. 2.0 ISSUES WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE 2.1 Clarington Staff have suggested a number of changes to the terms of reference including: • clarify the mandate and purpose of this committee, • membership composition (e.g. who would make appointments), • the reporting relationship, • length of appointments to the committee, • election of the committee officers, • timing of the publication of the draft minutes, and • the name of the committee. 2.2 Attachment 2 to this report is a revised terms of reference that Regional Staff and Clarington Staff are for the most part in agreement on. 2.3 The one item of contention between the Regional and local staff is the appropriate name for the committee, Clarington is suggesting EFW-WMAC which would be Energy From Waste -Waste Management Advisory Committee. Clarington staff believe it is important to relate the committee and its mandate to the EFW and not just as a committee to address all manner of issues related to the waste management system operated by the Region. 3.0 REPRESENTATION ON EFW-WMAC 3.1 Once the terms of reference for the committee are approved by Regional Council, Clarington will advertise and appoint the public members that will represent Clarington on this Committee. In addition to the public members, Clarington Ward 1 local and regional Councillors are non-voting members as is a Clarington Staff representative. 3.2 At this time, it can be assumed that the staff representative will either be the Manager or Senior Planner for the Special Projects Branch in Planning Services. However, given the mandate of the committee and the items that may be brought forward, other staff members from Operations and/or Engineering Services may be more 8-36 REPORT NO.: PSD-033-11 PAGE 3 appropriate, this can be evaluated and adjusted over time. As the Staff position is a non-voting member it does not require formal appointment by Council. 4.0 OTHER EFW RELATED COMMITTEES 4.1 The EA Approval for the EFW facility contained a number of requirements with regard to Committees and working groups. Some of these working groups will be staff driven, the meetings would be held during the day and not be open to the public. For instance, staff have been asked to sit on the Ambient Air Monitoring and Report Plan Working Group which will be developing the plan for monitoring and reporting. The actual monitoring and reporting is part of the role of the EFWAC. 4.2 The Site Plan application requires a number of meetings, again they are staff driven, held during the day and not open to the public. A number of meetings have taken place and will continue to until work on details of the site plan are satisfactory. When the plans have reached a stage of finalization they will be presented to Council. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The clarification to the mandate and purpose of the EFW-WMAC committee has been agreed to by Regional and local staff. The draft in Attachment 2 is more closely aligned with the purpose, as envisioned in the Host Community Agreement. 5.2 The revised terms of reference (Attachment 2) are similar to the terms of reference for the previous EFW Site Liaison Committee, which it is intended to replace, with regard to reporting relationship and membership composition. 5.3 The other revisions to the terms of reference will assist with the functioning of the committee. 5.4 Staff are recommending Council adopt the terms of reference with the understanding that Regional Council has yet to adopt the terms of reference and is the ultimate approval agency for the terms of reference. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid Attachments: Attachment 1: IWMC terms of reference from 2011-J-15 Attachment 2: Revised EFW-WMAC Terms of Reference Attachment 3: Report 2009-COW-01 (referred to in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2) List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Mirka Januszkiewicz -EFW Project Team Kerry Meydam Gavin Battarino, Ministry of the Environment Doug Anderson Wendy Bracken Linda Gasser Tracey Ali 8-37 Attachment 1 To Report PSD-033-11 Integrated Waste Management Committee Terms of Reference 1. 2. Purpose The Integrated Waste Management Committee (IWMC) is established to provide a forum for public and other stakeholders to monitor, review and liaise with the Regional Municipality of Durham (Durham) on the Integrated Waste Management System with a focus on Energy from Waste (EFW). The IWMC will satisfy the HCA and the Medical Officer of Health's report 2009-COW-01 obligations. Integrated Waste is a holistic approach to managing and understanding all materials in the waste stream and their place in the four R's regime: reduce, reuse, recycle, 'and recover. Mandate The IWMC will act in an advisory role to the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee on issues or concerns which arise with waste diversion, `waste management and environmental performance and monitoring of the EFW Facility, including the design, construction and operational phases, and other related strategic waste diversion and management issues. The IWMC will be comprised of volunteers recommended by the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee, reporting to the Works Committee and appointed by Regional Council in accordance with the following Terms of Reference. Scope of Activities The issues. that the IWMC may.discuss and address information relevant to Durham's waste diversion programs, EFW Facility and disposal include, but are not limited to: a) Review, discuss and improve IWMC's understanding of the environmental performance of the waste diversion, waste management and EFW facilities, and the requirements which govern them. b) Review, discuss, summarize and/or provide opinions about available information, including that pertaining to diversion objectives, environmental surveillance programs, independent environmental testing, public reporting of environmental surveillance data, environmental performance of the EFW Facility, and other related strategic waste management issues.. . 8-38 ~ ~ ~ c) Identify and assess/study specific issues and concerns which may be related to or associated with the EFW or other waste management facilities, which are referred to the IWMC by the public, local governments, health .professionals, etc., or otherwise comes to the IWMC's attention and to relay findings to the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee. d) Assist with the development and implementation of community outreach activities which support the growth and environmental awareness and appreciation in Durham in co-operation with other organizations where appropriate. This may include holding public information sessions, educational workshops and participating in some community events. e) Review and discuss matters of public interest in Solid Waste Management and advice about emerging issues that may be associated with environmental and human health. f) Facilitate communication between stakeholders,. and the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee. g) Provide forum for the residents to bring their concerns/questions or suggestions pertaining to the waste. diversion programs and waste management facilities 3. Composition The IWMC will be comprised of volunteers selected at large from Durham reporting to the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee in accordance with the following Terms of Reference, until its dissolution. The IWMC will be comprised of nine members. Members shall not hold elected office (municipal; provincial or federal) and will be selected from Durham. All members are regarded as individuals and do not represent their respective employers or advocacy group in their capacity as an IWMC member. 4. Membership Membership shall consist of nine (9) residents from Durham. The IWMC must notify the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee of the need to seek replacement members. Members will be replaced in accordance with membership selection process outlined in Section 5 and/or 6 of these Terms of Reference. Non-attendance forthree consecutive meetings will be considered grounds for replacement. IWMC Drafr Terms of Reference ~ ~ .~ Page 2 of 6 8-39 Invitations to attend IWMC meetings wilt be provided to the following: • Staff representative from Durham's Works Department • .Staff representative from Durham's Health. Department • Staff representative from the Municipality of Clarington • Staff representative from the Ministry of the Environment • Senior staff representative of the Facility's DBO contractor and operator 5. Call for Membership Durham will advertise the opportunity to participate in the IWMC using local newspaper.advertisement within boundary of Durham. Responses will be evaluated by Durham's senior Waste Management staff and recommended for appointment by Durham's Works Committee and Durham Regional Council. 6. Eligibility Criteria/Evaluation Interested residents from Durham must provide a detailed resume with a covering letter outlining their interest and their qualifications in being appointed on this Committee in addition to an essay of no more than 500 words as to why they should be selected for membership, and detailing.theirkvowledge of the project. . Previous participation or experience with committees/working groups will be considered an asset. Every potential appointee must disclose any obligation, commitment, relationship or interest that could conflict or may be perceived to conflict with his or her duties to or interests of the IWMC to which the potential appointee is seeking appointment. A conflict of interest could arise in relation to personal matters including: • .Directorships or other employment. • Interests in business enterprises or professional practices. • Share ownership. • Existing professional or personal associations. • Professional associations or relationships with other organizations. • Personal associations with other groups or organizations, or family relationships. IWMC Draft Terms of Reference Page 3 of 6 8-40 ~ ~ 2 7. Officers One Chair to be appointed by the Committee within the first quarter. One Vice Chair to be appointed by the Committee within the first quarter. If a vacancy of any of the-key roles occurs, a replacement will be appointed by the Committee. Roles Chair • Shall manage and provide leadership. • Establish and maintain a positive meeting environment. • Make presentations as requested. • Co-ordinate any exchange of information (advise, request for information, etc.) through the Waste Management Committee up to the Works Committee. Vice Chair • Shall play. role of chair in his/her absence. Durham Staff Liaison • .Shall prepare al! meeting agendas, take minutes and provide to all members one week prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. • Shall keep a current and accurate statement of all expenses. • Shall advertise each meeting in Durham area newspapers and update the website by posting approved minutes, annual reports and any other important meeting correspondence. 8. Support Services The Waste Management division of Durham's Works Department will appoint a staff liaison to the IWMC to provide administrative, procedural and technical support to the IWMC. The liaison will co-ordinate all requests for advice from the IWMC through meeting agendas with Works Committee and/or Joint Works Committees. IWMC Drafr Terms of Reference Page 4 of 6 ,~ ,~ 3 8-41 An annual budget of $20,000 will be administered to cover operational expenses of the Committee. - IWMC members will be reimbursed for mileage expenses for attendance at IWMC meetings upon submission of an expense sheet. Any other funding requests must be submitted to the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee for consideration. Durham will provide space on its website to post information such as meeting minutes and other information which is deemed important. Upon request, the representatives of the Regions, Contractors and governmental/regulatory bodies shall ensure that all studies and other information relevant to the IWMC's mandate are made available to the IWMC. 9. Meetings/Resolutions The IWMC shall meet quarterly throughout the year and run concurrently with Durham Regional Council. Meeting dates must be determined such that they are synchronized with other committees. The meeting location may be subject to change once the EFW Facility is operational and providing space is available. The IWMC will establish a meeting schedule at its inaugural meeting. The IWMC shall provide the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee with a meeting schedule once times and dates have been established. The Committee may choose to adjust the schedule, however, must ensure that one meeting will be held per quarter. Additional meetings may be held at the request of the IWMC Chair. All meetings will be advertised and any changes to the dates must be published two weeks in advance of the proposed meeting. All meetings will be open to the public and are subject to the Regional Procedural By-law # 20-2009. All decisions made by the IWMC will be based on a majority vote and a quorum must consist of 50 per cent plus one of the members. 10. Delegations to Meetings Any person wishing to appear as a delegate to the IWMC must submit a written request two weeks prior to the IWMC staff liaison advising of the topic on which they wish to speak to be included in the agenda. The staff liaison will forward information to the IWMC Chair. The Chair may determine if the delegation is relevant or ask the members to vote to hear or refuse a delegation which is considered non-relevant. Materials presented for any delegation must be provided one week beforehand. 8 - 4 2/WMC Drag Terms of Reference ~ ~ ~ Page 5 of 6 11. Minutes and Agendas Minutes from any prior IWMC meeting will be reviewed and approved at the subsequent meeting. Agendas should be prepared and amended in advance of upcoming meetings to enable input from other members. Once the minutes have been reviewed and approved by the members, they should be forwarded to the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee and posted on the designated website for public information. Minutes will be received as correspondence at the Durham Works Committee. 12. Annual Reports An annual report summarizing the activities completed in the previous year shall be prepared by the IWMC and the staff liaison and forwarded to the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee. The report should include any suggested revisions to the Terms of Reference. The Chair of the IWMC will present their annual report, and any additional reports as requested to the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee. An annual review of the IWMC will be completed by the Joint Regions-Contractor Committee to determine the effectiveness of the Committee and ensure continued improvement. 13. IWMC Dissolution The Committee can be dissolved. at any time by the members in recognition that the requirements- of Durham Report 2009-COW-01 and Host Community Agreement have been fulfilled and there is no need to continue or upon the decommissioning of the Facility. IWMC Drag Terms of Reference Page 6 of 6 ~ ,~ J . 8-43 Attachment 2 To Report PSD-033-11 EFW-Waste Management Advisory. Committee Terms of Reference 1. Purpose The EFW-Waste Management Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC) is established to provide a forum for public and other stakeholders to monitor, review and liaise with the Regional Municipality of Durham (Durham),on the Energy from Waste (EFW) facility including the how the waste is being sorted prior to arriving on-site. The success of the EFW facility will depend on the diversion measures and waste separation (waste management) that happens at the transfer stations and curb-side. The EFW-WMAC is being established to satisfy the Host Community Agreement (HCA) with the Municipality of Clarington and the Medical Officer of Health's Report 2009-COW-01 obligations (attached). Mandate The EFW-WMAC will act in an advisory role to the Durham Works Committee on issues or concerns which arise with. waste diversion, waste management, environmental performance `and monitoring of the EFW Facility, including the construction and operational phases. The EFW-WMAC will be comprised of volunteers from the Region of Durham appointed. by Regional Council and Clarington Council in accordance with the following Terms of Reference. 2. Scope of Activities The scope of activities that the EFW-WMAC may undertake include, but are not limited to: a) Review, discuss and improve understanding of waste diversion and management that occurs before the waste arrives at the EFW facility. b) Review, discuss, summarize and/or provide opinions about available information, environmental surveillance programs, independent environmental testing, public reporting of environmental surveillance data, environmental performance for the EFW facility (as outlined in the Medical Officer of Health's Report 2009-COW-01). c) Identify, assess and study specific issues/concerns which may be related to or associated with the EFW facility or feeder waste management 8-44 system, including issues referred to the EFW-WMAC by the public, local governments, health professionals, etc., or that otherwise come to the EFW-WMAC's attention and to relay findings to the Works Committee. d) Advise on the development and implementation of community outreach activities which support the growth and environmental awareness and appreciation in Durham in co-operation with other organizations where appropriate. This may include public information sessions, educational workshops and participating in some community events. e) Review and discuss matters of public interest regarding the EFW facility and its processes, policies and operation. Advise on emerging issues that may be associated with environmental and human health. f) Facilitate communication between stakeholders. g) Provide a forum for the residents to bring their concerns/questions or suggestions pertaining to the EFW facility. 3. Composition The EFW-WMAC will be comprised of volunteers selected at large from Durham in accordance with these Terms of Reference. The EFW-WMAC will be comprised of nine members. Members shall not hold elected office (municipal, provincial or federal). All members. are regarded as individuals and do not represent their respective employers or advocacy group in their capacity as an EFW-WMAC member. Members will be appointed fora two (2) year term and can be for a maximum of three (3) consecutive terms. Appointments will be staggered to provide continuity for the committee. 4. Membership Membership shall consist of nine (9) residents from Durham. Five (5) residents will be appointed by Durham Regional Council. Four (4) residents will be appointed by Clarington Council The EFW-WMAC will notify the Works Committee or Clarington, as the case may be, of the need to seek replacement members. Members will be replaced in accordance with membership selection process outlined in Section 5 and 6 of these Terms of Reference. EFW-MWAC Draft Terms of Reference Page 2 of 7 8-45 Non-attendance for three consecutive meetings will be considered grounds for replacement. Invitations to attend EFW-WMAC meetings will be provided to the following non-voting members: • Staff representative from Durham's Works Department • Staff representative from Durham's Health Department • Staff representative from York Region • Staff representative from the Municipality of Clarington • Staff representative from the Ministry of the Environment • Senior staff representative of the Facility's DBO contractor and operator • The Ward 1 local and regional members of Clarington Council 5. Call for Membership Durham will advertise the opportunity to participate in the EFW-WMAC using local newspaper(s) within the boundary of Durham. Responses will be evaluated by Durham's Senior Waste Management staff and recommended for appointment by Durham's Works Committee and Durham Regional Council for five (5) members. Clarington will advertise the opportunity to participate in the EFW-WMAC as a representative of Clarington, using Clarington's process for committee appointments for- four (4) :members.. 6. Eligibility Criteria/Evaluation Lnterested residents from Durham must provide a detailed resume with a covering letter outlining their interest and their qualifications in being appointed on this Committee. The submission of additional information on why they should be selected for membership, detailing their knowledge of the EFW facility and the Environmental Assessment process and project will be considered. Previous participation or experience with committees/working groups will be considered an asset. Every potential appointee must disclose any obligation, commitment, relationship or interest that could conflict or may be perceived to conflict with his or her duties as part of the EFW-WMAC. A conflict of interest could arise in relation to personal matters including: • Directorships or other employment. EFW-MWAC Drag Terms of Reference Page 3 of 7 8-46 • Interests in business enterprises or professional practices. • Share ownership. • Existing professional or personal associations. • Professional associations or relationships with other organizations. • Personal associations with other groups or organizations, or family relationships. 