HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/2020
Joint General Government and Planning and
Development Committees
Revised Agenda
Date:April 27, 2020
Time:7:00 PM
Location:Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for
accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Samantha Gray, Committee
Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at sgray@clarington.net.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of
Council and Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation or attend, the
Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording
public by on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar.
Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or
placed on non-audible mode during the meeting.
Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net
*Late Item added after the Agenda was published.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Land Acknowledgement Statement
3.New Business – Introduction
Members of Committee are encouraged to provide the Clerk’s Department, in
advance of the meeting, a copy of any motion the Member is intending to
introduce, (preferably electronic) such that staff could have sufficient time to
share the motion with all Members prior to the
meeting.
4.Adopt the Agenda
5.Declaration of Interest
6.Announcements
7.Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
7.1 Minutes of a Joint Meeting of the General Government and Planning and
Development Committees of April 6, 2020
7
8.Public Meetings
9.Delegations
9.1 Pauline Witzke, Port Darlington Community Association, Regarding
Report ENG-006-20 Cedar Crest Beach Rd and West Beach Rd Berm
Review and Estimates
9.2 Pauline Witzke, Port Darlington Community Association, Regarding
Report PSD-012-20 Cedar Crest Beach Update - Beach
Erosion/Property Loss Study
*9.3 Tom Kara, Regarding Cedar Crest Beach
10.Communications – Receive for Information
10.1 John Mascarin, Aird & Berlis LLP, Regarding Closed Meeting Advice 25
Joint Committees
April 27, 2020
Page 2
10.2 Stewart Strathearn, Mayor and Amanpreet Singh Sidhu, CAO, Town of
Midland, Regarding Direct Payment for Federal Funds to Municipalities
to Waive Property Taxes for the Year 2020 - Financial Help to Alleviate
the Suffering from COVID-19 Pandemic
32
10.3 Minutes of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area dated
March 10, 2020
34
10.4 Jeff Lees, Chair, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Regarding
Ban of the 2020 Fishing Season
41
10.5 Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services,
Regarding Recommendation Report - Proposed Official Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to Implement the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study
43
*10.6 Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services,
Regarding Provincial Policy Statement Update Memo
48
11.Communications – Direction
11.1 Susan Siopis, Commissioner of Works, Regional Municipality of
Durham, Regarding Anaerobic Digestion - Clarington Energy Park
54
(Motion to refer to the consideration of Report PSD-013-20 Region of
Durham Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Organics
Processing Facility – Site Selection Process Municipal Comments on
Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and Identification of Preferred Site)
11.2 Jennifer Haslett, Senior Project Manager, Land Development, East
GTA, Brookfield Residential, Regarding Request for Use of "Howard
Allin" as an Approved Street Name in North Village, Newcastle
68
(Motion to refer to the consideration of Communication Item 11.3)
11.3 Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services,
Regarding Recommend Approval of "Howard Allin" to be used as a
Street Name
69
(Motion to endorse the name "Howard Allin" to be used as a street
name in a plan of subdivision in the North Village Neighbourhood,
Newcastle)
11.4 Kevin Narraway, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk, Town of
Whitby, Regarding Provincial Electric Vehicle Rebate Program
73
(Motion for Direction)
Joint Committees
April 27, 2020
Page 3
11.5 Melanie Hakl, Administrative Clerk 2, Legislative Services, Town of
Gravenhurst, Regarding Support for Adding of Community Gardens,
Garden Centres and Nurseries to the Essential Services List during the
COVID-19 Pandemic
75
(Motion for Direction)
11.6 Laura Holmes, Secretary, Bowmanville BIA, Regarding the Impact of
COVID-19 on Small Business and to Request Immediate Action on
behalf of over 3,200 Main Street Businesses
76
(Motion for Direction)
*11.7 Libby Racansky, Regarding Report PSD-013-20 Region of Durham
Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Organics Processing
Facility - Site Selection Process Municipal Comments on Evaluation of
Short-List of Site and Identification of Preferred Site
80
(Motion to refer to the consideration of Report PSD-013-20)
*11.8 Jason De Luca, BURPI, RPP, Planner, Weston Consulting, Regarding
Comments on Report PSD-013-20 & Evaluation of Site Selection
Process and Identification of Preferred Site
82
(Motion to refer to the consideration of Report PSD-013-20 Region of
Durham Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Organics
Processing Facility - Site Selection Process Municipal Comments on
Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and Identification of Preferred Site)
*11.9 Rob Burton, Mayor, Town of Oakville, Regarding Support for the Food
Service Industry
87
(Motion for Direction)
12.Presentations
12.1 Peter Stratakos, Vice President, Advisory & Client Services, Blackstone
Energy Services Inc., Regarding Natural Gas
[NOTE: There is no presentation planned, however Mr. Stratakos will
be available for questions.]