7. Officers The Chair will be elected by the Committee and serve for a two (2) year term. The Vice Chair will be elected by the Committee and serve for a two (2) year term. If a vacancy of any of the key roles occurs, a replacement will be elected by the Committee. Chair • Shall manage and provide leadership to the committee. • Shall Chair meetings, maintaining order, while allowing for discussion and input from committee members and staff representatives. • Shall establish and maintain a positive meeting environment. • Shall make presentations as requested, including at least one presentation annually to Clarington Council and Durham Council. • Shall co-ordinate any exchange of information (advise, request for information; etc.) through the EFW-WMAC to the Works Committee. Vice Chair • Shall act on behalf of Chair in his/her absence. Durham Staff Liaison • Shall prepare all meeting agendas and take minutes. • Shall keep a current and accurate statement of all expenses. • Shall advertise each meeting in Durham area newspapers and update the website by posting minutes, annual reports and any other important meeting correspondence. EFW-MWAC Draft Terms of Reference Page 4 of 7 8-47 8. Support Services The Waste Management division of Durham's Works Department will appoint a staff liaison to the EFW-WMAC to provide administrative, procedural and technical support to the EFW-WMAC. The staff liaison will co-ordinate all requests for advice from'the EFW-WMAC through meeting agendas with Works Committee and/or Joint Works Committees. An annual budget of $20,000 will be administered to cover operational expenses of the Committee. EFW-WMAC members will be reimbursed for mileage expenses for attendance at EFW-WMAC meetings upon submission'of an expense sheet.: Any other funding requests must be submitted, in advance to the Durham Works Department for consideration. Durham will provide space on its website to post information such as meeting minutes and other relevant information. Upon request, the representatives of the Regions, Contractors and governmental/regulatory bodies shall ensure that all studies and other information relevant to the commttee'smandate are made available to the EFW- WMAC. 9. Meetings/Resolutions The EFW-WMAC shall meet quarterly throughout the year. Meeting dates must be determined such that they are synchronized with other committees. The meeting location maybe subject to change once the EFW Facility is operational Nand providing space is available. The EFW-WMAC will establish a meeting schedule at its inaugural meeting. The Committee may choose to adjust the schedule, however, must ensure that one meeting will be held per quarter. Additional meetings may be held at the request of the EFW-WMAC Chair. All meetings will be advertised and any changes to the dates must be published two weeks in advance of the proposed meeting. - All meetings will be open to the public. All decisions made by the EFW-WMAC will be based on a majority vote. Quorum will be established by 50 per cent plus one of the members. EFW-MWAC Draft Terms of Reference Page 5 of 7 8-48 10. Delegations to Meetings Any person wishing to appear as a delegate to the EFW-WMAC must submit a written request two weeks prior to the EFW-WMAC- staff liaison advising of the topic on which they wish to speak for inclusion in the agenda. The staff liaison will forward information to the EFW-WMAC Chair. The Chair will seek input from the committee, as to whether a delegation should be heard, if the relevance of the delegation appears to be outside the mandate of the committee. Materials to be presented by a delegate shall be provided one week in advance of the meeting. 11. Minutes and Agendas Agendas should be prepared and circulated :one week in advance of upcoming meetings. Following the meeting, minutes will be circulated. by a-mail. Members will have a specified time period to comment. The minutes will then be submitted as "final draft" to the Works Committee and posted on the Regional website. The minutes will be adopted at the next meeting of the committee. The "final draft" minutes will be received as correspondence at the Durham Works Committee. 12. Annual Reports An annual report summarizing the activities of the previous year shall be prepared by the EFW-WMAC and the staff liaison and forwarded to the Works Committee and Clarington Council. The report should include any suggested revisions to the Terms of Reference. The Chair of the EFW-WMAC will present their annual report, and any additional reports as requested to the Works Committee/Regional Council and to Clarington Council An annual review of the EFW-WMAC will be completed by the Works Committee to determine the effectiveness of the EFW-WMAC and ensure continued improvement. Clarington will be consulted on any changes to the terms of reference. EFW-MWAC Draft Terms of Reference Page 6 of 7 8-49 13. EFW-WMAC Dissolution The Committee can be dissolved at any time, by Regional Council, in consultation with Clarington Council and the members providing that the requirements of Durham Report 2009-COW-01 and Host Community Agreement have been fulfilled or upon the decommissioning of the Facility. EFW-MWAC Draft Terms of Reference Page 7 of 7 8-50 ATTACHMENT # 3 TO REPORT # PS_=.~ ~ Report To: Chair R. Anderson- and Members Committee of the Whole Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Date: June 16, 2009 SUBJECT: EFW Risk Assessment and Environmental Surveillance RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee of the Whole recommends to the Regional Council that: a) The final Site Specific Human Health Risk Assessment (SSHHRA) for the proposed 140,000 tonnes EFW facility is accepted and submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for its review, if and when the EFW environmental .assessment is approved, subject to it being in concordance with the caveats expressed in Appendix D of this report; b) That if the EFW environmental assessment is approved and the proposed EFW facility is constructed, once operational, . an environmental surveillance program is implemented in accordance with all applicable legislation, policies, guidelines, and instruments and the following guiding principles: i. That continuous and periodic stack testing of chemical emissions, including dioxins and furans, that meet or exceed the more stringent of the Ontario Guidelines A-7 and EU Directive chemical emissions standards forms the basis of environmental surveillance in accordance with the International Best Practices Review, ii. That stack testing be supplemented by independent ambient air and soil testing for a minimum of three years at which time its effectiveness will be evaluated, iii. That independent testing of flora and fauna be considered if in-stack, ambient air and soil test results regularly exceed levels predicted by the SSHHRA, iv. That stack testing not be supplemented by human biomonitoring, v. That the environmental surveillance results are communicated to the public in as an accessible, accurate, open, timely, transparent, and understandable a manner as possible, o., 8-51 Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Page No: 2 vi. That a Durham waste diversion and management advisory committee, or similar advisory group, which is appointed by and is accountable to the Regional Council, is in place to act as a forum, for, and comprises Cfarington and Durham residents and representatives from Cfarington, the EFW facility, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), and the Region of Durham to assess, monitor, review, and advise the Region on the effectiveness of the environmental surveillance program, independent environmental testing, the quality of public reporting of environmental surveillance data, the environmental performance of the facility, and other related strategic waste diversion and management issues, vii. That the Health Department is consulted by the MOE before it finalizes its requirements for the Region's environmental .surveillance program; c) That the Region continues to pursue the goal of 70% waste diversion and to advocate for amendments to the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 to be enacted and implemented; d) That the Region adequately supports the environmenta! surveillance program, independent environmental testing, the public reporting of environmental surveillance data, and the work of the proposed Durham waste diversion and management advisory committee; e) That the Minister of the Environment, Durham's MPPs and municipalities, Joint Waste Management Group, Site Liaison Committee, and the Regional Municipality of York are so advised. REPORT: A. BACKGROUND 1. The Health Department first became involved in the EFW environmental assessment (EA) on June 20, 2007, when the .Regional Council requested that the Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health (MOH) comment on the Durham/York Generic Human Health Risk Assessment (GHHRA) and review the health-related chapters of the Halton EFW Business Case. 2. Owing to the Health Department's limited in-house experience and expertise regarding this matter, the MOH commissioned Dr. Lesbia Smith, a well- recognized expert in occupational and environmental health, to review the Halton 4a Report, review the GHHRA, and provide advice on environmental surveillance. 8-52 ,~ oQ Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Page No: 3 3. Dr. Smith's main conclusions are summarized in Report #2007-MOH-20 and the Executive Summary of her report to the MOH (Appendices A & B). The key conclusions with respect to this report are as follows: In essence, the Halton 4a Report concluded that EFW facilities using modern (thermal) methods and pollution control technology are not expected to pose a significant risk to the public. In addition, the Report stated that any new EFW facility should be subject to a site specific risk assessment to identify local issues and ensure that it will not pose a risk to the public. • The current epidemiologic literature (2000-2007) is inconclusive and does not demonstrate one way or another that modern incinerators have associated health effects on the people living around them. This conclusion is not materially different from the inference made in the Halton 4a Report. Risk assessment is the only procedure that can produce quantitative estimates of predicted health effects. The GHHRA was properly carried out. The methods are clearly explained, are reproducible and err on the side of health protection or "conservatism". Any future site specific risk assessment should apply upset conditions, if situations with upset conditions are relevant to the EFW facility. • Epidemiology, risk assessment and biological monitoring assist regulatory and public health agencies and improve public understanding of human health and the environment. Because each method can have limits and challenges, a combination best serves public health. • Environmental quality oversight and health surveillance can promote engagement of communities with industry, regulatory anal public health agencies and can be considered part of a responsible .program for environmental monitoring. 4. In accordance with additional directions the MOH received from the Regional Council to ensure an independent peer. review of the site specific human health risk assessment (SSHHRA) and to provide advice on environmental surveillance, Dr. Smith was also retained by the MOH to provide him with advice with respect to the SSHHRA for the proposed 140,000 tonnes EFW facility and the international environmental surveillance best practices review, both of which are discussed below. 8-53 Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Page No: 4 B. SITE SPECIFIC HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (SSHHRA) 5. The SSHHRA conducted by Jacques Whitford (JW) used the following standard framework: problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard assessment, and risk characterization. Appendix C is SSHHRA's draft Executive Summary. Overall, the results of the SSHHRA indicate that it is not expec#ed that the proposed EFW will lead to any adverse health risks to local residents, farmers or other receptors in the local risk assessment study area. 6. The SSHHRA was peer reviewed by Dr. Smith and her associate, Mr. Ross Wilson, an experienced risk assessor and certified toxicologist. Appendix D is their report. !n .summary, they support the findings of the JW SSHHRA, consider the methodology to be sound, and conclude that the proposed EFW facility should not pose unacceptable risks to persons living in the vicinity of the site. C. ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE 7. Environmental surveillance was explored in far more depth in the report "Review of International Best Practices of Environmental Surveillance for Energy-From-Waste Facilities" (Best Practices Review). The focus of this study was to review environmental surveillance programs at similar facilities around the world and to recommend an appropriate level of environmental surveillance for the proposed EFW facility. 8. Appendix E is the report's Executive Summary. In essence, the JW concluded that the most appropriate and scientifically justified option for environmental surveillance of the proposed Durham/York EFW facility would involve continuous and periodic stack testing of chemical emissions (Option 1). This option was found to be the most prevalent method of ensuring public and environmental health protection in Canada, the EU, and the USA. To ensure added protection, JW supported Regional Council's decision to adopt the more stringent of the Ontario Guideline A-7 and EU Directive chemical emissions standards and to implement an in-stack dioxins and furans sampling technology. These measures go beyond any requirements that would be derived from the JW's review. 9. Dr. Smith conducted an independent peer review of this study. Her advice to the MOH is found in Report #2009-~J-17 (Appendix F). In essence, Dr. Smith agreed with the JW's conclusion that Option 1 is optimal and derives from the study. In her opinion, the community living outside the point of impingement and the public-at-large would not be at risk from the public health perspective if this surveillance option is chosen. Finally, Council's decision to adopt the more stringent of .Guideline A-7 and EU Directive chemical emissions standards and to implement an in-stack dioxins and furans sampling 8-54 ,~ an Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Page No: 5 technology is concordant with a highly protective approach to health and the environment in Durham Region. 10. Both Dr. Smith and JW recommend that an independent environmenta! oversight committee be struck to ensure public participation in the environmental surveillance program and to evaluate its efficacy in protecting public and environmental health. D. WASTE DIVERSION 11. During the EFW EA public consultation, considerable attention has focused on waste diversion and the concepts of "zero waste" and "extended producer responsibility." This has also been an area of intense importance, focus and activity by the Region of Durham and Province of Ontario. 12. For example, locally, on January 23, 2008, .the Regional Council passed a resolution that directed the Region of Durham to aggressively pursue at least a 70% diversion rate on or before December 2010, Golder Associates was retained to investigate existing and potential options, including the enhancement of public education and engagement, and to develop a plan that will allow the Region to achieve this goal. The study's recommendations, which are summarized in Commissioner's Report #2009 WR-5, are currently being analyzed and the results will be presented in the 2010 Annual Solid Waste Servicing and Financing Study, as is the final evaluation of the Clear Bags Pilot Program that was conducted from January to April 2009 in Clarington and Pickering (Commissioner's Reports #2008-WR-20, 35, & 38 and #2009-WR-12). Finally, Works staff has prepared, for public consultation, a draft waste management by-law "to help manage the Region's standardization of solid waste collection services and to guide the service delivery on private roadways as the Region navigates towards [70%1 diversion." 13. Provincially, Ontario is proposing to adopt a zero waste vision to help reduce waste, increase diversion, and build a greener economy and more sustainable society. In accordance with the Waste Diversion Act's (WDA's) mandatory five year review, in October 2008, the MOE released "Toward a Zero Waste Future: Review of Ontario's Waste Diversion Act, 2002." In the discussion paper, the MOE proposes that the first steps in striving towards zero waste should be built upon four key building blocks: • A clear framework built upon the foundation of Extended Producer Responsibility. • A greater focus on the first and second of the 3Rs -waste reduction, and re-use. • Increasing reduction and diversion of waste from the industrial, commercial & institutional sectors. ~ a~ 8-55 Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Page No: 6 • Greater clarity around roles responsibilities, and accountabilities, to ensure that all players are contributing to a common goal. In April 2009, the proposed changes to the WDA were endorsed, in principle, by the Regional Council in accordance with Commissioner's Report #2009- WR-2. E. DISCUSSION a) Risk Assessment 14. Risk assessment (RA) is the only procedure that can produce quantitative estimates of predicted health effects. Moreover, RA follows a standard format, is reproducible, and errs on the side of conservatism. JW followed the methodology. used in the Generic HHRA, which peer reviewers, including Dr. Smith, deemed acceptable. 15. The key findings of Dr. Smith's and Mr. Wilson's review of the JW SSHHRA can be summarized as follows: • The key receptors, chemicals and exposure pathways have been evaluated. • The methods used to estimate exposures are considered appropriate. • The toxicological reference values used are reasonable and drawn from a variety of reliable international sources. • The risk characterization results are defensible. In other words, the SSHHRA can be considered to be satisfactory. The proposed EFW facility is not expected to cause any appreciable change in the concentrations of chemicals in air, soil, dust, water or food. If the proposed EFW facility perForms as specified and assumed in the SSHHRA, it will not pose an unacceptable risk to persons in the vicinity of the site and, by extension, to residents living beyond the site. Subject to any final revisions to the exposure point concentrations having been made, the SSHHRA is ready to be submitted to .the MOE for its review, if and when the EFW EA is approved. b) Environmental Surveillance 16. In its Best Practices Review, JW was very clear that the most appropriate and scientifically justified option for environmental surveillance of the proposed EFW facility would involve continuous and periodic s#ack testing of emissions, including in-stack dioxins and furans sampling technology, that meet or exceed stringent chemical emissions standards (Ontario Guideline A- 7 v. EU Directive). Dr. Smith concurred with this finding and concluded the community living outside the point of impingement and the public-at-large 8-56 ~Q7 Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Page No: 7 would not' be at risk from the public health perspective if this surveillance option is chosen. 17. During the EFW EA public consultation, however, a consensus has emerged that it would be beneficial to supplement stack testing with ambient air and soil monitoring, which is independently tested for a minimum period of three years in order to "ground truth" the chemical emissions predicted in the EA. This would be prudent course of action and is supported by Dr. Smith (Appendix D). Moreover, Dr. Smith advises that it would also be prudent to consider adding flora and fauna to the environmental media being independently tested if in-stack, ambient air and soil test results regularly exceed levels predicted by the SSHHRA. Finally, at the end of this- three-year period, it would also be prudent to formally evaluate these additional moni#oring activities to ascertain whether they are effective, useful, and if continued, what, if any, revisions need- to be made. For the reasons outlined in the Best Practices Review coupled with the above supplemental testing being in place, human biomonitoring should not be used to supplement stack testing. This is also supported by Dr. Smith (Appendix D). The Health Department should be consulted prior to finalizing the environmental surveillance program and during any and all subsequent reviews. 18. The environmental performance of the proposed EFW facility should be communicated in as an accessible, accurate, open, timely, transparent, and understandable a manner as possible. 19. The environmental oversight committee recommended by Dr. Smith and JW should be independent, appointed by and accountable to the Regional Council. The Committee should be comprised of Clarington and Durham residents and representatives of the proposed EFW facility, MOE, and the Region. The Committee should assess, monitor, review, and advise the Region on the environmental surveillance program, independent environmental testing, the quality of the public reporting of emissions and environmental surveillance data, and the environmental performance of the facility. The Committee should be empowered to discuss and advise the Region on other related strategic waste diversion and management issues. Given the importance of waste diversion discussed below, consideration should be given to naming the committee the Durham waste diversion and management advisory committee. 20. In developing the proposed advisory committee's terms of reference, it may be instructive to review the mandate of the Durham Nuclear Health Committee (DNHG) which has been in place for over 12 years (Appendix G) (http://www.durham.calhealth.asp?nr-ldepartments!health/dnhcldnhc.htm). Perhaps it should be noted that the concept of a DNHC originated in 1992, when its creation was recommended by the former Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee that reviewed the Ajax Water Treatment ~G~ 8-57 Report No.: 2009-COW-01 .Page No: 8 Plant environmental assessment because local residents were concerned about the human health effects of tritiated water emitted by the nearby Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. d) Waste Diversion 21. During the EFW EA public consultation, another consensus has emerged such that the Region of Durham should embrace and strive towards the concept of "zero waste". It is acknowledged that the Region has exceeded the long-term waste management strategy's waste diversion goal of 50%. Accordingly, Council has set a new stretch goal of 70% by December 2010 and Works staff are exploring ways and means of reaching this goal such as by retaining Golder Associates (GA) to prepare the 70% Waste Diversion Study; by implementing the Clear Bags Pilot Study in Clarington and Pickering; and by developing a draft Waste Management By-law for public consultation. Further options will be explored and included in the 2010 Annual Solid Waste Servicing and Financing Study. 22. Given Durham's ongoing population growth, it is important for the Region and its residents to embrace the concept of zero waste and for the Region to aggressively pursue a waste diversion goal of at least 70%, in accordance with all the measures cited above, with attention being paid to enhanced public education and engagement, in order to reduce the demand for waste disposal however this is managed. 23. The Region cannot achieve zero waste or a waste diversion goals >70% by itself. To this end, for example, it is important for Ontario to complete its deliberations on zero waste, amend the WDA in accordance .with the discussion paper and advice received, and to implement and enforce such measures as extended producer responsibility. The Region should closely monitor this file and advocate for the proposed changes as required. d) Regional Support 24. In order for the environmental surveillance program, independent environmental testing, public reporting of environmental surveillance data, and the work of the proposed Durham waste diversion and management advisory committee to be successful, the Region should ensure that it has sufficient internal capacity and that sufficient financial and human resources are allocated to support these measures. This issue should be addressed in the appropriate Regional business planning and budgeting exercises. G. CONCLUSION 25. In conclusion, the following recommendations are made: 8-58 ,~ eA Report No.: 2009-COW-01 Page No: 9 • That the final SSHHRA for the proposed 140,000 tonnes EFW facility is accepted and submitted to the MOE for its review, subject to it being in concordance with- the caveats expressed in Appendix D of this report; • That once the EFW facility is operational, an environmental surveillance program is implemented in accordance with the above recommendation b); • That the Region continually pursues the goat of 70% waste diversion and advocates for enactment and implementation of the proposed amendments to the WDA; and • That the Region adequately supports the environmental surveillance program, independent environmental testing, public reporting of environmental surveillance data, and the work of the proposed Durham waste diversion and management advisory committee. H. REFERENCES 26. In addition to the reports cited above, the MOH was greatly assisted in increasing his knowledge and understanding of this matter by his reading of the following publications, in whole or in part: • Environmental and Workplace Health. 2004. Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment Ottawa, ON. Health Canada. • Goldstein BD. 2006. Advances in Risk Assessment and Communications. Annual Review of Public Health. 26: 141-63. • Grandjean P. 20.04. Implications of the Precautionary Principle for Primary Prevention and Research. Annual Review of Public Health. 25: 199 223. Leiss W, Chociolko C. 1994. Risk and Responsibility Kingston, ON. McGill- Queen's University Press. 404 pp. • National Research Council. 2000. Waste, Incineration & Public Health. Washington, DC. National Academy Press. 335 pp. • Ross W et al. 2000. Decision-Making Framework for Identifying, Assessing, and Managing Health Risks. Ottawa, CA. Health Canada. 75pp. Respectfully submitted, R.J. K , MD, MHSc, CCFP, FRCPC Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health 8-59 la~~ n ceaa-ng the way REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday April 4, 2011 Resolution #: Report #: EGD-016-11 File #: D.02.33.008 By-law #: Subject: HUNTINGTON SUBDIVISION PHASE 1, COURTICE, PLAN 40M-1929, `CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE' AND `ASSUMPTION BY-LAWS', 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-016-11 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 Plans 40M-1929, 10M-773 (part of) and 10M- 824 (part of); and 3. THAT Council approve the by-laws attached to Report EGD-016-11, assuming certain streets within Plans 40M-1929, 10M-773 (part of), and 10M-824 (part of) as public highways. Respectfully by: Submitted by: A. .Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services ASC/NAC/jo February 23, 2011 Reviewed by ranklin Wu .~ Chief Administrative Officer 9-1 REPORT NO.. EGD-016-11 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington entered into a Subdivision Agreement, registered July 15, 1998, with 765400 Ontario Limited, to develop lands by plan of subdivision, located in Courtice and described as Plan 40M- 1929 (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 four (4) stages: a) Initial Works; b) Street Lighting System; c) Final Works; and d) Stormwater Management System (not applicable) 1.3 The Initial Works and Street Lighting 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 October 1, 2007. This initiated a one (1) year maintenance period which expired on October 1, 2008. Although various minor deficiencies were noted at that time, they were not rectified until recently. We have now re-inspected the deficiencies and they have 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. 9-2 REPORT NO.: EGD-016-11 PAGE 3 1.6 Further to the issuance of a 'Certificate of Acceptance', by-laws are required to permit the Municipality to assume certain streets within Plans 40M-1929, 10M- 773, and 10M-824 as public highways (Attachments 2, 3 and 4). Attachments: Attachment 1 -Key Map Attachment 2 -Proposed By-law Attachment 3 -Proposed By-law Attachment 4 -Proposed By-law 9-3 Block 311 on Plan 10M-824 NEWPORTAVE ~ - ~gE~ ~~ o G~~~ ~ GLEN EAGLES DR . a O Q GEi ~ JN~\~G~(ON ~o SUMMERLEA 0 ~ ~d~ CT i j G~ ~p ~N u. ~~`~G'(°~ d nom. v ~ ~ °'A m '~. r AgRT~F ,~o ~o,~ 6F c~Frr BLOOR ST BOOR St Block 109 c a~ Huntington Subdivision on Plan o R ~~~ Phase 1 10M-773 Pp°~e~ Plan 40M-1929 v ~~ Z o W °~ LL H Q~ ~ W W J LL H Q~Q W FRANK WHEELER AVE Q DEWELL CR DEWELL CR i/ - lil 1 r COURT/CE W ~,~ ~ ~ ~I ? s ~~- - - ' DRAWN BY: E.L. DATE: February 25, 201.1 '~, REPORT EGD-016-11 KEY MAP ATTACHMENT NO. 1 G:\Attachments\40M-1929.mxd ATTACHMENT N0.:2 REPORT NO.: EGD-016-11 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2011 - XX Being a By-law to establish, lay out and dedicate certain lands as public highways in the Municipality of Clarington. The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT the blocks shown on Plans 40M-1929, 10M-773, and 10M-824, and listed below in this section, all being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, are hereby established, laid. out, and dedicated by the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highways: Plan 40M-1929 Block 136 (0.3m reserve) Block 137 (0.3m reserve) Block 139 (0.3m reserve) Plan 10M-773 Block 109 (0.3m reserve) Plan 10M-824 Block 311 (0.3m reserve) BY-LAW read a first and second time this ~oc~h day of xx~ocx 2011. BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this ~octh day of ~ooocx 2011. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 9-5 ATTACHMENT N0.:3 REPORT NO.: EGD-016-11 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2011 - XX 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: 1. THAT the streets and blocks shown on Plans 40M-1929, 10M-773, and 10M-824, 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: Plan 40M-1929 Glen Eagles Drive Robert Adams Drive Huntington Crescent Eastfield Crescent Bloor Street Block 136 (0.3m reserve) Block 137 (0.3m reserve) Block 139 (0.3m reserve) Plan 10M-773 Block 109 (0.3m reserve) Plan 10M=824 Block 311 (0.3m reserve) BY-LAW read a first and second time this xxth day of xxxxx 2011. BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this xxth day of xxxxx 2011. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 9-6 ATTACHMENT N0.:4 REPORT NO.: EGD-016-11 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2011 - XX Being a By-law to establish certain lands as public highway, assume them for public use and name them. The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT the following lands are hereby established as public highway, assumed by the Corporation for public use and assigned the name set out below: Land Established as Public Hicthway Name Block 299 on Plan 10M-824 Robert Adams Drive Block 300 on Plan 10M-824 Robert Adams Drive Block 301 on Plan 10M-824 Robert Adams Drive BY-LAW read a first and second time this xxth day of xxxxx 2011. BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this xxth day of xxxxx 2011. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 9-7 • REPORT arm n Leading tlae Way ENGINEERING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday April 4, 2011 Report #: EGD-017-11 File #: By-law #: Subject: NEWCASTLE MEMORIAL PARK -PROPOSAL TO RENAME RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Newcastle Memorial Park continue to be known by that name;ana 2. THAT all interested parties be notified of Council's decision Respectfully by: <~~ Submitted by: A. .Cannella, C.E.T. Reviewed by: ranklin Wu, Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer ASC/PW/jo March 25, 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-9282 9-8 REPORT NO.: EGD-017-11 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 At the Council meeting of January 17, 2011, Myno Van Dyke of the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society made a presentation to Council and provided correspondence to recommend that Newcastle Memorial Park be re-named to honour Joseph Atkinson. A copy of his correspondence is Attachment 1 of this report. The correspondence describes the early life of Mr. Atkinson who was born and raised in Newcastle and went on to become a leading newspaper publisher and social activist. Mr Atkinson was the editor and majority owner of the Toronto Star from 1899 until his death in 1948. A Provincial Heritage Plaque honouring Mr. Atkinson is located at King and Mill. Street in front of the Newcastle Town Hall. 1.2 Council direction from the presentation was as follows: THAT Correspondence Item D-6 from Myno Van Dyke, Director, Newcastle Village & District Historical Society, with respect to naming the park area surrounding the new library in Newcastle "Joseph Atkinson Park" be referred to staff for follow-up and processing. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 The Clarington Museums and Archives were asked to investigate the original naming of Newcastle Memorial Park. Their findings are summarized in Attachment 2 of this report. They concluded that the park was once the location of a Drill Shed. Drill Sheds were used for the purpose of training local military regiments. While the Museum was unable to locate a document signifying the meaning of the name Newcastle Memorial Park, they believe the intent was to honour local veterans with the park name. 2.2 The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178 was asked to provide their input on the possible re-naming of Newcastle Memorial Park. Their letter is Attachment 3 of this report. The Legion disagrees with re-naming the park and feel that it was, originally named in honour of veterans and should continue in their memory. 9-9 REPORT NO.: EGD-017-11 3.0 CONCLUSION PAGE 3 3.1 Joseph Atkinson was a Newcastle native who rose to national prominence in the newspaper industry and as a social activist. The Atkinson Foundation remains today and has granted more than $55 million since its inception. The Municipality's policy regarding Memorial Tributes allows for the naming of parks, streets or facilities in honour of Members of the Community at Large or Nationally recognized individuals at Councils discretion (Attachment No. 4). 3.2 While no documentation could be found regarding the naming of Newcastle Memorial Park it is evident that "Memorial Park" has been applied to parks in various communities to honour war veterans. 3.3 New residential development in the Foster Neighbourhood and North Newcastle will result in the development of new schools and Neighbourhood Parks. The Municipality also has an unnamed Community Park site on Rudell Road. So there are certainly future opportunities to name a facility to honour Mr. Atkinson. It is staffs recommendation that a future park in Newcastle be named in honour of Joseph E. Atkinson and that the name Newcastle Memorial Park be maintained for the park surrounding the library. Attachments: Attachment 1 -Letter from Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Attachment 2 -Letter from Clarington Museums and Archives Attachment 3 -Letter from The Royal Canadian Legion Attachment 4 -Policy Regarding Memorial Tributes Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Rick Saunders -The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178 Myno Van Dyke -Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Martha Rutherford Conrad -Clarington Museums and Archives 9-10 #_ -- REVIEWED BY ~OUNCIL ^ COUNCIL t. ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~v~ v . Z ~ Cit iU DIRECTfON INFORMATIO ;- , :~ - ^ MAYOR ^ MEMBERS . ^ CAO NOVember 15, 2010 P.~~ ;:`~ ~ ~~ ;;.~' ~ , _: ~ - .: OF COUNCIL .._ ~~,.,, ,~,~ ^ COMMUNITY D CORP R TE D EMERGENCY ~ SERVICES SERVI~ayo~~ct~El^ ster and Members of The Municipality of Clarington Council: ^ ENGINEERING ^ PAUtdICIPAL D OPERATIGNS SERVICES CLER'n'S ' ° s RNVC s~ ° SOU~e: °Josep .Atkinson Park ^ OTUCn RC's 4. ~ MUNICIPALCLERY.'SFILE le Village & District Historical Society sent Council a letter on April 30, 2010 requesting that a street in Newcastle be named after Joseph E. Atkinson. This was turned down by the Region of Durham as there is a duplication issue regarding a similar named street in Ajax. As per recent correspondence from the Municipality, it appears that it is not possible to name a street in Newcastle after Mr. Atkinson. At a Newcastle Village & District Historical Society Director's Meeting on November 9, 2010, the following motion was made and passed. "That a letter be sent to the Municipality of Clarington Council requesting that the parkland immediately. surrounding the new Clarington Library at 150 King Avenue East be named "Joseph Atkinson Park"." Prior to the new Library being built on this properly, the park was initially . called "Jubilee Park"_ (around 1900) and later referred to as "Memorial Park". During construction of the new Library, the Memorial Park sign was removed and it was not placed back on the property. At our Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Archives, we can find no evidence that this area around the library was ever officially called "Memorial Park". We do know that this was the site of the Newcastle Armouries at one time and the public outdoor skating rink. This site was used for many village activities and more, recently was the site of a ' baseball diamond. The baseball diamond;` v~v~s removed and now the - property has the beautiful new library, a parkin z I_ot to the north, and north of that, two small soccer pitches and achildren's`-: _aa~ground. ~~ _•,: ATTACHMENT N0.:1 REPORT NO.: EGD-017-11 9-11 Joseph E. Atkinson was born in 1865, in a rented house just east of the Village of Newcastle. Although the home is no longer there it was on the east side of Golf Course Road where the Newcastle Golf Course is today. In 1866, after his father was killed by a train in Newcastle, Joe's mother Hannah moved her family into a house at 44 King Street East, Newcastle. This home is now owned by Jack and Peggy Pruner. Here Mrs. Atkinson ran a boarding house where she took in men who worked at the Newcastle Woollen Mill and the Massey Foundry. Just before Joe's 14th birthday his mother died and Joe took a job at the Woollen Mill. After the Woollen Mill burned down he took a job at the Post Office as a clerk. Later he got a job as a clerk at the Port Hope Times. and this began a spectacular career in the newspaper business. The house that Joseph Atkinson grew up in is only a short walk west of this park. Presently, there is a Provincial Heritage Plaque honouring Mr. Atkinson at the corner of King and Mill Streets in Newcastle. If Council -grants this request to name the park area around the library, "Joseph Atkinson Park", we would also recommend that this plaque be moved to the park. The Newcastle Horticultural Society will soon be undertaking a project to completely re-do the gardens around the Newcastle Community Hall and have plans to move the plaque to a slightly different location. In a recent conversation with their President Jeany Barrett, they are in full support of moving the plaque to the park if this takes place. Note: We would be pleased to present this information to Council as a Delegation. R ctfully submitte , - ~~ ~ . Myno V n Dyke, Director, Newcastle Village & District 905-987-5482 9=12 ~^+~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~i h ~'~.~.i _ ' ~ ~ ~ ter- ; z ,~ t ~~~ ~ ,i ~~, _ , ~ t ~ ~ a , t .._. -M~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ _ .~ u ~ 9x•ii _y a t ~.•-. ~. ~ ~i - ~ . - - ~ ~ - ~ ~~ i e lv~usrtxm5 ++~t,a 28 February 2011 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 RE: Newcastle Memorial Park At Clarington Museums and Archives, we advocate the preservation of the history of Clarington. With this in mind and due to requests from the public, we undertook research into the naming of Newcastle Memorial Park. Through our research, we verified that there was only one Armoury built in the Municipality of Clarington and it is located in Orono. Other communities, including Newcastle and Bowmanville, built Drill Sheds for the purpose of military training of local regiments. The Drill Sheds, which were a more temporary structure than an Armoury, no longer exist. However, in Bowmanville, Memorial Park was named and dedicated to our World War II Veterans in order to ensure the memory of their sacrifices remained a part of the history of Bowmanville. In Newcastle, the Drill Shed was located on the grounds of the current day Newcastle Memorial Park. While our Archivist was unable to locate a document signifying the meaning of that name, we feel that due to the intent of Memorial Park in Bowmanville and the location~of Memorial Park in Newcastle on the former Drill Shed grounds, it is Highly likely that this park was named in honour of their Veterans. While Clarington Museums and Archives applauds the efforts of the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society in recognizing the accomplishments of Joseph E. Atkinson along with his affiliation with Newcastle, we respectfully request that this recognition takes place without the removal of an existing historical name. Even though today people may not specifically recall the motive for the naming of a site, we view this as an opportunity to educate our residents on that historical name rather than removing it from the face of our community. Newcastle is a growing community and that growth presents opportunities for recognition through the naming of their new parks, schools and even library. We are requesting that the Municipality employ one of these new opportunities to recognize Atkinson and allow the history of Newcastle Memorial Park to remain in place. Sincerely, Martha Rutherford Conrad Executive Director .cc Peter Windolf, Planning Department ATTACHMENT N0.:2 REPORT NO.: EGD-017-11 9-13 ~~~`°~"~~~ The Royal Canadian Le ion g -.