13.Planning Services Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
14.Engineering Services Department Reports
88
Joint Committees
April 27, 2020
Page 4
*14.1 EGD-006-20 Cedar Crest Beach Rd and West Beach Rd Berm Review
and Estimates
[Section 1.3 has been revised]
15.Operations Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
16.Emergency and Fire Services Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
Joint Committees
April 27, 2020
Page 5
17.Community Services Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
18.Municipal Clerk’s Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
19.Corporate Services Department Reports
19.1 COD-014-20 RFP2020-2 Ward Boundary Review 97
20.Finance Department Reports
20.1 FND-009-20 Annual Commodity Hedging - 2019 102
21.Solicitor’s Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
22.Chief Administrative Office Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
23.New Business – Consideration
*23.1 Temporary Bike Lanes on Prestonvale Road
24.Unfinished Business
24.1 PSD-012-20 Cedar Crest Beach Update – Beach Erosion/Property Loss
Study
106
(Referred from the April 14, 2020 Council Meeting)
24.2 PSD-013-20 Region of Durham Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic
Digestion Organics Processing Facility – Site Selection Process
Municipal Comments on Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identification of Preferred Site
111
(Referred from the April 6, 2020 Joint Committees Meeting)
25.Confidential Reports
26.Adjournment
Joint Committees
April 27, 2020
Page 6
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Joint General Government and Planning and Development
Committees Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
April 6, 2020
7:00 PM
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
Present Were: Mayor A. Foster
Present by Electronic
Means: Councillor G. Anderson, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J.
Jones, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor
M. Zwart
Staff Present: A. Greentree, M. Chambers
Present by Electronic
Means: A. Allison, G. Acorn, R. Albright, R. Maciver, S. Brake,
M. Marano, T. Pinn, G. Weir
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
Mayor Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Land Acknowledgement Statement
Councillor Traill led the meeting in the Land Acknowledgement Statement.
Recess
Resolution # JC-001-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the Committee recess for 10 minutes to enable Staff to ensure all Members
of Committee are connected remotely to the meeting.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 7:20 PM with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
Page 7
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
2
3. New Business – Introduction
Councillor Traill asked that a new business item, regarding By-law Enforcement
discretionary powers, be added to the New Business – Consideration section of
the agenda.
Councillor Traill asked that a new business item, regarding the anaerobic
digestion facility, be added to the New Business – Consideration section of the
agenda.
Councillor Neal asked that a new business item, regarding the Staffing and
COVID-19, be added to the New Business – Consideration section of the
agenda.
Alter the Agenda
Resolution # JC-002-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Agenda be altered to hear the presentation of Andrew Grunda,
Principal, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd., Regarding 2020
Development Charge Study Update immediately following the Public Meeting
section of the Agenda.
Carried
4. Adopt the Agenda
Resolution # JC-003-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Agenda for the Joint General Government and Planning and
Development Committees meeting of April 6, 2020 be adopted with the addition
of the following items:
Anaerobic digestion facility;
By-law Enforcement discretionary powers
Staffing and COVID-19
Carried
5. Declaration of Interest
There were no declarations of interest stated at this meeting.
6. Announcements
Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of
community interest.
Page 8
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
3
7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Planning and Development Committee
February 24, 2020
7.2 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the General Government Committee
March 9, 2020
Resolution # JC-004-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Development
Committee meeting held on February 24, 2020, be approved; and
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the General Government Committee
meeting held on March 9, 2020, be approved.
Carried
8. Public Meetings
8.1 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, for a Redlined
Revision to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning, made a verbal and electronic
presentation to the Committee regarding the application.
Mr. Paul Lange was in attendance via electronic means. Mr. Lange advised that
he had no comments at this time and would follow-up with staff to seek further
information.
12.1 Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd.,
Regarding 2020 Development Charge Study Update and Presentation
Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. was present
via electronic means regarding the 2020 Development Charge (DC) Study
Update. He made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation.