-- BOWMANVILLE (ONT. NO. 178) BRANCH BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIp L)C 3K8 March 18, 2011 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Re: Newcastle Memorial Park The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178 Bowmanville Disagrees with the name change of Memorial Park Newcastle. We feel that the original name of Memorial Park was named in memory of our World War 11 Veterans and that the name should continue in their memory. Si ely c nes President "They served till death! Why not we?" ATTACHMENT N0.:3 REPORT NO.: EGD-017-11 9-14 „~fvt~l ntU.:ADMIN.1Cs-98 PAGE 3 Attachment # 1 to Report Admin.-15-98 POLICY REGARDING MEMORIAL TRIBUTES A) MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: Mayors: recognize past or present Mayors by the naming of a facility. Gouncillors Deceased Durinq Term of Office/or Deceased in First Term After Leavin4 Office: may be recognized upon request, by the naming of a street or a park within the Municipality. 8) MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE Members of tfie Community At Lame: recognition on an ad-hoc basis by Council, as requests are received, by the naming of any park, street or facility, based on the length and degree of service to the community. G) NATIONAL TRIBUTES/RECOGNITION OF ROYALTY Nationally recognized individuals, such as Terry Fox, and recognition of Royalty through visits to Municipally hosted events, may be recognized by the naming of a street, park, or facility. STREET NAMES: The suggestion of any street names wilt be processed in conjunction with the Planning Department's registry and street naming process. FUNDS: Funds required to implement recognition memorial tributes will be budgeted in any given year that the tribute is anticipated, and otherwise may be drawn from the Unclassified Administration Receptions and Tributes account. INITIATION: Requests will be considered by Council on art as requested basis. interested parties are to be notified of Council's decision. ATTACHMENT N0.:4 REPORT NO.: EGD-017-11 9-15 • ~ n Leading the Way REPORT OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: April 4, 2011 Report #: OPD-005-11 File #: By-Law #: Subject: CEMETERY TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2011 TO 2014 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report OPD-005-11 be received; 2. THAT the proposed tariff of rates as outlined in Attachment No. 2, Schedules A through D, of Report OPD-005-11 be approved for the years 2011 through 2014; 3. THAT the draft by-law (Attachment No. 2 to Report OPD-005-11), being a by- law to amend By-law 2006-152 be approved; and 4'. THAT the proposed tariff of rates as outlined be forwarded to the Ministry of Government Services for approval. Submitted by: Fred Ht rv~' tfi B.A., R`D.M.R., R. R. F.A. Directo~of Operations FH/BG/cv Reviewed by: ank m Wu, Chief Administrative Officer 10-1 REPORT NO. OPD-005-11 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT PAGE 2 The Operations Department currently maintains three active cemeteries, Bowmanville, Bondhead, and St. George's. The proposed tariff of fees and rates identifies the fees that are charged for interment rights and cemetery services. The interment rights and cemetery services include plot, lot, and niche purchases, interments, disinterments, installation of foundations, headstones/footstones, and other administrative costs as outlined. The Cemeteries Act (Revised) RSO 1190,c.C.4 Section 35 states that every cemetery owner who sells, assigns or transfers interment rights shall establish a trust fund for the purpose of providing money for the care and maintenance of the cemetery. The perpetual care fund, according to the Act, is used for the upkeep of the cemetery, the markers, and all the structures.in the cemetery. Forty percent of all fees collected are placed in this fund. The following charts indicate the number of interments that have occurred for the past 3 years: Bowmanville Cemetery Regular Burials Cremations 2008 89 67 2009 55 66 2010 60 66 Bondhead Cemetery Regular burials Cremations 2008 7 12 2009 6 6 2010 5 21 10-2 I:\GPA REPORTS 2011 \OPD-005-11; CEMETERY TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2011 TO 2014.docx REPORT NO. OPD-005-11 PAGE 3 St. George's Cemetery Regular Burials ~ Cremations 2008 3 5 2009 2 2 2010 2 2 Staff continues to review existing fees and services as well comparing these to our neighbouring Municipalities, and is again recommending amulti-year fee increase. The current tariff of rates is provided as Attachment No. 1. The 2011 increase would take effect no later than July 1st, 2011, subject to Ministry approval. The following year's increases will take effect on January 1st for 2012, 2013 and 2014. 3.0 FUTURE PLANS Staff has estimated that at the current rate of interments, the Bowmanville Cemetery will be at capacity in 2 to 5 years. The first Columbarium was introduced to Bowmanville Cemetery in 2005 and has 80 Niches. A second identical Columbarium was added in 2010. The first Columbarium is completely full and over 25% of the second has been sold. Estimates are that the second Columbarium will be at capacity in 2 to 4 years. There have been requests and the numbers indicate that a Columbarium should also be installed at Bondhead Cemetery. Staff will be requesting funds in the 2012 budget to include engineering for a four block expansion of the Bowmanville Cemetery which will provide an additional 2000 interment sites and a scattering ground to provide another alternative interment option. Funds will also be requested for an additional Columbarium at Bowmanville and a new Columbarium at Bondhead Cemetery. 10-3 I:\GPA REPORTS 2011\OPD-005-11; CEMETERY TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2011 TO 2014.docx REPORT NO. OPD-005-11 PAGE 4 3.0 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment No. 1 - Attachment No. 2 - Cemetery Tariff of Rates 2010 By-law to amend By-law 2006-152 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905) 263-2292 F (905) 263-4433 10-4 I:\GPA REPORTS 2011\OPD-005-11; CEMETERY TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2011 TO 2014.docx ATTACHMENT NO. 1 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON SCHEDULE :A" TO BY-U1W 2010-133 CEMETERIES -PROPOSED TARIFF OF RATES 1, • SALE OF PLOTS fi Type of Lot Dimension Bowmamilis • Dimsnsion Bondhead 4p% Perpetual Care R>tte Rate 73y. HST • Total Sln le 3' X 9' 3' X 9' 463.71 1159.28 150.71 1309.99 Bab and 1.5 ' X 3' 1.5 ' X 3' 162.30 405.75 527b. 458.50 Crematton 2' X 2' 2' X 2' 182.30 406-76 52.75 45.8.50 2 SALE OF CREMATION NICHES" Columberium Niche Size 15 % Rate 13%. HST Total Perpetual Care Rate Single (including 12" X 12" X 139.11 927.42 120.56 1047.98 Pla Ve 12" Double. (including 12" X 12" •X 208.67 1391.13 180.85 1571.98 Pla ue 12" 3. INTERMENT Rate 13% HST Total Adult -Sin le De th 637,61 82.89 720.50 Adult-•Double De th 799.90. 103.99 903.89 Infant /Child .231.86 30,14 262-00 Cremation 231.88 30,14 282.00 Niche Wall 116.83 15.07 131,00 4. DISINTERMENT CHARGES Rate 13% HST Total Disinterment (adult) induding reburial .at 1056.35 137.33 1193.68 the same location or at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (adult) for burial at another 893,83. ~ 116.20 1010.0 cemete Disinterment (child) induding burial at 664.14 86.33 750:47 another location in the same cemete Disinterment (child) including reburial at .595.89 77.47 673.36 same rave or different cemete ~ • Disinterment (infant /cremation) including 287.10 37.32 324.42 reburial at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including 196.10 25.49 221.59 reburial at same grave or different cemete 5. HOLIbAY AND OTHER 9l1RCH~Rr:FS Rats M13•/. HST Total Interment on Saturday, Sunday and 326.11 42.39 368.50 Statuto Holida fee is additional Disinterment for double depth burial (fee is 210.18 27.32 237.50 additional Rental for lowering Device, set up and 79.09 10.28 89.37 dressin Provincial License Fee (except for 10.00 • 10.00 cremation Cremation Interment on Saturday, Sunday 115.93 1b,07 131.00 and $tatuto Holida s fee is additional 8.. MONUMENT FOUNbATtONS AND SETTING MARKERS Rate 13Y° HST Total Monument foundation flat fee 271.95 35.35 307.30 Flat Marker Foundations flat fee 184.69 21.41 186.10 Cremation / Bab Markers flat fee 69.33 9,01 78.34 Removal of Monuments 52.02 6,76 58.78 10-5 7. TRANSFEf{ Fee 18.43 2.40 20.83 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2011- Being a By-law to amend By-law 2006-152, being a by- law to provide for the maintenance, management, regulation and control of the cemeteries in the Municipality of Clarington: WHEREAS the Cemeteries Act (Revised) 1990 provides for the regulation and restriction of use of lands identified as a cemetery; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT By-law 2006-152 is hereby amended by substituting Section A attached thereto with Schedules A through D attached to this by-law. 2. THAT this by-law shall take effect on the date of approval by the Ministry of Government Services. BY-LAW read a first time this day of April 2011. BY-LAW read a second time this day of April 2011. BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of April 2011. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk ~~-6 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON SCHEDULE °A" TO BY-LAW 2011- CEMETERIES -PROPOSED TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2011 SALE OF PLOTS Type of Lot Dimension Bowmanville Dimension Bondhead 40°~ Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include applicable taxes) Sin le 3' X 9' 3' X 9' $486.90 $1,217.24 Bab land 1.5 ` X 3' 1.5 ' X 3' $170.42 $426.04 Cremation 2' X 2' 2' X 2' $170.42 $426.04 SALE OF CREMATION NICHES Columbarium Niche Size 15 °h Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include a livable taxes Single (including 12° X 12° X 12° $146.07 $973.79 Pla ue Double (including 12" X 12" X 12° $219.18 $1,460.69 Pla ue 3. INTERMENT Rate (does not include applicable taxes Adult -Sin le De th $669.49 Adult- Double De th $839.90 Infant! Child $243.45 Cremation $243,45 Niche Wall $121.73 4. DISINTERMENT CHARGES Rate (does not include applicable taxes Disinterment (adult) including reburial at the $1,109.17 same location or at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (adult) for burial at another $938.52 cemete Disinterment (child) including burial at another $697.35 location in the same cemete Disinterment (child) including reburial at same $625.68 rave or different cemete Disinterment (infant J cremation) including $301.46 reburial at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including $205.91 reburial at same rave or different cemete 5. HOLIDAY AND OTHER SURCHARGES Rate (does not include applicable taxes Interment on Saturday, Sunday and Statutory $342.42 Holida s fee is additional Disinterment for double depth burial (fee is $220.69 additional Rental for lowerin Device, set u and dressin $63.04 Provincial License Fee exce t for cremation $10.00 Cremation Interment on Saturday, Sunday and $121.73 Statuto Holida s fee is additional 6. MONUMENT FOUNDATIONS AND SETTING MARKERS Rate (does not include applicable taxes Monument foundation flat fee $285.55 Flat Marker Foundations flat fee $172.92 Cremation / Bab Markers flat fee $72.80 Removal otMonuments $54.62 7. TRANSFER Fee $19.35 PERPETUAL CARE Rate (does not include applicable taxes Headstone Maintenance $100.00 Footstone Maintenance $50.00 10-7 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON SCHEDULE °B" TO BY-LAW 2011- CEMETERIES -PROPOSED TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2012 ~r ~~ ATE Type of Lot Dimension 13owmanviile Dimension Bondhead 40% Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include applicable taxes) Sin le 3' X 9' 3' X 9' $511.24 $1,278.11 Bab land 1.5 ` X 3' 1.5 ' X 3' $178.94 $447.34 Cremation 2' X 2' 2' X 2' $178.94 $447.34 n c~w~ C ne r~Cw1lATlnw1 wtICYCC Columbarium Niche Sixe 15 °k Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include a livable taxes Single (incuding 12" X 12" X 12" $153.37 $1,022.48 Pla ue Double (including 12" X 12° X 12° $230.14 $1,533.72 Pla ue o ~wITC~~IIC-~T Rate (does not include applicable taxes Adurt -Sin le De th $702.97 Adult -Double De th $881.89 Infant /Child $255.63 Cremation $255.63 Niche Wall $127.81 ~ n~mw~TCCMCwtT rueor_cs - -- - - Rate (does not include applicable taxes Disinterment (adult) including reburial at the $1,164.63 same location or at another. location in the same cemete Disinterment (adult} for burial at another $985.45 cemete Disinterment (child) including burial at another $732.21 location in the same cemete Disinterment (child) including reburial at same $656.97 rave or different cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including $316.53 reburial at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including $216.20 reburial at same rave or different cemete e unl Inev eun nTUCa cl locueQr_Fc Rate (does not include applicable taxes Interment on Saturday, Sunday and Statutory $359.54 Holida s fee is additional Disinterment for double depth burial (fee is $231.72 additional Rental for lowerin Device, set u and dressin $87.20 Provincial License Fee exce t for cremation $10.00 Cremation Interment on Saturday, Sunday and $127.81 Statuto Holida s fee is additional R NInWf IMFNT Pn11NNeTInNR eND SFTTWG MORKFRS Rate (does not include applicable taxes Monument foundation flat fee $299.82 Flat Marker Foundations flat fee $181.57 Cremation / Bab Markers flat fee $76.44 Removal of Monuments $57.35 7. TRANSFER Fee $20.32 R DCDDFTIIAI ReD'F Rate (does not include applicable taxes Headstone Maintenance $100.00 Footstone Maintenance $50.00 ~~-8 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON SCHEDULE "C" TO BY-LAW 2011- CEMETERIES -PROPOSED TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2013 SALE OF PLOTS Type of Lot Dimension Bowmanville Dimension Bondhead 40% Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include applicable taxes) Sin le 3' X 9' 3' X 9' $536.80 $1,342.01 Bab land 1.5 ' X 3' 1.5 ' X 3' $187.88 $469.71 Cremation 2' X 2' 2' X 2' $187.88 $469.71 2. SALE OF CREMATION NICHES Columbarium Niche Size 15 % Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include a licable taxes Single (including 12" X 12" X 12" $161.04 $1,073.60 Pla ue Double (including 12° X 12° X 12" $241.64 $1,610.41 Pla ue 3. INTERMENT Rate (does not include applicable taxes Adult- Sin le De th $738.11 Adult- Double De th $925.98 Infant! Child $268.41 Cremation $268.41 Niche Wall $134.20 4. DISINTERMENT CHARGES Rate (does not include applicable taxes Disinterment (adult) including reburial at the $1,222.86 same location or at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (adult) for burial at another $1,034.72 cemete Disinterment (child) including burial at another $768.83 location in the same cemete Disinterment (child) including reburial at same $689.82 rave or different cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including $332.35 reburial at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including $227.01 reburial at same rave or different cemete 5. HOLIDAY AND OTHER SURCHARGES Rate (does not include applicable taxes Interment on Saturday, Sunday and Statutory $377.51 Holida s fee is additional Disinterment for double depth burial (fee is $243.31 additional Rental for lowerin Device, set u and dressin $91.56 Provincial License Fee exce t for cremation $10.00 Cremation Interment on Saturday, Sunday and $134.20 Statuto Holida s fee is additional 6. MONUMENT FOUNDATIONS AND SETTING MARKERS Rate (does not include applicable taxes Monument foundation flat fee $314.82 Flat Marker Foundations flat fee $190.65 Cremation / Bab Markers flat fee $80.26 Removal of Monuments $60.22 7. TRANSFER Fee $21.34 PERPETUAL CARE Rate (does not include applicable taxes Headstone Maintenance $100.00 Footstone Maintenance $50.00 10-9 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON SCHEDULE "D" TO BY-LAW 2011- CEMETERIES -PROPOSED TARIFF OF RATES FOR 2014 1 SALE OF PI nTS Type of Lot Dimension Bowmanville Dimension Bondhead 40°k Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include applicable taxes) Sin le 3' X 9' 3' X 9' $563.64 $1,409.11 Bab land 1.5 ` X 3' 1.5 ` X 3' $197.28 $493.19 Cremation 2' X 2' 2' X 2' $197.28 $493.19 ~ cel F nF rRFMeTInN ulrucc Columbarium Niche Size 75 °~ Perpetual Care Rate Rate (does not include a livable taxes Single (including 12" X 12" X 12" $169.09 $1,127.28 Pla ue Double (including 12" X 12° X 12" $253.72 $1,690.93 Pla ue INTERMENT Rate (does not include applicable taxes Adult -Sin le De th $775.02 Adult -Double De th $972.28 Infant /Child $281.83 Cremation $281.83 Niche Wall $140.91 4. DISINTERMENT r`4deRRFC Rate (does not include applicable taxes Disinterment (adult) including reburial at the $1,284.00 same location or at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (adult) for burial at another $1,086.46 cemete Disinterment (child) including burial at another $807,27 location in the same cemete Disinterment (child) including reburial at same $724.31 rave or different cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including $348.97 reburial at another location in the same cemete Disinterment (infant /cremation) including $238.36 reburial at same rave or different cemete 5. NAI IneV eNn nTYCD CI IoNUwor_oe Rate (does not include applicable taxes Interment on Saturday, Sunday and Statutory $396.39 Holida s fee is additional Disinterment for double depth burial (fee is $255.48 additional Rental for lowerin Device, set u and dressin $96.13 Provincial License Fee exce t for cremation $10.00 Cremation Interment on Saturday, Sunday and $140.91 Statuto Holida s fee is additional 6_ MONl1MFNT FAIINneTlnAlc elln ecrruir_ ^eeevoo~ _. Rate (does not include applicable taxes Monument foundation flat fee $330.56 Flat Marker Foundations flat fee $200.18 Cremation / Bab Markers flat fee ~ $84,27 Removal of Monuments $63.23 7. TRANSFER Fee $22.40 8. PFRPFTIIeI CARE Rate (does not include applicable taxes Headstone Maintenance $100.00 Footstone Maintenance $5D.00 10-10 C1aC111~011 REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: April 4, 2011 Resolution#: By-law#: N/A Report: CLD-010-11 File#: Subject: Appointments to Hall Boards RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report CLD-010-11 be received; 2 3 THAT the appointment of the following individuals to the Orono Arena Board be confirmed: Orono Amateur Athletic Association Representative Gord Lowery Orono Amateur Athletic Association Representative Laverne Boyd Durham Central Agricultural Society Representative Elaine Dillon; THAT Councillor the Orono Arena be appointed as a Council representative on Board; 4. THAT the appointment of the following individuals to the Solina Community Centre Board be confirmed: Jennifer Bowman Viola Ashton Karen Dair David Best Sue Olsen; 5. THAT By-law 2008-039 be amended to change the composition of the Tyrone Hall Board from 13 citizen representatives to nine citizen representatives; 6. THAT the appointment of the following individuals to the Tyrone Hall Board be confirmed: Mark Canning Don Wilks Alvin Hare Denise Franklin Corinne Van deGrootevheen Paul Rowan Larry Quinney Laurie Lafrance Kim Panokeok; CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 13-1 REPORT NO.: CLD-010-11 7 8 THAT Councillor the Tyrone Hall Board; and THAT Councillor the Newcastle Arena Board. Submitted by: PLB/jeg ~(~rrie, CMO Municipal Clerk PAGE 2 be appointed as a Council representative on be appointed as a Council representative on Reviewed by: anklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer 13-2 REPORT NO.: CLD-010-11 PAGE 3 BACKGROUND Report CLD-004-11 addressed appointments to the advisory boards/committees. However, several of the advisory boards/committees require appointment of citizens by Council, following nominations from other groups. Municipal Service Boards are established under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended. Section 195(3) of the Act outlines the rules for the composition as follows: 1. There shall be a minimum of three members, one of whom shall be the chair. 2. All members shall be appointed by the municipality and shall be qualified to be elected as a member of the council of the municipality. 3. The chair shall be the member designated by the municipality or selected by the members of the board. The following outlines the details of the appointments. APPOINTMENT DETAILS Orono Arena Board Members By-law 2008-036 established the Orono Arena Board as a Municipal Service Board and defined the composition as eight members: two citizens from the former Township of Clarke; two citizens from the Orono Amateur Athletic Association; two citizens from the Durham Central Agricultural Society; and two ,Council representatives: On January 31, 2011, Council ratified a General Purpose and Administration (GPA) Committee resolution appointing Councillor Partner, Raymond Bester and John Witheridge. Council did not appoint a second Council representative at that time. The Municipality has received correspondence from Peter Maartense, Orono Arena Manager, indicating the other Board representatives are: Orono Amateur Athletic Association Gord Lowe Orono Amateur Athletic Association Laverne Bo d Durham Central A ricultural Societ Elaine Dillon Mr. Maartense has noted that he will notify the Municipal Clerk of the other Durham Central Agricultural Society representative when the information becomes available. It is recommended that Council confirm the appointment of the representatives indicated above, as well as appoint an additional Council representative. 13-3 REPORT NO.: CLD-010-11 PAGE 4 2. Solina Community Centre Board Members By-law 2008-038 established the Solina Community Centre Board as a Municipal Service Board and defined the composition as seven members: five citizens and two Council representatives. On January 31, 2011, Council ratified a GPA Committee resolution appointing Councillor Neal and Council Novak as Council Representatives. The Municipality has received correspondence from Herb Tink, Secretary Treasurer, indicating that the following are the nominations for the citizen appointments: Jennifer Bawman Viola Ashton Karen Dair David Best Sue Olsen NOTE: The Secretary Treasurer is anon-voting member. It is recommended that Council confirm the appointment of the citizen representatives indicated above. 3. Tyrone Hall Board By-law 2008-039 established the Tyrone Hall Board as a Municipal Service Board and defined the composition as 15 members: 13 citizens and two Council representatives. On January 31, 2011, Council ratified a GPA Committee resolution appointing Councillor Traill as the Council Representative. Council did not appoint a second Council representative at that time. The Municipality has received correspondence from Mark Canning, Chair/Secretary, indicating that the following are the nominations for the citizen appointments: Mark Canning Alvin Hare Corinne Van deGrootevheen Larry Quinney Kim Panokeok Don Wilks Denise Franklin Paul Rowan Laurie Lafrance 13-4 REPORT NO.: CLD-010-11 PAGE 5 The attached correspondence (Attachment 1) from Mark Canning requests that the composition be changed from 13 citizen representatives to nine representatives. Mr. Canning indicates that the Board is able to run efficiently with nine citizen representatives. It is recommended that Council amend By-law 2008-039 to change the composition of the Board from 13 citizen representatives to nine citizen representatives and confirm the appointment of the citizen representatives indicated above. 4. Newcastle Arena Board By-law 2008-037 established the Newcastle Arena Board as a Municipal Service Board and defined the composition as nine members: seven citizen representatives and two Council representatives On January 31, 2011, Council ratified a GPA Committee resolution appointing Councillor Woo as the Council Representative and seven citizen representatives. Council did not appoint a second Council representative at that time. It is recommended that Council appoint another Council representative to the Newcastle Arena Board. Attachments: Attachment 1 -Correspondence from Mark Canning, dated March 16, 2011 Attachment 2 - By-law to Amend By-law 2008-039 13-5 ATTACHMENT ~ 1_r,TO REPORT # ~'~p.~,~ Tyrone ~ommuni~y ~en~re MARCH 16T", 2011 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON CLARINGTON COUNCIL PATTI BARRIE, TOWN CLERK REQUEST TO AMEND THE BYLAW FOR TYRONE COMMUNITY CENTRE BDARD MEMBERS DEAR PATTI PLEASE ACCEPT THIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE TYRONE COMMUNITY CENTRE BOARD FROM 13 TO 9 PERSONS FOR THE PRESENT COUNCIL PERIOD. THE TYRONE COMMUNITY CENTRE BOARD HAS FILLED ALL THE NECESSARY BOARD POSITIONS TO ENSURE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND CONTINUES TO WORK TO ATTRACT NEW VOLUNTEERS TO THE BOARD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION MARK CANNING CHAIR, TYRONE COMMUNITY CENTRE BOARD CC CORINNA TRAILL "Tyrone .,, catch the Spirit!" 2716 C©ncession Rd. 7 www.tyroneantario.com 13-6Tyrone, ON, LiC 3K6 (9Q5) 263-4330 ATTACHMEM # °? _TO THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT # F~-O~O`~~ BY-LAW 2011- Being a by-law to amend By-law 2008-039 to establish a Municipal Service Board to operate a Community Hall in Tyrone in the former Township of Darlington, now in the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to amend the composition of The Tyrone Community Hall Board; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That By-law 2008-039 be amended by deleting the words "fifteen (15) persons" to "eleven (11) persons". 2. That this by-law take effect on the date of passage. Passed in open session this 11th day of April 2011. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 13-7 C~~.I11 .I1 REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: APR 04, 2011 Resolution#: By-law#: N/A Report: COD-010-11 File#: Subject: RFP2010-12 ENERGY AUDIT SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report COD-010-11 be received; 2. 3. 4. THAT VIP Energy Services Inc., Waterloo, ON with a total bid in the amount of $27,862.91 (net HST rebate), being the highest rated bidder meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of Request for Proposal #RFP2010-12, be awarded the contract for the provision of services as required to complete energy audits at 18 Municipal facilities operated by the Operations and Community Services Departments; THAT the expenditure in the amount of $25,000.00 (net of HST rebate) be charged to account 100-16-130-00000-7160; and THAT the additional funds required of $2,862.91 be drawn from the Municipal Government Enterprise Reserve Fund. Submitted by: arie Marano, H.B.Sc., AMCT, Director of Corporate Services/Human Resources MM/JDB/km/gj Reviewed by: ~/~~~ anklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 14-1 REPORT NO.: COD-010-11 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT PAGE 2 1.1 Terms of reference for the RFP were developed using templates from previous energy audit agreements with input from the Operations and Community Services departments for the consulting services required to complete energy audits for up to eighteen (18) municipal facilities. Schedule "A" lists the various properties included in this process. The time frame contemplated for the completion of the 18 audits spanned five years, subject to budget approval in each year. 1.2 The Request for Proposal was advertised on the Municipality's website and the Ontario Public Buyer's Association website. Subsequently, a total of 52 documents were downloaded and 30 submissions were received and tabulated as per Schedule "B" attached. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of thirty (30) submissions were received in response to the proposal call. Twenty eight submissions were deemed compliant and acceptable and the submissions from John R. Halamainan Engineering Ltd., Sudbury and R. Wagner Consulting Canada Inc., Peterborough, were deemed non-compliant and rejected. 2.2 Representatives from the Operations Department, Community Services Department and the Purchasing Division reviewed and scored each proposal based on the criteria contained within the RFP. Some of the areas on which the submissions were evaluated are as follows: Qualifications and Experience, Submission, Project Deliverables, Value Added Services. 2.3 On completion of the review by the Evaluation Team, the following seven firms where shortlisted and the pricing envelopes were opened. A tabulation of the pricing for the seven firms is included in Schedule "B" attached. 14-2 REPORT NO.: COD-010-11 PAGE 3 2.4 After a review of the rankings for the seven firms the three highest ranked firms were invited to meet with the Evaluation Committee to further discuss their submission and to clarify any questions. The firms were rated on the following criteria for their presentations: Ability to Communicate, Overall Impression/Presentation, Attention to Concerns/Questions and the Ability to Understand Requirements and Identify a Practical Solution. 2.5 Upon the completion of the evaluation VIP Energy Services Inc. was the highest ranked company as well as providing the lowest priced proposal. 2.6 In view of the extremely reasonable price offered by VIP Energy Services Inc. it is possible, given the funds available, to complete the audits on all facilities in two years instead of the five years originally anticipated. However, the decision to take this approach will not be made until 3 initial audits are completed and found to be satisfactory. The initial audits will be completed for the Clarington Community Resource Centre, Clarington Fitness Centre and South Courtice Arena. 2.7 VIP Energy Services has not provided services for the municipality in the past ,but a check with references indicates that his firm has provided satisfactory similar services to other agencies including the City of Pickering, Ontario Place and the Regional Municipality of Halton, to their satisfaction. Sample Audits were also reviewed and found to be in keeping with staff expectations. 3.0 FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost (Net of HST Rebate) is $27,862.91. 3.2 Funding for this project in the amount of $25,000.00 will be drawn from the Corporate Services Consulting Services account 100-16-130-00000-7160. 3.3 An additional $2,862.91 is required to complete the project and these funds will be drawn from the Municipal Government Enterprise Reserve Fund. 14-3 REPORT NO.: COD-010-11 PAGE 4 4. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 4.1 This report has been reviewed for recommendation by the Purchasing Manager, with the appropriate departments and circulated as follows: Concurrence: Director of Community Services Director of Operations Director of Finance, Treasurer Attachments: Schedule "A" -List of Scheduled Facilities Audits Schedule "B" -Bid Submissions 14-4 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington PROJECT SCHEDULE Attachment #1 Schedule "A" Facility Address 2011 Clarington Community Resources Centre 132 Church St., Bowmanville Clarington Fitness Centre 49 Liberty St. N. Bowmanville South Courtice Arena 1595 Prestonvale Rd. Courtice 2012 Animal Control & Building Services Building 33 Lake Road, Bowmanville Clarington Beech Centre 26 Beech St., Bowmanville Bowmanville Indoor Soccer 2375 Baseline Rd. Bowmanville 2013 Hampton Operations Centre 2320 Taunton Rd., Hampton Orono Operations Centre 3585 Taunton Rd., Orono Orono Pool 61 Princess St., Orono Fire Station #5 2354 Conc. Rd. 8, Enniskillen 2014 Fire Station #3 5708 Main St., Orono Newcastle Arena 103 Carolyn St. W~., Newcastle Newcastle Town Hall 20 King Ave. W., Newcastle 2015 Orono Arena 2 Princess St., Orono Fire Station #4 2611 Trulls Road, Courtice Visual Arts Centre 143 Simpson Ave., Bowmanville Newcastle District Recreation Complex Rudell Rd. Newcastle *Newcastle Arena -arena lighting to be upgraded in 2011 14-5 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington LIST OF BID SUBMISSIONS Attachment #2 Schedule "B" Bidder Bid Amount (Net of HST Rebate 1. VIP Energy Solutions Inc. Waterloo, ON $27,862.91 2. Efficiency Engineering Inc. Cambrid e, ON $83,710..83* 3. Finn Projects Toronto, ON $75,607.68* 4. Genivar Consulting Group Markham, ON $69,981.37 5. D.D.D.G. Engineering Services Elizabethtown, ON $88,135.17 6. Building Innovations Inc. Toronto, ON $83,036.16 7. Baseline Energy Services Oakville, ON $64,108.80 8. AM FM Consulfrng Group Inc. Toronto, ON $98,203.49 9. ABS Green Inc. Scarborou h, ON 10. AET Consultants Kitchener, ON 11. Cambium Environmental Inc. Peterborou h, ON 12. Carson Dunlong Weldon & Assoc. Toronto, ON 13. CDML (Cobalt Design Management Limited) Toronto, ON 14. Environ EC (Canada) Inc. Mississau a, ON 15. Halcrow Yolles Toronto, ON 16. Internat Energy Solutions Canada Toronto, ON 17. Jazari Engineering Inc. Waterloo, ON 18. Kleinfeldt Consultants Ltd. Mississau a, ON 19. Mann Engineering Toronto, ON 20. Mapletherm Engineering Inc. Richmond Hill, ON 14-6 21. MMM Group Ltd. Thornhill, ON 22. Otonabee Technical Services - OTS Peterborou h, ON 23. Pinchin Environmental -Phil Brearton Mississau a, ON 24. RCM Technologies Canada Corp. Pickerin , ON 25. REI Power Whitb , ON 26. Stantec -Andrew Penner Mississau a, ON 27. Trow Associates Inc. Bram ton, ON 28. Virtual Engineers Richmond Hill, ON 29. John R. Halamainan Engineering Ltd. Sudbu , ON REJECTED 30. R. Wagner Consulting Canada Inc. Peterborou h, ON REJECTED *Three To Ranked Firms Interviewed 4-7 Unfinished Business ~ Il REPORT CLERKS DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: April 4, 2011 Resolution#: By-law#: Addendum to Report: Report CLD-001-11 File#: P01.GE Subject: PROPOSED FENCE CONSTRUCTION COST SHARE BY-LAW RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT the Addendum to Report CLD-001-11 be received; 2. THAT Report CLD-001-11 be received; 3. THAT the By-law to provide for the apportionment of costs of Division Fences attached to the Addendum to Report CLD-001-11, as Attachment 1, be approved; and 4. THAT the Agricultural Advisory Committee be advised of Council's decision, forwarded a copy of the Addendum to Report CLD-001-11, and thanked for their input into this matter. Submitted by: Reviewed by: a ar 'e, CMO Franklin Wu unicip Clerk ~ Chief Administrative Officer PLB/LC CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 18-1 REPORT NO.: Addendum to Report CLD-001-11 1. BACKGROUND PAGE 2 At the Clarington Council meeting of January 17, 2011, Report CLD-001-11 was referred to the Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee for their input into the by-law as it relates to agricultural property and the proposed discontinuation of the Fence Viewing process. On March 10, 2011 the Agricultural Advisory Committee met and discussed the proposed by-law. The Committee had concerns and Committee member John Cartwright was delegated to meet with staff to discuss the issues and attempt to resolve them. Staff met with Mr. Cartwright on March 14, 2011. Initially Mr. Cartwright indicated that the Committee was in favour of maintaining the Fence Viewers for Agricultural property only and allowing the Cost Share approach to be applied to the rest of the Municipality. The first issue dealt with the nature of the fence which would be required to be built on an Agriculturally zoned property. Section 7.2 of the proposed by-law had stated that the standard for Agricultural properties would be a 9 strand page wire fence. After discussion with the Committee member this was amended to an 8 strand page wire fence, 106.7 cm (42 inches) tall with a single strand of barbed wire placed 15.2 cm (6 inches) above the top strand. Once that issue was resolved the Committee member withdrew his request to keep the Fence Viewers. The Agricultural standard would take priority over the Residential standard for any property line which abuts an Agricultural property and only along the abutting line. fn the case of a property with one or more fence lines falling under Site Plan Control, the terms and conditions as set out in the Site Plan or Development Agreement would supersede the fencing requirements of this by-law. 18-2 REPORT NO.: Addendum to Resort CLD-001-11 PAGE 3 The second issue the Agricultural Advisory Committee raised was that staff consider adding a section to give the property owner requesting the fence the right to have any unpaid costs added to the tax roll and require the Municipality to pay out the outstanding amount to the owner. The Municipality could then pursue collecting the outstanding amount through the civil court. The requested procedure would be a variation on an authority which exists in the Line Fences Act. That Act permits an owner to ask to have the outstanding amount from a decision of the Fence Viewers added to the property taxes to be collected in a manner like taxes. This means that the amount will show on the property tax bill as an outstanding lien but will not be collected as taxes. It will sit as a separate item until such time as the owner pays it off. In the meantime it will accrue interest until paid. The Act makes the assumption of the debt by the Municipality and the payment to the owner an option only. The Municipality is free to refuse to assume the debt and can leave it registered on title until paid or require the owner to pursue other means. Staff spoke to the Municipal Solicitor and confirmed that while this is permitted under the Line Fences Act, it would not be an available option for a By-law such as this which would be passed pursuant to the Municipal Act. As a result, the collection of the outstanding amounts will remain a civil matter between the two property owners. During discussions with the Advisory Committee, the Planning Department also requested a minor amendment to Section 8 concerning Heritage Properties. The wording of the section did not include individual properties which had been designated pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. This has now been addressed. 18-3 REPORT NO.: Addendum to Report CLD-001-11 CONCLUSION PAGE 4 The proposed by-law will not be a dramatic departure from previous practice. Given the limited number of requests in recent years staff do not believe the by-law will have a major impact on the public. A copy of the proposed by-law, with the sections that have been amended as a result of the meeting with the Agricultural Advisory Committee highlighted, is attached as Attachment No. 1. It is respectfully recommended that the by-law be forwarded to Council for passage. Attachments: Attachment 1 Proposed By-law Attachment 2 Report CLD-001-11 18-4 ATTACHMENT # -~ -PTO THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTO~EPORT # ~ ~O/0`// BY-LAW NUMBER 2011- Being a by-law to provide for the apportionment of costs of Division Fences WHEREAS the Municipal Act 2001 S.O 2001 c 25 as amended allows a municipality to pass by-laws with regard to structures including fences and signs; AND WHEREAS the Line Fences Act RSO 1990 c L17 exempts a Municipality from the arbitration requirements of the Fence Viewing process where a ' municipal by-law stipulating a cost sharing mechanism is in place, NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SHORT TITLE 1.1 This By-law may be cited as the Fence Cost Sharing By-law. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 In this By-law: "Actual Cost" means the total cost of the construction of a Division Fence and includes the cost of the material used and the value of the labour performed to,complete the work. "Adjoining Owner" means the person who owns land adjacent to land of an Owner. "Agricultural Fence" means fencing construcfed along the boundary line of any Agriculturally zoned land, being actively used for agricultural purposes and shall consisf of 8 strand page wire fencing 106.7 cm (42 inches) tall with a strand of barbed wire set 15.2 cm (6 inches) above the top strand of page wire. "Basic Cost" means the cost of constructing: i. An Agricultural fence; or ii. A residential fence. "Construct° means to build from new where there was no pre-existing Division Fence. 18-5 "Division Fence" means a fence marking the boundary between adjoining parcels of land not under common ownership. "Municipality" means the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. "Owner" means the owner of land who initiates procedures pursuant to the by-law to install and apportion the costs of a Division Fence and includes the person managing or receiving the rent for the land or premises whether on his own account or as agent or trustee for the Owner. "Reconstruct" means to replace an existing Division Fence-that is not in a good state of repair using the same materials and building to the style as the existing Division Fence. "Repair" means to restore an existing Division Fence to its original State of Good Repair. "Residential Fence" means a 1.2 metre (4 foot) high steel chain link fence erected on Residential property which: i has a diamond mesh not greater Phan 50 mm (2 inches); ii is constructed of galvanized steel wire not less than 9 gauge or steel wire covered with vinyl forming a total thickness equivalent to 9 gauge galvanized wire; iii is supported by at least 48 mm (1.88 inch) diameter galvanized steel posts encased in a minimum of 50 mm (2 inches) of concrete from grade to a minimum of 1 metre (39 inches) below grade such posts to be spaced not more than 3 metres (10 feet) apart; and iv top and bottom horizontal rails of 35 mm (1.37 inches) minimum galvanized steel except that a minimum 9 gauge galvanized steel wire maybe substituted for the bottom horizontal steel rail. "State of Good Repair" means for the purposes of this By-law: i the fence is complete and in a structurally sound condition, plumb and securely anchored; ii protected by weather resistant materials; iii fence components are not broken, rusted, rotten or in a hazardous condition; iv all stained or painted fences are maintained free of peeling; and v that the fence does not present an unsightly appearance deleterious to abutting land or to the neighbourhood. 