Mr. Grunda noted he will be providing an update to the Members of Committee
as to why the Municipality is doing a background study at this time. He provided
an overview of the study process and reviewed a timeline of the of the steps
taken to date. Mr. Grunda highlighted the legislative changes in the More
Homes, More Choice Act (Bill 108) and how they have impacted the
Development Charges Act. He continued by reviewing the current Development
Charges Methodology. Mr. Grunda reviewed the growth forecast and noted that it
is consistent with the Region of Durham Official Plan to 2031. Mr. Grunda noted
the increase in need for service, anticipated capital needs, D.C. recoverable
costs by service, and calculated schedule of Development Charges. He
explained the DC impacts and Municipal Comparisons and the Current and
Calculated Development Charges for single detached residential dwellings and
non-residential developments. Mr. Grunda provided an overview of the DC
By-law Policies including the timing of collection, interest charges, DC
Page 9
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
4
exemptions, statutory DC exemptions, non-statutory DC exemptions,
redevelopment credits and DC Indexing. Mr. Grunda concluded by reviewing the
next steps in the Study and answered questions from Members of Committee.
9. Delegations
None
10. Communications – Receive for Information
10.1 Minutes of the Energy from Waste - Waste Management Advisory
Committee dated February 25, 2020
10.2 Minutes of the Orono Business Improvement Area dated February 20, 2020
10.3 Minutes of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area dated February
11, 2020
10.4 Minster Steve Clark, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Regarding
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
10.6 Evelyn Dawes, Deputy Registrar, LPAT, Regarding Adjournment of Hearing
Events - Suspension of Timelines
10.7 Memo from Rob Maciver, Municipal Solicitor, Regarding Status of LPAT
Appeals of OPA 107
10.8 Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning, Regarding
Statutory Public Meeting during COVID-19
Resolution # JC-005-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Communications 10.1 to 10.8, be received for information, on consent, with
the exception of item 10.5.
Carried Later in the Meeting, see following motion
Recess
Resolution # JC-006-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Committee recess for 10 minutes to enable Staff to ensure all Members
of Committee are connected remotely to the meeting.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 9:07 PM.
The foregoing Resolution #JC-005-20 was then put to a vote and carried.
Page 10
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
5
10.5 Dianne Tominac, Office Manager/Scheduler, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, Regarding a Meeting to discuss Clarington's Comprehensive
Zoning By-law Review
Resolution # JC-007-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That Communication Item 10.5, from Dianne Tominac, Office
Manager/Scheduler, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, regarding a
meeting to discuss Clarington's Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, be
received for information.
Carried
11. Communications – Direction
11.1 Bowmanville Business Improvement Area Correspondence, Regarding a
Resignation and Appointment to the Bowmanville BIA
Resolution # JC-008-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That resignation of Morgan James be received; and
That Erin Kemp be appointed to the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area.
Carried Later in the Meeting, see following motion
Recess
Resolution # JC-009-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Committee recess for five minutes to enable Staff to ensure all Members
of Committee are connected remotely to the meeting.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 9:18 PM.
The foregoing Resolution #JC-008-20 was then put to a vote and carried.
Page 11
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
6
11.2 Heather Morrison, Clerk, Grey County, Regarding Supporting 100%
Canadian Wines Excise Exemption
Resolution # JC-010-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the following resolution from Grey County, regarding supporting 100%
Canadian Wines Excise Exemption be endorsed by the Municipality of
Clarington:
Whereas, Canada’s federal excise tax currently exempts 100% Canadian
wines;
Whereas, Australia has asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) to
rule that his exemption is discriminatory;
Whereas, if the WTO were to rule with Australia, Canadian wineries
making 100% Canadian wine would no longer be exempt;
Whereas, the present value of the excise exemption is $39 million
annually across Canada;
Whereas, in the 13 years since this exemption was created, the production
of 100% Canadian wine has increased by almost 30 million litres,
representing an additional annual contribution of $2.7 billion to the
Canadian economy;
Whereas, Grey County, specifically the municipalities of Meaford and
Town of Blue Mountains, is home to a number of successful, award
winning, boutique wineries;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the County of Grey supports the
excise exemption for 100% Canadian wines; and
That, the County of Grey appeals to the Federal government to ensure the
exemption remains in place by reaching an agreement with Australia prior
to the WTO ruling; and
That, this motion be forwarded to: The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
Prime Minister of Canada; The Honourable Andrew Scheer, Leader of the
Official Opposition; Yves-François Blanchet, Leader of the Bloc
Québécois; Jagmeet Singh, Leader of the New Democratic Party of
Canada; Jo-Ann Roberts, Interim Leader of the Green Party of Canada;
The Honourable Mary Ng, Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion,
and International Trade; Alex Ruff, Member of Parliament for Bruce-Grey-
Owen Sound; AMO Member Municipalities; FCM Member Municipalities;
Vintner’s Quality Alliance; Ontario Craft Wineries; Ontario Craft Cider
Association.