18-6 "Upgrade" means to raise an existing Division Fence to a higher standard of greater value or quality of materials. "Work° means to construct, repair or maintain a Division Fence and shall include all costs for labour and material. 3. EXEMPTIONS 3.1 This By-law does not apply to: (a) any land that constitutes a public highway including land abutting a public highway that is held as a reserve by the Municipality or_ other public authority to separate land from the highway or to land that is being held by the Municipality or other public authority as an unopened road allowance or for future public highway purposes; (b) an owner wishing to upgrade an existing Division Fence that is in a state of good repair; (c) the construction of any fence that is intentionally not constructed on the boundary line of the property; or (c) any person that is under a legal requirement either by an Act, Regulation, By-law or any other legislation to erect and maintain a Division Fence. 4. RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, RECONSTRUCT OR REPAIR 4.1 An Owner of land may construct, reconstruct and repair a Division Fence to mark the boundary of his or her property. 5. WRITTEN AGREEMENT 5.1 Where the Adjoining Owner has agreed in writing to the construction, reconstruction, repair or upgrade of a Division Fence each owner shall be responsible for fifty(50) percent of the actual cost of the work unless otherwise provided for in the written agreement. 5.2 A written agreement shall be signed by both parties and each party shall retain a copy of the agreement. 6. NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT 6.1 Where the adjoining owner has not agreed in writing to the construction, reconstruction or repair of a Division Fence, the Owner desiring to 18-7 construct, reconstruct or repair a Division Fence shall serve or cause to be served upon the Adjoining Owner by registered mail, a notice of his or her intention to do so at least fourteen (14) days prior to the commencement of any work or execution of any contract in relation to the work to be undertaken. The fourteen (14) day notice period shall commence on the date following the day the notice is mailed. This notice shall include the following items: (a) a date for beginning the work to be undertaken; (b) a complete breakdown of the costs of the fence; (c) any estimates received for the cost of the fence; and (d) a request for payment based on the average cost of three separate quotes for the construction cost. 6.2 Where the Adjoining Owner has not agreed in writing to the construction of a Division Fence, the cost for the work shall be paid as follows: (a) the Adjoining Owner shall pay fifty (50) percent of the cost or fifty (50) percent of the Actual Cost whichever is less, based on the average cost of three separate construction quotes obtained prior to the commencement of construction by either party and presented to both parties; and (b) the Owner shall pay the balance of the Actual Cost. 6.3 Where the Adjoining Owner has not agreed in writing to the reconstruction or repair of a Division Fence each owner shall be responsible for (a) fifty (50) percent of the actual cost of the work, based on the average cost of three separate quotes construction obtained prior to the commencement of construction obtained by either part and presented to both parties, where both parties have agreed to the height, style and cost of the existing fence; or (b) fifty (50) percent of the cost of repairing or reconstructing a Basic Fence, based on the average cost of three separate construction quotes obtained prior to the commencement of construction either party and presented to both parties, where there has been no prior agreement for the construction of the fence. 6.4 Where the Adjoining Owner has not agreed in writing to the upgrade of an existing Division Fence but the owner is under a legal requirement to upgrade the existing Division Fence then the existing Division Fence will be upgraded and all costs shall be borne by the Owner. 18-8 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.1 The provisions of this By-law shall only apply prior to the commencement of any work and cannot be used retroactively for previously completed work. 7.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of the By-law, where either property forms part of an active farming operation on Agriculturally zoned land, the minimum requirement for cost share for the purposes of Section 6 shall be based on the construction of an Agricultural Fence as defined in Section 2 of this By-law. 7.3 Where anon-Agricultural property abuts an Agricultural property the standard for fencing along the common boundary line between the two properties shall be the Agricultural standard. The remainder of the Residential ornon-Agricultural property maybe fenced to the Residential standard. 7.4 Unless otherwise agreed, the cost for the work shall paid within thirty (30) days of completion of the work. 7.5 Where an Owner or Adjoining Owner is in default of his obligations pursuant to this By-law a person desiring to enforce the provisions of this By-law shall, within ninety days after completion of the work, serve or cause to be served on the defaulting person, a notice by registered mail requiring compliance with this By-law. The notice shall specify that if the default is not rectified within 30 days after service of the notice, the person enforcing this By-law may rectify the default and may take appropriate proceedings under Part IX of the Provincial Offences Act to recover the proportionate share of the cost of the work and additional costs of rectifying the default from the defaulting person. 7.6 Any Division Fence constructed, reconstructed or repaired pursuant to the provisions of this By-law shall comply with the provisions of the Municipality's Fencing By-laws. 7.7 Except as provided in section 3.1 this By-law shall bind the Municipality. 7.8 Where an Owner wishes to construct, reconstructor repair a Division Fence on property bordering Municipally owned lands, other than those listed in section 3.1, the Director of Operations shall represent the Municipality's interests in the matter. 18-9 7.9 Unless specifically agreed to by both parties, only new material shall be used in the construction or reconstruction of a Division Fence. 7.10 The provisions of this By-law shall not supersede any fencing restrictions or conditions as set out in a Site Plan Agreement or Development Agreement. 8. HERITAGE PROPERTIES 8.1 Any Division Fence constructed, reconstructed or repaired within an area designated as a Heritage Conservation District pursuant to Part V or for a heritage property pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Acf is subject to the requirements outlined in the designating by-law. 9. VALIDITY 9.1 If a Court of competent jurisdiction should declare any section or part of a section of this By-law to be invalid such section or part of a section shall not be construed as having persuaded or influenced Council to pass the remainder of this By-law and it is hereby declared that the remainder of the By law shall be valid and shall remain in force. 9.2 This By-law shall come into full force and effect upon the date of its passage. BY-LAW passed in open session this 11th day of April 2011. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 18-10 Cl~rln~ton Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date:. January 10, 2011 Resolution#: C'Oa 9"~~ By-law#: Report#: CLD-001-11 File#: P01.GE Subject: PROPOSED FENCE CONSTRUCTION COST SHARE BY-LAW RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD-001-11 be received; and ATTACHMENT #-=,_.TO DEPORT # ~'~~'~~ ~~ REP~R1' CLERKS DEPART11dlE~T' 2. THAT the By-law to provide for the apportionment of costs of Division Fences attached to Report CLD-001-11, as Attachment 1, be approved. Submitted b ~, CMO Clerk Reviewed b ~ ~~~w~~' ~" -~. Y Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer PLB/LC CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 18-11 REPORT NO.: CLD-001-11 1. BACKGROUND PAGE 2 Among the many functions of the Municipal Law Enforcement Division is the administration of the Line Fences Act (Act) as it applies to the division of costs for the construction of fences between adjacent property owners. The Act allows for an arbitration procedure where the two owners cannot agree on the apportionment of costs or the nature of the fence. The Line Fences Act is one of the oldest pieces of Legislation in the Province. The Act of the Province of Upper Canada, 1793, makes reference to the employment of Fence Viewers to provide mediation between disputing farmers over the height, nature and cost offences to be constructed and maintained. In 1834 the first version of the Line Fences Act was passed by the legislature of Upper Canada. Over time the Act has changed little. Today it remains as a method of dispute resolution for all property owners. The current Act provides that a property owner may construct a fence to mark the boundaries of his or her property. The Act requires the local municipality to appoint at least 3 referees or "Fence Viewers" who will act as independent arbiters in fencing disputes. The Fence Viewers are paid by the Municipality and those costs can be, billed back to the two property owners. As municipalities have become more urban, staff have seen a shift in the application of the Act from Agricultural to Residential properties. The overall number of Fence Viewings has steadily declined from an annual average of 20 in the early 1990's to its current rate. Since 2006 there have been eight Fence Viewings in the Municipality, with three in 2006, none in 2007, one in 2008, two in 2009 and two in 2010. Over the last ten years nine viewings have involved strictly residential .properties and one was a residential property that bordered Municipal land. Four of the Awards were appealed to the Provincial Referee because one side or the other was unhappy with the Fence Viewers' award. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 18-12 REPORT NO.: CLD-001-11 PAGE 3 Two of the Appeals were dismissed, one as not necessary and the other as not applicable. In both cases the proposed fence work did not meet the requirements of the Act. In examining the cost share decision, four cases were decided on a 50-50 share basis. One case, which did not conform to the even cost split, involved special requirements on one property owner which did not apply to the other. What is not covered in the cost recovery provisions of the Line Fences Act is staff time required to prepare documentation and organize the Hearings. Each Fence Viewing and Appeal requires staff time to prepare the documentation, schedule Fence Viewings and Appeals, transcribe decisions and mail out the necessary paperwork. This process can be costly and time consuming for both the property owners and the Municipality. 2. ALTERNATIVES Section 26 of the Act does allow a municipality to opt out of the requirements if the local municipality passes a by-law to dictate terms of cost apportionment. A local municipality may choose to pass a by-law setting out a cost sharing formula for residents to use in resolving these matters among themselves. Staff believe that passing such a by-law would relieve municipal workload while still protecting the rights of private property owners to negotiate the costs of construction. Staff have spoken to representatives from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Province-wide there is an increasing trend to enact cost sharing by-laws for residential properties. Locally, Staff are aware that Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Uxbridge and the City of Kawartha Lakes have abandoned the Fence Viewing process in favour of a cost sharing by-law. 18-13 REPORT NO.: CLD-001-11 PAGE 4 3. MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED BY-LAW The intent of the By-law is to create a system that is fair to all citizens and nat unduly onerous in its application. The Line Fences Act establishes the principle that where a property owner wishes to have a fence on the property line then there shall be a fence constructed. The general application of the Act has been that unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, the costs should be split evenly between the two owners. The Act currently offers the ability for adjoining owners to enter into private agreements to require fencing and many owners will avail themselves of that option when they have been made aware of it. The imposition of this By-law mirrors that ability in the Act and places the onus back where it belongs, on the involved property owners to resolve their issues themselves. The proposed By-law establishes that, where there is agreement between the two owners, costs shall be shared 50/50 based on a written agreement. Where there is no agreement then the dissenting owner shall be responsible for the cost of a 1.2 metre high chain link fence constructed on the property line. If the originating owner wants to upgrade from that point, then he will carry the additional incurred costs. Ongoing maintenance of the fence is also split evenly between the adjoining owners based on the expected costs of a 1.2 metre high chain link fence. As with construction, repair costs for an upgraded fence which exceed the costs for a chain link fence would be borne by the party who wanted the upgrade. 18-14 REPORT NO.: CLD-001-11 PAGE 5 4. EXCEPTIONS TO THE BY-LAW With certain exceptions listed below, the by-law will apply equally to all lands within the Municipality. The cost share approach has been equally effective in largely urbanized areas such as Ajax as well as more rural municipalities such as Kawartha Lakes. The classifications of lands use zones do not affect the process. As is the case with the Line Fences Act, the By-law will not apply to property abutting Crown land or a road allowance. The By-law will still hold the Municipality jointly accountable-for properties bordering municipal parks and other open spaces. Rather than forcing the adjoining owner to file for a Fence Viewing the property owner may simply approach the Director of Operations to arrange for fencing and costs. The By-law is not a means to-have an adjoining neighbour pay for upgrades to an existing Division Fence that is in a state of good repair. The owner requesting the upgrade would have to show that there was a deficiency and a need for the upgrade. Any fence construction within the Heritage Conservation District will be subject to all requirements for obtaining a permit pursuant to Part V of the .Ontario Heritage Act. The By-law will not apply to any person who is under a legal requirement either by an Act. Regulation, By-law or any other legislation to erect and maintain a Division Fence. .For example a property owner who is the subject of an "Order to Restrain" their dog cannot use the provisions of this By-law to force the adjoining neighbours to pay for upgrades to the existing fence as required in the terms of the Order. Any disputes in the cost or cost recovery will have to be addressed through the civil process and not through the Municipality. Currently the Act allows for the unpaid amounts, once certified as outstanding by the fence viewers, to be added to the Municipal Tax Roll as a lien. It does not have priority status and may sit for years before it is paid: 18-15 REPORT NO.: CLD-001-11 PAGE 6 5. CONCLUSION The proposed By-law will not be a dramatic departure from previous practice. Given the limited number of requests in recent years staff do not believe the By-law will have a major impact on the public. It is respectfully recommended that the attached by-law be forwarded to Council for passage. Attachments: Attachment 1 Proposed By-law 18-16 HANDOUTS PRESENTATIONS Clean Water- Healthy Land Canara.ska Financial Assistance Pro ram CONSERVATION "' Clean Water -Healthy Land within the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional Municipality of Durham Pam Lancaster, Clean Water -Healthy Land Program Coordinator Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Monday, April 4, 2011 Municipality of Clarington, GP&A Meeting Clean Water- Healthy Land ~anara~slta~ Financial Assistance Program CONSERVATION "' History... October 19, 2006 the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board approved the Clean Water -Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program guidelines. January 1, 2007 the Clean Water -Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program was initiated within the Municipality of Clarington and within the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. Funded by the Regional Municipality of Durham. Clean Water- Healthy Land Ganar~.ska Financial Assistance Pro ram CONSERVATION "' The goal of the CWHLFAP is "through stewardship, impYOVe oveYall watershed health" • Identification through watershed and fisheries plans • Engage and assist watershed residents in stewardship and conservation. • Enhance public awareness of watershed health • Provide technical services • Provide financial assistances • Address recommendations from monitoring and evaluation programs Ganaraslta CONSERVATION Clean Water- Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program Financial Assistance Program Provide funding assistance to the residents of the Municipality of Clarington, within the GRCA region. Funding available for landowners, residents, community groups, schools etc... Review process to give out funding. Clean Water-Healthy Land Canara.ska Financial Assistance Pro ram CdNSERVATION "' Funding Amounts and Caps Project Category Cost-Share Proportion Grant Cap Best Management Practices Up to 5O% $3,000 Habitat Rehabi I itati on, Enhancement or Protection (REP) Up to 5O% $2, 500 Land Conversion Up to 5O% $2,500 Well Management Up to 5O% $1,000 Erosion Control Up to 5O% $2,500 Clean Water Diversion Up to 5O% $1,500 Reforestation Up to 5O% $2,500 O ther U p to 5O% $2,500 Clean Water- Healthy Land ~anara~sl~a Financial Assistance Program CONSER'/ATION "' A review committee is in place to evaluate the projects and approve funding. Faye Langmaid, Municipality of Clarington, Manager of Special Projects Wendy Partner, Municipality of Clarington Councilor, Ward 4; Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board Member Linda Laliberte, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority CAO/Secretary-Treasurer Mark Peacock, P.Eng., Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Director of Watershed Services Clean Water -Healthy Land Ganaraska Financial Assistance Program CONSERVATION Accomplishments to date Clean Water- Healthy Land ~anaraslta Financial Assistance Program CONSERVATION 2007 to 2010 Program Review Year Funding Allocated Landowner Contribution Other Funding Monetary Value Number of Projects 2007 $19, 525 $61, 709 $13, 679 $62, 800 11 2008 $16, 270 $23, 807 $1, 308 $41, 030 18 2009 $21, 820 $57, 845 $17, 833 $97, 500 15 2010 $9, 520 $14, 807 $35,170 11 Total $67,135 $158,169 $32,821 $236,500 55 Canaraska CONSERVATION Clean Water- Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program ~ ' } ~~, ~a~ . , , t~~ $~ 9, ~~ - ~: .