Carried
Page 12
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
7
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # JC-011-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to add an additional item to the
Agenda regarding purchasing wine from other Provinces.
Carried
Restrictions in Ontario on Sale of Wines from Other Provinces
Resolution # JC-012-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the correspondence arising out of Resolution #JC-010-20 (regarding
Supporting 100% Canadian Wines Excise Exemption) also include the following:
That an explanation be provided as to why wines produced in other provinces
cannot be purchased within Ontario, but Australian wines can be purchased.
Carried
11.3 Libby Racansky, Regarding Anaerobic Digestor
Resolution # JC-013-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Correspondence Item 11.3, from Libby Racansky regarding Anaerobic
Digestor, be referred to staff.
Carried
11.4 Memo from Trevor Pinn, Director of Finance/Treasurer, Regarding Orono
Town Hall Accessible Elevator Addition
Resolution # JC-014-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That Communication Item 11.4 be referred to the Consideration of Report
COD-009-20, Orono Town Hall Accessible Elevator Addition and Universal
Washroom.
Carried
Page 13
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
8
11.5 Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services,
Regarding Interim Control By-law 2018-083 for 94 Elgin Street
Resolution # JC-015-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the exemption for 94 Elgin Street from Section 1. b. of Interim Control
By-law 2018-083 for regulations for an addition to an existing dwelling, be
approved.
Carried
12. Presentations
12.1 Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd.
Regarding 2020 Development Charge Study Update and Presentation
Mr. Grunda's presentation was heard earlier in the meeting.
13. Planning Services Reports
13.1 PSD-009-20 Applications by Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd. for a
redline Revision to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning,
east side of Regional Road 17, Newcastle
Resolution # JC-016-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Report PSD-009-20 be received;
That the application by Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd. for a redline Revision
to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning, east side of Regional Road
17, Newcastle continue to be processed;
That once Statutory Public meeting decision timeframes come back into effect a
recommendation report will be brought back for decision; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-009-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried
13.2 PSD-010-20 Declaration of Surplus Lands – Port Darlington Road Village
Commercial Lands, 151, 157, 163 and 167 Port Darlington Road
Resolution # JC-017-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That Report PSD-010-20 be received;
Page 14
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
9
That Council declare surplus approximately 0.7 hectares of property, shown in
Figure 1 of Report PSD-010-20, as surplus;
That Council authorize staff to undertake the necessary processes to prepare the
lands for disposal in accordance with By-law 2011-11, being a By-law to govern
the sale and other disposition of surplus municipal land; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-010-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried
14. Engineering Services Department Reports
14.1 EGD-005-20 Proposed Amendment to By-law 2014-059, being a By-law to
Regulate Traffic and Parking on Highways, Private Property and Municipal
Property
Resolution # JC-018-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That Report EGD-005-20 be received;
That the By-law attached to Report EGD-005-20, as Attachment 2, be approved;
and
That all interested parties listed in Report EGD-005-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried
15. Operations Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
16. Emergency and Fire Services Department Reports
16.1 ESD-003-20 Emergency Services Activity Report – Q4 2019
Resolution # JC-019-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Report ESD-003-20 be received for information.
Carried Later in the Meeting, see following motion
Page 15
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
10
Resolution # JC-020-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to
speak to the foregoing Resolution #JC-019-20 for a second time.
Carried
The foregoing Resolution #JC-019-20 was then put to a vote and carried.
17. Community Services Department Reports
17.1 CSD-003-20 Sponsorship, Naming Rights and Advertising
Resolution # JC-021-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Report CSD-003-20 be received;
That staff prepare corporate-wide guidelines for the solicitation and
administration of a consolidated Sponsorship, Naming Rights and Advertising
program;
That staff be authorized to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to seek
competitive pricing for the provision of services related to the solicitation and
administration of sponsorships, naming rights and advertising for municipal
buildings, parks and sport fields;
That staff report back on the results of the RFP, seeking approval to award to a
successful vendor; and
That all interested parties listed in Report CSD-003-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Carried
18. Municipal Clerk’s Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
Recess
Resolution # JC-022-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Committee recess for five minutes to enable Staff to ensure all Members
of Committee are connected remotely to the meeting.