~ ~,,r ,~ r ~> . ~~ ^~ ~l~' 0 4 ~ ;~, ~~~. of ~ `~~~ ~ c• V ~anaraslta CONSER'/ATION Clean Water- Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program 2011 Projects Approved To Date • Stream fencing project on Hunter Creek (Wilmot Creek) • 3 tree planting projects totaling 1,750 seedlings • Shelter and education venue at Orono Crown Lands Ganaraska CONSERVATION Clean Water- Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program Landowner Contacts • Word of mouth increasing • Press releases, numerous brochures and posters sent out • Attend many events and functions (e.g., the Durham Central Fair and Family Safety Day) Clean Water -Healthy Land ~anaraslta Financial Assistance Program CCJNSER'/ATION Benefits to our natural environment: • Allows landowners to engage in active stewardship without heavy financial burden. • Provides technical assistance to allow a project to run smoothly. • Engages residents in the environment and watershed planning and management. Clean Water- Healthy Land Canara.ska Financial Assistance Pro ram CONSERVATION "' For more information on the Clean Water-Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program Please Contact Ganaraska CONSERVATION Pam Lancaster, Stewardship Technician Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority 2216 County Road 28, P.O. Box 328 Port Hope, ON L1A 3W4 905-885-8173 x 247 plancaster~~grca.on.ca v~~vvw. g rca . o n . ca Top 10 Risks of the "Clean Fill" Dump Site Defiinition in Uxbridge and Scugog Site-Alteration By-laws "commercial fill operation"-means the placing or dumping of fill involving remuneration paid, or any other form of consideration provided, to the owner or occupier of the land, whether or not the remuneration or consideration provided to the owner is the sole reason for the placing or dumping of the fill; f', j, ~ _. - xs. ', t~ fis, ~. ~ tit1~ ~ ...,,....0 .: tf~" ;,. ti'. ~ ~t~' Earthworx Fill Site in Scugog Unacceptable concentration levels of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, and Heavy Metals were found in soil tests and the fill permit was revoked in October 2010. Risk 1 lack of Provincial Regulation -The MOE, through the EPA, regulates aspects of "Brownfield" re-development. -Brownfields are "abandoned, idle, or under-utilized industrial and commercial properties where the previous property use caused environmental contamination". -However, so called "clean fill" dump sites, which often accept excavated soils from Brownfields, are not within the jurisdiction of the MOE leaving a dangerous void in the protection of human and ecological health. Risk 2 Brownfield Remediation "To date, a frequently selected option for managing contaminated soil is off-site disposal:' * A Guide on Site Assessment, the Cleanup of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Records of Site Condition pg. 26 Risk 3 No Definitions -There are no MOE definitions of what constitutes "clean fill" or "contaminated fill". -Soils coming from Brownfields may be considered "clean" by one set of standards and "contaminated" in another. -It is left up to Municipality to regulate this complex issue through site-alteration by-laws. Risk 4 "Borrowing" MOE Regulations for use in Fill By-Laws -Given the lack of provincial regulations for fill dump sites, municipalities have been struggling to deal with this issue through their site-alteration by-laws. -These by-laws were never intended to deal with the risks that commercial fill dumps pose to healthy native soils and precious groundwater resources. -Municipalities have tried to cope by often "borrowing" MOE regulations that were NEVER designed for use at a fill dump site. MOE tables prescribed for use as minimal cleanup standards at contaminated sites, are being used as a "surrogate" in municipal site-alteration by-laws. T_~iFiZ~ "~`° ~T2~1 I)e~:atl9 ttrli~l I"" ~1~~' (_ UL1i:~IIIi_il ~1~111+.~~11 ~:~* Lll el F`iil:i~_~~~' 4rl ii1,111c~ ~~ e1TN1 i_ a~1lfl~r~~J11 us - us L F ~ 1T, T- - ~ 1 1 - - i T_' - - ~~~ _1 ~~ ~~~~; p,~-,~~_l:~:uii - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 1',i= --iii(-a1.-,, -_i _1- ~~~ - - - - Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) "Soil standards are for the cleanup of contaminated sites and must not be used for the contamination of clean sites. They represent clean down to levels at contaminated sites and not pollute up to levels for less contaminated sites:' "Best Science" is Always Changing -New Table standards come into effect this July, 2011. -The majority of these contaminants have seen a decrease in acceptable concentration levels in soil. w ~ w n ^ ~ ' ~¢ f Fe I i ~ - F _~--,.I ~ -'itr;i-i - ii li.i;[`i -yin: :ia; - , ~ t.n,'tJ ~trr,7u~-i,_u~4 ipicil~_,i ~-~~1 i ~ IJ~_ I i-; ~,i,:- ~;nl_ it ir;r -, t l I- i ~ _ 1 i _.. _ .-... __ - --J -- - - -- - - ~ i _ ~ ~- I ~ ,.:: _, ., _._ - - _ - .: _, ,- - fl i I: -i -- L - - _ ; -_ - _ _ L~~"T ~~~~ __- _ _.. __ -- fi.2' R ~wti~~~~~ ~ li~ ~e,, ~ , i~~k~3)v, ~ys~i~zY~~.^~d s. I , r ., ,; t~ti : f I ~ iaP - - ---- ~ ; _. ~ _~ I -.. ~ ~'vs ~{'~~.~`..' , ~ ~ i._ i 1- ~ ,~~~ - - ,,I. I i , L:, _i ,_ _ .~ I _ _, -r I . ~ - -- - - - - - - -- i i ,I: - - ~.- - - - -- - - - a i- _ _ i _ -_ I Cautions for MOE Table Use -"Clean Sites" should only be accepting fill that is consistent with Table 1 Standards (Background Soil}. -"The generic SCS (site condition standards} approach is intended to protect "typical" receptors potentially exposed at contaminated sites rather tha n the most sensitive of all possible receptors.' (RATIONALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL AND GROUND WATER STANDARDS FOR USE AT CONTAMINATED SITES IN ONTARIO ,Dec. 22 2009, pg. 4} -Places like the oak Ridges moraine, highly vulnerable to fill operations, are anything but "typical" as the oR~ contains sensitive unique ecological and hydrological features. Risk 5 The Unconditional Acceptance of Soil Reports from the "Qualified Person" -For the Scugog site, the "Qualified Person" retained by Earthworx reviewed and approved soil origin reports in order to maintain a "clean" operation. -Upon review, the MOE found the reports to be "incomplete, inadequate and inaccurate". Risk 6 Ignorance of Prescribed Use - "Soil reports" or assessments of the origin properties now being used as a record at the commercial fill dump site, were never prepared for the use of the fill dump site operation. They were prepared for a specific circumstance, for a specific objective, for a specific person at a specific moment intime-perhaps years ago. -These reports often contain statements of limitations that warn against such transfer. Risk 7 Risks are to what sustains us: Water and Soil -In terms of groundwater, once contaminated it is very difficult and expensive to restore. -Possible contamination via imported fill poses an unacceptable threat to clean and safe groundwater. -Impairments to groundwater recharge is also an issue often overlooked. Risk 8 Environmental Liabilities -Short term economic gain does not outweigh the cost of potential long-term environmental liabilities. -Therefore ,what is the net gain for the township and its citizens in allowing these operations to take place? Risk 9 Non-compliance with ORMCP and Greenbelt Plan -Landform Conservation Policies -Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability -Significant Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species Habitat Risk 10 Zoning Changes Without Due Process -(For example) If a township allows a Table 2 fill operation in an area considered to be (or planned to be) agricultural or residential, and that fill is contaminated to the Industrial/Commercial/Community Property use level, it may then be considered unsuitable for agricultural or residential use. What can be done right now? 1. Municipalities need to demand clear, effective regulations from the province to deal with the movement of Brownfield's Fill and the operation of large-scale commercial fill dump sites. Meanwhile........ Sections from Uxbridge Site-Alteration By-Law _: ~_:. ' ..w-an~,_,if-~ ~ i. 1 1f~~ ~~~~I~'~~~~ ~~ ~~~_,~~~ fi-y~r ' ar_ri•.[i~.~~1u ~J~,.~Ir~~ 1 °~_~ ~!4.1'Y~~rr~ fl..•~~1 I~ 1~ "~ ~ - "~tr^n.~ Fi ~- [rl~~~`i _n. .., ,ice ~'~~'-9J.~'~,r ~~'.r'~~~t -"tip ~~~`CIY:~'~I ~r~"~~~ I~ ~f'' i r ~_a.. _ ~T~ , r-~~ ~~~1f;_y~C~f"~ ti~~~i~~II ~~la'~ ~:'~, ~~~~M~ ~r ~I~rf ~s'~~~7""'M :3 ~ii~ ~~~~~~ka~ii~J'l Y"~;~'1 ~I'""~, ir_i;~ i~~~= ~., ~~`~~k~IMi~I~ °~~~~r~~rr_ ~~I-~^,~~i)LS.~~`y~ I~~.s~~«~~~ ~..~r I~I~r~7itt~-:~_I 17~ ~_~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~, Fait .,r' ,~.~..~,~~~ }~ ~" ^~} r ~ r ~' I~;; ~ . ~ 1 I ' ~ ~'- u ~ L ~~'k _ 4t5 _ ~. " ~I ~: i L ~ f~l' , ~~r ~ J Y.. . ~~ , [~. ~ li~ i I I ~ ~~~ ~J ~1 I, , Iv ~ ".,, I~ "=l ll `. ~ ~' ' ~ ~ r; -~ ~ '° z ~ i ~' ~~. ~, ` j t^i ~ ~ F~, ~ _~ r' ~I~ ~~"~ ~ ~ _~ Lf"y l~ r ~.~; l r: `' , ~Yr~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ l~~ ~ ~; LJ ~a 7 I ~~ rl 1..'=a ~I r_ ~, ~ ~ r C ~7 r r (Please consider additional notes on Municipal Site -Alteration By-Laws, to follow.) 2. Brownfield Sites need to be cleaned up not just dumped "somewhere else". 3. Municipalities need to declare fill operations what they are: a use of land not a mere "site-alteration" and address this in their zoning by- laws. Additional Notes for Municipal Site-Alteration By-laws There is the crucial understanding that commercial fill operations need to be declared "a use of land" and must be addressed in the zoning by-law. However, if a municipality is going to consider commercial fill operations (or large-scale fill operations) outside of zoning regulations, consider including the following in your "site-alteration by-laws": •Prohibit them in sensitive areas-(ie. Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability, Significant Recharge Areas, Environmental Protection Areas, Natural Core or Natural linkage Areas (ORMCP), Areas within or adjacent to Key Hydrologic Features of Key Natural Heritage Features, etc. As well, they should be prohibited in "Environmentally Sensitive Areas" according to the MOE definition in O. Reg. 153/04. •The owner must complete a RSC (Record of Site Condition) for the property. (See the Environmental Protection Act Section XV.1 and O. Reg. 153/04.) This would allow the regulations under the Ministry of the Environment to kick in. In terms of the commercial fill operation, this would stipulate what "MOE Table" of soils would be allowed to be brought to the site, testing frequency etc. (One would have to ensure this is the case. This point needs to be further investigated,) •Stipulate that soil reports are to be current (identify acceptable time frame) and written specifically for use of the receiving site. •Allow for "public consultation" when these applications come up. •Only Table 1 soils should be allowed at sites where there was no previous point source contamination (and don't allow contaminants in the fill that were not previously present on the native site).. •Include sections regarding proponent paid testing of fill by township/city and frequent inspections. •Kawartha Conservation has a good model draft by-law upon first review, however, does not consider some of the points above. This should be discussed with both Kawartha and the MOE (and neighbouring municipalities with fill "issues") in order to formulate the best possible by-law. Clarington Fill Control By-law Some Concerns ~_ ~~[_77~~`I1T31iL1.llat-'C~ FLII I:11~:i.li`• L1~=it~I'I.iL i~~~i3~ 11 _'i="1xl~lli'; ~ill'x =,I_i]1 ~- hi-itl.ll~~_ :-~i'=, _, !ClC?l,ll l't~_i t~ ~_il; ~i_~l`€l t.. 1.1 il._~~c{~-'th~, Ir``,~ f eI +_!Il '_~_~lll~~ ~I1'~c1T1 _~~Il t11~1?~_'~t l'k 1Y1~~1 1`~: 1!I'~_•~Ilt IIl ~i _" _!Ili _I1tS':itl ?31 =11~~=itrI' tI1LI1 t~l P:t "~Illi ~~ ll~=i~111~1~'. ~ '.'1'„I~=, 1I1 ?~l 1~_'i_:1t1i:~1i ~J_ TIz~' l~:wt i_'I~ 1~_11'_r~ ~_~~ l~iIl4~ 11, i;1L;_ .fili.''Ii s{I1~~ ~t';Illi.'~111:i _ 1~~~ ~'~i=iTrl:fil.:i1 t~_y 1~1': Il _i+.~. _1 _•~ rt,.~i`t ~._~Il t~il? II-!T1.11 X1.1 ;J 11"'~ 1I~:_~I11i1~11T- ~lllil.=ill ii_t1'~ 11~:' ,=tIl~:~ ~_''1° lc~:_i1t11 .Ili:. .1~='i'4 :s?t1Iir~.1~lIli=l~l 11i~ ~~ ~ -'~i~' P-r _,' i _,~ ~ .i _~i= F~ l_.d. l~"~::•'~-~- i`.F.l'` ,_ill 1 lIli_1`a_~N ;-,l ~ _,~=~1.1.~ _1~ ~i~i~~ 1!'~, tll~ ~1 ik~1 I1.:'dI1?lf t;_t1:1111i1- ~~T~_.i'; r _-. t'lt~l!_`I Ili t11~ ±I ilI.l'x r_tI ijl-1I ;J 1 i~1-??I 1~-)I'r 1~1i _,~:_?lli~_ ~_iI .'- l1IT:~' :'.;Atli ,t1'iJi111._itr'lll_t~t~= t~='~III1l~l=ii.=~1„~`t=,h~llii-.~.'1i1=, Iiitl~i -~_~I'1'i ;i=i;llr_i _i!11-i ..il. =~t~i~1' ~i1'! s~~l.li't=; ~,ti,-Ii~l S~L1illl'.11' r'~:_!111~=iCi _~1t1Ci11.. 5.2 ; tJ ~ i'r'Irt1t1i _it~ Cyt tll~ ~~ ~i'~li~`1- _-5i ~i' Ll~,allf _~Iii~~ r 1i 11 i_'rl.l ,~1~1~ ~ ~' "17 i=~ I~t~`lµl~~'~C~ LIl 11 {I~;=t 7'11_i~1 I i_'~1~Tlt`:111" t~1.=i1 T~l;~ F?L~ '_~_'~Ilt i1I1=: 11~_'~ i Ii1it?.I111I1'~{I1T - tllY 1I1t~1_ rr, ~ ,,"' -~'- -~.~.~._.M. ~'er' ~-'~=~ ~ ,~ ~~. ~ *To Consider*-sections regarding public consultation and council approval of large fill sites, sections including consideration of additional "sensitive sites", please see additional notes page on by-laws as well Is an aerodrome coming soon to a site near you? ,~ _ „, u i ~,, ~~ _ ~' ~,~~~ k 1 s~~ H:~v ~ ~ s r 1 !. ~ ~ 1 ~ t E i ~ ~ ~ ~ J X111 ~ u~ 1 ~ ~ „ iiA; i iii q i~ ~ r u ~ ~` ~~ Y~~~k i V ~i ~~~ ~ aft {~! li[ ~ ~ i~pfid i~~~ f.`~~ti.. ~ ~ 1 i ~r p~ ~L~.~~ U ~~~1~ ~}~~~ '. t a,GpINYivAXf~~] aM~5l1~s9arowQf 1 R $ ~, ~ ~ ~ •'x ~4~ ~ ' ~ "~, t r=i a '~ a a ~ ' ~ ~.' e~ ~~»~~~IiSH9"~i~"R~E~SA",~~>~4?.'~'k`,~C~4$S"*~IStY~fi;. ~s ,t. !5 r:. ]'~dt ,. ; aiy z. «Ai ., ..4~`h"e8ir 9l. Municipalities need to seek effective regulation from the Federal Government on this issue. (Please see the letter from Transport Canada at the end of the report for your reference.) Meanwhile, Municipalities can use the existing legislation and precedents to clearly define what powers Provinces and Municipalities still have over "aerodromes". Consider the creation of a working group within the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (or neighbouring municipalities initially) to litigate this issue. A united approach to litigation could ensure the best response while sharing the costs among municipalities. T_~ E=F F'"(.}T ,:TL~~-L i ~:_: ~:=r~.;T_~.'_•:fl':.j._L 4 T _~.C. T ti~ITIE'~. _ ~[~i.ll y _: 1::11_. _ ~- "~ii`::i .1'.- 1. .=•uT,iLil:i.'.t;1_.'? .::i'~~ ~' _'i~ll"4•tl'1 7~ r-Jl' 1~;111~~.~11'y {) }~'1 ~1TIrJ1l _-. ~j _i~r~ ~I~iuf n- _i '>,_~ ,1,~ T_ N.1._].,-. r x~i=-~. r 1.ialii. ~i.; _;, it lir_.? ~. Lcii_,:_~:.' ~=:1',- - - i. h~i:_,11 _'alit•= :_: j1ij.F', f ~~!r.1li1rL . _31111~R~:c' ~.ll~j~ 1.Y3'~ ~.rfr:-~~',f u _':_rtia_-.Fr, ;ClLi i __ E' "t F~.!1i3:ai.,' .ix_;i _•,Litl.u'u=;i5,.r -. ]. i_r ter? ( ,•.'i.?iii 1 ._31;1r 1:.'.31 `:l 1't':11..]1-_ =. F, .1r - ,.' ~r~1=:,1 H~.1.-11~i,-_. r, _~5tsl ci 1': _.1 liucsl _ . 1_ii.:i. .~ ,i:x:' ~ _ ~: r 1' T _ _' _ _. E' 111 d111_:L 1 r.li., y. •,';l .- -- =11 -- Ali-:;=it ~-',_ _1 i1~,_;1_ ~,,IrT .: ~, -. .:1 '~1,'.t~_ 1 ::111-' -- T".. i1i~11- .ill'.-, __. _,-;_r ,1t _,~r': .i f--:~, r.1rCi - T~>_ial~ ` ~al=r. f.- n =1=~,, =1 ~'1 = _ _l, ,';- -- Tlr ll_. F1 =1 -..~ _i =nd ::;.=;:. h',, it "~1Ti:_~. T' r ~~_.1 _. _:j~1.~.j~ 11•. 1'.S -r ~. ~1:' .`+] ~_. _ - 11 T ~ t'..: 1 _1~~.:= ',. ~i11 jiT' iL_11iC C' it ll R_t'i ~;]. ~':11~ 1".r'_~ s i lr~ ~. 1=1" .. [11:~-.l: 11"_,_. ui2. 111? i 1:9i1~ ~i, ` r_11C12S. ~f:_. .. .. .i-ice L-~ _"~~ ~. j :`-.f€. _111:1,~11i~:i1 - ~='f.lirl '=1"..i to n;e ;-: I _ ,.=11 .c1] ~:_ ii=:~r 1 ~1. IITl y+~rl~f,~llil.rll (~f Fi11 ~laut~n~io~l !-,f T 11~17rj~}~~,-[1 { tlt~llit~- Thank you for your attention www.lakerid~ecitizens.ca Top Ten Risks of the Commercial Fill Dump-Site Deputation Report for Council and Staff 2011 My naive is C'armela Marshall and I am speaking on behalf of a lamer group of concerned citizens in Durham region, The Lakeridge Citizens for Clean Water; a member of the STOR1~1 Coalition. (Slidel )This presentation aims to make it clear that the province has not given municipalities adequate regulatory tools to safely manage commercial fill operations and all the risks associated with them, and until they do, municipalities need to enact bylaws and zoning regulations that will effectively prohibit these operations on sensitive lands like the Oak Ridges Moraine. Commercial fill operations are defined in the Scugog and. Uxbridge fill by-laws as: "commercial fill operation"-means the placing o~• duynping of fill involving ~•eynune~•ation paid o~• any othe~• .fo~•yn of consideration provided, to the owne~• o~• occupie~• of the land, whether or not the remuneration or consideration provided to the owne~• is the sole ~•eason. fo~• the placing o~• duynping o f the. fill; We became knowledgeable about commercial fill operations after Earthworx Industries started dumping fill into a rehabilitated gravel pit on Lakeridge Road last May after receiving a fill permit from Scugog Township. (Slide 2) The Township of Scugog has found that some of the soil tested contained concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals above acceptable concentrations levels, and has ordered the operation to stop dumping, however the trucks continue to arrive. There have been thousands of truckloads of fill coming in on lands that are considered sensitive and zoned agricultural. The risks involved with these operations are described in following slides. (Slide 3) Risl: I Lack of Provincial Regulation The Province of Ontario, through the Environmental Protection Act and the Ministry of the Environment have regulations regarding the clean-up of brownfield sites - "brownfields" being described by the MOE website as abandonec'~ idle, o~ under-utilized industrial and commercial p~ope~ties where the previous p~ope~ty use caused environmental contamination. The land may need to be cleaned up before it can be ~edevelopec'~ However, so called "clean fill" dump sites, which often accept excavated soils from Brownfields, are not within the jurisdiction of the MOE leaving a dangerous void in the protection of human and ecological health (Slide ~) Risl: ?Brownfield Remediation Stated in the MOE guidelines for the remediation of brownfield sites, "the frequently selected option for managing contaminated soil is off-site disposal." (Records of Site Condition A Giude on Site Assessment, the Cleanup of Brownfield Sites and the Filing of Records of Site Condition pg. 26) Commercial fill dump sites can take full advantage of this fact. (Slide 5) Ri51< ~ No Definitions The Environmental Protection Act and the accompanying regulations fail to define what is "clean fill" and what is "contaminated fill" or contaminated soil. Soils coming from Brownfields may be considered "clean" by one set of standards and "contaminated" in another. It is left up to the Municipality to regulate this complex issue through site-alteration by-laws. (Slide 6) Risl: ~ "Borrowing" MOE Regulations for use in Fill By-Laws Risk 4 deals with the efforts of municipalities to regulate imported soils. Given the lack of provincial regulations for fill dump sites, municipalities have been struggling to deal with this issue through their site-alteration by-laws. Municipalities, especially relatively small ones such as Scugog and Uxbridge, often lack the funding, staff and expertise required to monitor and regulate these operations. Given the lack of provincial regulations for fill dump sites, municipalities have been struggling to deal with this issue through their site-alteration by-laws. Clearly, these by-laws were never intended to deal with the risks that commercial fill dumps pose to healthy native soils and precious groundwater resources. The municipalities have tried to cope by often "borrowing" MOE regulations that were NEVER designed for use at a fill dump site. (Slide 7) The Ministry of the Environment's Soil and Ground Water Tables These tables are sometimes referenced in municipal site-alteration by-laws. The MOE prescribes these tables for use when filing a Record of Site Condition which is a document that gets filed (on a voluntary basis) when you are going from one property use such as commercial or industrial to a more sensitive property use. In essence, they are prescribed for use as minimal cleanup standards at contaminated sites. An example of one of these tables is shown here. This shows a few of the 120 contaminants along with the maximum concentration levels aloud. in soils for a specific property use (Slide 8) The CCME According to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), who are referenced numerous times in MOE documents, their Soil standards are for the cleanup of contaminated sites and must not be used to judge the contamination of clean sites. They represent "clean down to" levels at contaminated sites and not "pollute up to" levels for less contaminated sites. For example, the Lakeridge site was not a contaminated site to the knowledge of anyone including the MOE, however, these MOE tables are being referenced thereby allowing the existing healthy soils at the site to be potentially degraded to that of lower grade brownfield soil. The repercussions of this have never been assessed. (Slide 9) "Best Science" Also to consider, is the fact that starting in July 2011, today's "Best Science" has deemed it necessary, regarding the majority of the 120 contaminants listed in the tables, to considerably decrease the maximum acceptable concentration levels for these contaminants in soil In effect, many standards considered acceptable today for protecting human and ecological health will no longer be acceptable for use once the new tables come into full effect. Point being is that the science used to develop these tables is by no means absolute. As well, these tables come with statements of limitations that must be recognized. As stated in the Technical Update for the "Rationale for Site condition standards in O/ Reg. 153/04 section 4. Use of the Tables of Site Condition Standards, "The tables of Site Condition Standards referred to in the RSC Regulation were derived for use in the assessment and remediation of the majority of contaminated sites in Ontario and filing a RSC for those properties. The numeric criteria contain many assumptions that are appropriate for use at contaminated sites being redeveloped under Ontario RSC legislation, regulations and guidelines. However, some of these assumptions may not be appropriate for other uses of these numeric criteria. It is recommended that use of these numbers for other purposes occur only with a thorough understanding of the development process, assumptions used, and the potential consequences, and after discussion with the Standards Development Branch of the Ministry of the Environment' Some municipalities have stipulated in their site-alteration by-law that fill complying with table 1 standards is acceptable, table 1 being described as background soil conditions achievable just about anywhere in Ontario where there has been no point source contamination. However, these same by-laws contain a Table 2 consideration which leaves me to wonder in what circumstance it would be acceptable to contaminate healthy soils up to this limit in clear contradiction to the recommendations of the CCME? (Slide 10) Cautions for using MOE Tables "Clean sites" should only be accepting fill that is consistent with table 1 standards- Table 1 being described as background soil conditions achievable just about anywhere in Ontario where there has been no point source contamination. For all other tables, the MOE rationale document states: "The generic SCS (site condition standards) approach is intended to protect "typical" receptors potentially exposed at contaminated sites rather than the most sensitive of all possible receptors." RATIONALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL, AND GROUND WATER STANDARDS FOR USE AT CONTAMINATED SITES IN ONTARIO, Dec. 22 2009, pg. 4) Places like the Oak Ridges Moraine, highly vulnerable to these operations, are anything but "typical" as the ORM contains sensitive unique ecological and hydrological features (Slide 11) Risl: 5 Soil Reports and the "Qualified Person" This brings me to a contention held by some that having a "qualified person" involved in the operation gives it some sort of safe operation stamp of approval. Indeed for the Lakeridge site, a professional engineer (or in other words a qualified person) is retained to review soil origin reports, and a qualified person is (perhaps) on the other end preparing or having prepared assessment reports of the soil origin property. Just to put things into perspective, the professional engineer for the Lakeridge site presented soil origin reports to the township and the MOE staff earlier this year and the MOE officers found the reports to be and I quote "inadequate, incomplete and inaccurate". As well, months later, and after the fill permit was revoked by the township due to an adverse soil test, the MOE ordered the Scugog fill site to produce a report indicating all the soil origin sites and the quality of the soil received. At that time, the MOE found that these reports did not satisfy the requirements of their order. Why is this the situation if "qualified people" are involved in this process? (Slide 12) Risk ~ Ignorance of the Prescribed Use of These Reports One reason may be that these "reports", or "assessments" of the soil origin sites, now being used as a record at the commercial fill dump site, were never prepared for use by the fill dump site operation. They were prepared for a specific circumstance, for a specific objective, for a specific person at a specific moment in time-perhaps years ago. This again is another unfortunate and potentially catastrophic consequence of using regulations, reports and tables outside of the use for which they were prescribed. (Slide 13) Risk 7 Water and Soil This slide speaks to the special risks involved with commercial fill operations and dump sites. The risks are to the very things that sustain us as a society-our soil, and our water, particularly our groundwater. "Groundwater is a shared, natural resource that is essential for the current and future health and well being of the residents of Ontario; once contaminated it is very difficult and expensive to restore." Over a quarter of a million people depend. on this water source on the Oak Ridges Moraine. This groundwater flows from the moraine making rivers and streams which flow to larger bodies of water that are used by those who live far from the Moraine. Possible contamination via imported fill poses an unacceptable threat to clean and safe groundwater As well as considering the possibility of chemical or biological contamination from imported soil, the modification to the infiltration rate should be considered for consequences of reduced groundwater recharge. This can happen when clay is introduced as fill in significant recharge areas. Unique landforms like the Oak Ridges Moraine are key contributors to vital ecological processes such as groundwater recharge. These risks are unacceptable. (Slide 1-4) Risl: ~ Environmental Liabilities It has been suggested that municipalities can generate revenue from these operations as they can charge per truckload of fill coming in. However, this short term economic gain should not outweigh the cost of the potential long-term environmental liabilities, such as a contaminated water supply. Therefore, what is the net gain for the township and its citizens in allowing these operations to take place? (Slide 1 ~) Risk ~ Non-Compliance with the OR~1CP Non-compliance with the ORMCP with regards to: maintenance of Landform Conservation category limits, contamination in Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability and, Significant Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species Habitat potential in old gravel pits and other similar open areas. These elements can be overlooked when permits are issued. (Slide 1 G) Risl< 10 Zoning Changes Without Due Process (For example) If a township allows a Table 2 fill operation in an area considered to be (or planned to be) agricultural or residential, and that fill is contaminated to the Industrial/Commercial/Community Property use level, it may then be considered unsuitable for agricultural or residential use thereby potentially changing the zoning. (Slidell) What can be done right now? Given the above risks, we respectfully sub>nit the following answers: (Slide 18) (1) Municipalities need to de>nand clear, effective regulations from the province to deal with the movement of fill fro>n Brownfield sites and the operation of large-scale co>n>nercial fill du>np sites. The cumulative effects across the moraine for exa>nple, due to these types of operations could be disastrous. We need to leave a positive legacy for generations, not an environmental liability. Urgent appeals need to be made to the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Ministry of Natural Resources to address this unacceptable threat to the health of the citizens of Ontario and the health of the sensitive ecological processes which sustain us. (Slide I ~) Meanwhile, use site-alteration by-laws to prohibit these operations as Uxbridge has done (see below) and prohibit large-scale site-alterations in sensitive sites, and vulnerable areas like old gravel pits except under very specific circumstances. g _ I.. pz.'! ~_: C'~~~vt'~~ IfC``;f nR1~lr~'~ .1 .'1 j't'llrl'~] ~' :;k ".L.Intc31(IF':7 I-1 ~lil,~ ~;s~ r.~•'+~~' ~,~:c'es~?f, 'fC~f ~ _'r:lli~I"I ~.~ ,jt~Y ~:°~f:.yc}[1 ~I',~all [~~'~r;iGiv _1 ~i1iP)rT7ei~L.f-,~ i1J~ T'irld~?itfit[I.r} 'J4~ifllil flit ~i ~'rv~~ ~ SJ~~~f :~. ._. ~*J~~t'!~'itl~ ;t3r:riirl:_a ~r'~'~,tr~nr~ r~1=,1 rc'nt~=.~n~:i in tl,~s ~~'-li~.~•Y° r~~~F~t ~Sr ~tcti~.-,~1 "~,~, r-r~ ~~.r~•r~r~ .~fs~~nll r,_,~a~~., ~~~~rCtl~ r~r ~ -~f~~rll'r ~ ~r«' ~If~F~~~url'•~-1 ~,r. ~~_~~'ICI:: 'a'illlt~l' ''+'~'~.rL` l,i; f~:7LE:~l' ~~'uG17wC~ r,lr (:'~Yrl'llttr: [j elf' la=:':ll [ice ti~ Wilt .; C" :Li,~!rr'1' I:ftt,F:' trnry i~~r~r~,r~~.Y, ~f-'.DLlft;t` a+~,Ct, ~~_~.~` i~-j [';~. ~.-. ~'+_Ci, =u°°:~ ~171811r 4:, i,4.1_ ~Il', ~if~.r~..~~!.} ',_~{' ~is~l~ ~'.ICi,~itF';~.;P~~f,,~ "!r [_i~fl~r•t~1-`_=~~ t+~~rlufllG~' ~1C;.'1 ~1rll~:`.` l'g~ :'r k;~~~ rNl-~•~'~iilita_~i~.' ~ r rc.l, (Please see additional notes on Municipal Site -Alteration By-Laws at Slide 22.) (Slide 20) (2) Brownfield Sites need to be cleaned up not just dumped "somewhere else". Municipalities can demand better solutions for the clean-up and development of these sites. There is always an easier way, but an informed and more responsible way is what is necessary and obvious in this instance. (Slide 21) (3) Municipalities need to declare large-scale fill operations what they are-a use of land and zone for them. They are not a mere site-alteration. Municipalities have the power through the planning act to declare them a use of land. These zoned lands should not be in "sensitive sites"-ie. (high aquifer vulnerability areas, significant recharge areas, etc.) would require environmental assessments, may need to be clay-lined and should have monitoring wells in and around site. (Slide 22) Additional Notes for Municipal Site-Alteration By-laws There is the crucial understanding that commercial fill operations need to be declared "a use of land" and must be addressed in the zoning by-law. However, if a municipality is going to allow commercial fill operations (or large-scale fill operations) outside of zoning regulations, consider including the following in your "site-alteration by-laws": 1) Prohibit them in sensitive areas-(ie. Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability, Significant Recharge Areas, Environmental Protection Areas, Natural Core or Natural Linkage Areas (ORMCP), Areas within or adjacent to Key Hydrologic Features of Key Natural Heritage Features, etc. As well, they should be prohibited in Environmentally Sensitive Areas" according to the MOE definition:. Site condition standards, environmentally sensitive areas (Section 41, Reg. 153) 41. (1) This section applies in relation to a property if, (a) the propcrl~ is. (i) ~~ithin an area of natural sib; nificance. (ii) includes or is adjacent to an area of natm~al si~~nificance or pant of such an area. or (iii) includes land that is ~~ithin 3U metres of an area of natural si~~nificancc or part of such an arca_ .~arca of natnral si~~nificance~~ means am of the Iollo~~in~~: L An arch resenal or set apart as a provincial part: or conser~alion reserve under the 1'rrn~inciul furl;, un~l (~un,~cr, u~iun lac°,u~rrc~s~.lcl. ~l)Il~. ?. An area of natural and scientific interest (life science or caith science) identified b~ the [~1inistn of Natural Resom~ces as ha~in provincial si~~nificancc. ~. A ~~cUand identified b~ the [~[inistn of Natural Resources as ha~im,~ prop incial si~~nificance. ~. An area desi~~nalal b~ a nnmicipalit~ in its official plan as emironmentall~ si~~nificanl. ho~~c~cr c~pressal. including„ dcsi<~nalions of areas ns emironmentall~ sensiti~c. as bcin~~ of environmental concern and as bcin~~ ecolo~~icall~ si~~nificant. ~. An area desi~.;naled as an escarpment natural area or an escarpment protection area b~_ the Nia~~ara Escarpment Plan under the V~iu~~uru l~acuryu~r°ri! 1'lunnin,~ uncl I k~i cln/x~~c°n~ . l c~. (~. An area identified b~ the [~9inistn of Natural Resources as si~~nificant habitat of a threatened or endan~; creel species. 7. An area ~~hich is habitat of a species that is classified under section ? of the Lnclun~~rr~=~I Jju~ci~~.~.Ic~. _'OII~ as a threatened or endan~cral species. S. Properh ~~ithin an area desi~~nated as a natural core area or natural linl:a~: c area ~~ithin the area to ~~hich the Oal: Rid~.tes [Moraine Conscr~ation Plan under the Uu/,~ Izi~/~~~~~ _Ilnruinr (~niu~°rl u~ir~n . I r~. _'UUl applies. ~). An area set apart as a ~~ilderness area under the Il i/~/c~r~xr,.~~. Irrus. Irr 2) The owner must complete a RSC (Record of Site Condition) for the property. (See the Environmental Protection Act Section XV 1 and O. Reg. 153/04.) This would allow the regulations under the Ministry of the Environment to kick in. In terms of the commercial fill operation, this would stipulate what "MOE Table" of soils would be allowed to be brought to the site, testing frequency etc. (One would have to ensure this is the case. This point needs to be further investigated,) 3) Stipulate that soil reports are to be current (identify acceptable time frame) and written specifically for use of the receiving site. 4) Allow for "public consultation" when these applications come up. 5) Only Table 1 soils should be allowed at sites where there was no previous point source contamination. 6) Include sections regarding proponent paid testing of fill by townshiplcity and frequent inspections. 7) Kawartha Conservation has a good model draft by-law upon first review, however, does not consider some of the points above. This should be discussed with both Kawartha and the MOE (and neighbouring municipalities with fill "issues") in order to formulate the best possible by-law. (Slide 23) Some concei°ns with the cm°rent Fill/Site-Alteration By-Law • Contaminated fill definition in section 1.3 and contlicting definition of contamination in sections S.2f)and6.2 • Lack of sections addressing council appro~~al and public consultation (not just public notification) for large fill sites • Do you ~°equire a site assessment prior to pei°mit issuance in order to comply with section 1.3-ie. what naturally occur°s on site:' • Need to address protection of additional "sensiti~~e sites" from large scale till operations-ie OR1~ICP Nadu°al Core and Linkage Areas, High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas etc. (Slide 2-4) Aerodrome Issue And to add to an already complicated issue and not to distract from the main message of the presentation, there is also a contention held by the Lakeridge fill site that provincial and municipal laws do not apply as they have declared their site an aerodrome which lies under Federal Jurisdiction. (Slide 2S)This "contention" is something that all municipalities need to be aware of as the repercussions of this statement, if left unchallenged, can be catastrophic and will make a mockery of things like the ORMCP, Greenbelt Plan and. PPS. Seek effective regulation from the Federal Government on this issue. (Please see the attached Transport Canada letter at the end of this report for your reference.) Meanwhile, use the existing legislation and precedents to clearly define what powers provinces and municipalities still have over "aerodromes". Please consider the creation of a working group within the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to litigate this issue. A united approach to litigation could ensure the best response while sharing the costs among municipalities. (Please note that Scugog is litigating the constitutional issue in court on April 4t'' 2011) (Slide 2G) Lastly this partial list is pulled from the MOE Reg 153/04 as amended and lists activities which the MOE considers to be potentially contaminating activities. I would like to draw your attention to number 2 and 71 for your reflection. ~_',-_ F1 r_~:7L~--'~ ,_,_,,,;-.~-,tz•:=~~`~~= =_r~.-.gig, iii, ~:rH,u~2~r,t_?peca~t~5u ,. ~ i _r,.p,. _... rcrar~s Lam.. -- - +_:ao ~ -a:nr_~z .. -•.iziriz.:. h_.. it ~:._ nl 1 n] °:-. 1- u lain-e ~~-k~-- rlucl ,t-~ ,.... ~ ni - L 1 .,.1 Im_ 11~+_~: ~_~ i~,,i, ~.t 1 il' lI„t~ra,il of Transport Canada Response to Federal Jurisdiction Argument Mr ,I~f~ Ct'r~ai~, FA.~,A. 1L~~i~~liu~.~ at+Orrf,~rio ~..?pi3~liiv~e i3tt#~ii o'~ Perk Tarcnta +f}IJ M7.~4 'I+ Drat f4f~. C~'T~ole: iMr4 41~Cirlg~ 1rw i1? fill ~ . ~ by ~4i~Q ~l~l#a4iC? r~~ +all ~ ~reeaclrome In 1he~~ hip ~S~ugc~ rr~'r~pe~[t ~~nade ~~1e~ 1~vi~ ~ fri ~qn~d~ tJ~nou~kr #F~ Abr~rt - ~tt~rod ~anadi~n.~i4~v~tivr~ ~ia~ns. rra~sport~~r~d~,lhraugh l~ct, figs ~~ie Jr~rJealck~n ~ver~l~an ie~, I Afig a~r~Gir~mea ~ VIII d b~~IC'ir or ~ervirs~s aa~d fear ~~n p~~acaa~s, I v+c~id nvkd the na lica~r~ce, p~~f#, ~~t~~te car ~p i f~ from ~ran~cu# C~~~d~ kc cor~slrnck ~+ rn~ tF~; ~ r~~i in ~Jbvdt-sip ~r CJno~ #aEJi , ~~ rbrrom~s c ~ 1 r~re~~a~t ~~rnadlan Av It fJra19 T4~ ~ Atat r~ ~ #o ~af~~y, urtgr end ~ndmu~~ ~e~ing, I~+~r !n~ . In ~~IfrxcRl t1tyF Ct1~ M4r~i~1lar af7r~a 0t4 f113B ~L~IAI~y ~ fy~C 1f~ f~9[~~11a ~n cdr~rn~ Qp~ rat rr~th ~apeot #v ;fie +~ yr mawcrrr~r~t ~~ uvildf+~l c,r, ih~ sofJt~il 4~i~ arx frttip~c~en 1418 #y~ er cx,Fti~unf ~~Fa~n~Jti._ J slou~d r~rify that Fite fa~k Zia®~ the ~ I~ggd aant~rrrin ~oii i~ err an ~eredrerre ~r[y dv~~ nit aukr~ri~e q7e M In ~~• of 7nrn~vrt tv ~stfivn under if~~ au#6~vn'~r e# ~er~ ° a,4c~e 1n ~rcl~r foe iite Miefalerfa frrGe P t ~Itl d ~ some Cann o~ t~ tl~~ ~y r~ sec~~fly of ~a u ~a~ ._ - .._.T.,, g I ~uture Site o¢ t~e _ tI,~RING~ON EMERGENCY ~ FIRE sERrl(Es FIRE STATION #2 (NF.Wra.cTr F ~ ••~ ~ M • ~ ~ Monday, April 4 , 2011 Publl* c Meeti* ng on 0 Planni* ng App lications Clarington Planning Services Department Application from the Municipality of Clari* ngton PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN TO REVISE THE LIMITS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS BASED ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS Clarington Planning Services Department Proposed Official Plan Amendment ■ Proposed amendment forms part of Clarington's Official Plan Review process The purpose of the amendment is to update the Land Use schedules: To reflect the location of Provincially Significant Wetlands (inclusive of a conceptualized buffer area) by adding lands to the Environmental Protection Area designation To refine the limits of the Environmental Protection Area where more accurate information is available Clarington Planning Services Department Background ■ Existing Official Plan approved in 1996 Significant wetlands mapped as Environmental Protection Areas on Land Use schedule — no development to occur Since 1996, greater emphasis on protection of wetland areas Development/site alteration not permitted in wetlands Development/site alteration not permitted adjacent to wetlands, unless " . . . no negative impacts . . ))'Clarington Planning Services Department Significant Wetlands �f • Designated by the Province (Ministry of Natural ` - Resources) • Ontario Wetland Evaluation Vs '� System Y` • Within the Municipality of Clarington . f = _ 2locall Y significant si g wetlands , A 12 provincially significantarm wetlands 44 .�.. 1 F 1: Clarington Planning Services Department a- Ha porn c AI o $ \\\ n MAP C2 \ \ MAP C4 Corners "\ � � nECioN CAD S4 ry + MAP C3 ytwl I'' CSCALE 150,000 URBAN BOUNDARY -----•HAMLET BOUNDARY ` s t PBBB. B � R ❑ 00 N D �\ CE&&DN ROAD NATURAL HERITAGE POLICY AREAS CT RY R OAK RIDGES MORAINE LIMIT b. � LAKE IROQUOIS BEACH da wD L . NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM N ROAD CNCESSI RDAD9 p w ® WETLAND CONCES: SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS \r 9 GANARASKA AND LONG SAULT FOREST ,r 1 1 �' p °c •AREA OF NATURAL OR . ...._. SCIENTIFIC INTEREST(ANSI) '�• COLD WATER STREAM Grove '?l CC qCESSnN I ET \; 99 WARM WATER STREAM blaww 3 � � I r � H�hWAY� 8 BASELINE ROAD m ��\ HICSHyyAY f 3 K D �1,C Q SO SO ERyICE • w I - � MAP Cl \ �" ` NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM SOUTH DARLINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN LAKE OA7ARTO MUNICIPALITY OF CLAR I NGTON JANUARY I.X10 REFER TO SECTIONS 4 814 u=ror�FFFE NISaE.' i' iennoNS auo oci�ovry:: "Exhibit."B",Amendment No.80 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan", Map Al (Darlington),Land Use,Darlington Rural Area. ■Lands to be added to Environmental Protection �ti j Area Designation -EN NISgII L EN t I r r�i t frkowe�— �! EOLINI L_ L4 ♦err_ iJ LE ARPTOM'. €I L . I-ORERR 'z y pW$I j I TICE i O VILLE URE4A AREA ''L.� U AREA I (SEE.MAP A2) 5 1 EE M kP A3) \4,I cph 1 G Gt 1}/N j EMtlxonrndTAL IMFE /(q LAKE©NTAR10 PROrecTIOIV AREA �ICULruw,LAREA EPACE (iERERAL - MEEN -AGRIWLIUALAREA I' AL AGGREGATE —E AREA EKIRACipN ARA MAP Al(DARLINGTON) __ ®NAruAL wauc WBAN BGUNPARY URBAN ftE9BBTINL LINIUGE ARFA ELEIAEMARY SCHOOL LAND USE --—I—ET—GARY OOLNTRY RES®9RML YMTERFNONT SEPARATE DARLINGTON RURAL AREA GREE-AY r F MPNTARY—OGL OFFICIALPLAN .....ORM BdJNCARY �NAMlET RESIpfNful ® COIALYJNRV PARK •......SPECIA.L POLICY AREA MUNIGIPALPTY OF rINGTON RURAL UARV;2u] SICENIIAL CLUSTER ® PIy'YRGT PM1gK TOURISM NOCE NAMLET ARK OOLf COURSE r i 1 , +f w GEORGE REYNOLDS OR ir .0 r 1 AD 7# ° y i _� - µ � � � 'F r it W ?# .. L.fr. _ _ O .R,d''fir ..r - .+►' m ti _ ui d ` '� • 1 e f &ROOM E RV � a L:r r r � �, • saw_r. _ ... m, t r` +t WL9ERTeO TAB BASI all w h. r NASH ROAb Pro Wu a k s't 2E, �? xM : 1F $W , Via' to - A+ � M1 • I'1' ::r? {v J ................ ................ a � � Y i y C.9 .• - .� ey . �u Comments • Public Concerns relating impacts on existing residences, agricultural operations, the notification process by MNR, inclusion of a buffer area • Staff No objections/comments from circulated staff • Agencies GRCA — supports amendment CLOCA — some areas require refinements Region of Durham — no objection Clarington Planning Services Department Effect of Amendment • Will bring our Official Plan into conformity with Provincial policy • Agricultural uses may continue • Consideration will be given to existing residences within the newly protected area • Development applications will require EIS under the same policies that apply today Clarington Planning Services Department Recommendation ■ That the subject application continue to be processed Clarington Planning Services Department