Motion Withdrawn
Page 16
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
11
19. Corporate Services Department Reports
19.1 COD-005-20 North Scugog Court Reconstruction
Resolution # JC-023-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Report COD-005-20 be received;
That Nick Carchidi Excavating Ltd. with a total bid amount of $886,718.48 (Net
HST Rebate) being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions and
specifications of tender CL2020-3 be awarded the contract for the North Scugog
Court Reconstruction as required by the Engineering Services Department;
That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,023,300.00 (Net
HST Rebate), which includes the construction cost of $886,718.49 (Net HST
Rebate) and other costs including design, material testing, utility daylighting,
inspection, contract administration, permit fees and contingencies in the amount
of $136,581.51 (Net HST Rebate) is in the approved budget allocation as
provided and will be funded from the following accounts;
Description Account
Number
Amount
North Scugog Court Reconstruction - Dan
Sheehan Lane to Concession Rd 3 (Prior
years and 2020)
110-32-330-
83358-7401
679,500
North Scugog Court Reconstruction - Dan
Sheehan Lane to Concession Rd 3 Region
of Durham Recovery
110-32-330-
83358-7402
343,800
That the contract award be subject to the Region of Durham receiving approval
for the funding required to complete their portion of work for this project; and
That all interested parties listed in Report COD-005-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Traill, and
Councillor Zwart
No (2): Councillor Jones, and Councillor Neal
Carried on a recorded vote, later in the Meeting, see following motion (5 to 2)
Resolution # JC-024-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to
speak to the foregoing Resolution #JC-023-20 for a second time.
Carried
Page 17
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
12
The foregoing Resolution #JC-023-20 was then put to a recorded vote and
carried.
19.2 COD-009-20 Orono Town Hall Accessible Elevator Addition and Universal
Washroom
Resolution # JC-025-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That Report COD-009-20 be received;
That MVW Construction and Engineering Inc. with a total bid amount of
$414,462.00 (Net HST Rebate) being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all
terms, conditions and specifications of tender CL2020-2 be awarded the contract
for the Orono Town Hall Accessible Elevator Addition and Universal Washroom,
as required by the Operations Department;
That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $447,000.00 (Net
HST Rebate), which includes construction cost of $414,462.00 (Net HST Rebate)
and other related costs such as design, inspection, contract administration and
contingencies of $32,538.00 (Net HST Rebate) is in the approved budget
allocation as provided and will be funded from the following account:
Description Account Number Amount
Orono Town Hall Accessibility
Upgrades (2019)
110-36-370-83630-
7401
$295,000
Orono Town Hall Accessibility
Upgrades (2020)
110-36-370-83630-
7401
$152,000
That all interested parties listed in Report COD-009-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried
19.3 COD-010-20 Courtice Court – Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Construction
Resolution # JC-026-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That Report COD-010-20, be referred back to Staff to provide a report on how
the cap limit was exceeded for the project.
Yes (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill
No (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwart
Motion Lost on a recorded vote (3 to 4)
Page 18
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
13
Resolution # JC-027-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Report COD-010-20 be received;
That Eagleson Construction Ltd. with a total bid amount of $1,692,074.38
(Blended HST) being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions
and specifications of tender CL2019-37 be awarded the contract for the Courtice
Court – Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Construction as required by the
Engineering Services Department;
That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,979,817.71
(Blended HST), which includes the construction cost of $1,692,074.38 (Blended
HST ) and other costs including design, contract administration, material testing,
inspection, and contingencies in the amount of $287,743.33 (Blended HST), is in
the approved budget allocation or has been approved by Council and will be
funded from the following accounts;
Description Account
Number
Amount
Municipal Servicing (2019)(From
Participating Owners Recovery
110-32-330-
83212-7403
903,669
Strategic Capital Reserve Fund(For
Non-Participants)
510-00-000-
00000-6660
701,841
Engineering Services –Pavement
Rehabilitation
110-32-330-
83212-7401
374,307
That the contract award is subject to the Municipality of Clarington executing a
cost sharing agreement with the participating landowners and receiving the funds
required to complete their portion of the work; and
That all interested parties listed in Report COD-010-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Traill, and
Councillor Zwart
No (2): Councillor Jones, and Councillor Neal
Carried on a recorded vote, later in the meeting, see following motion (5 to 2)
Page 19
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
14
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # JC-028-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting until 11:50 PM.
Carried
The foregoing Resolution #JC-027-20 was then put to a recorded vote and
carried.
20. Finance Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
21. Solicitor’s Department Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
22. Chief Administrative Office Reports
No Reports for this section of the Agenda.
23. New Business – Consideration
23.1 Anaerobic Digestion Facility
Resolution # JC-029-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Jones
Whereas the Municipality has plans to create a Courtice Waterfront Park;
Whereas the proposed site of the Anaerobic Digestion and Mixed Waste Pre-Sort
Facility will be located at the gateway of the Courtice Energy Park;
Whereas only part of fuel values available can be converted by anaerobic
digestion and the moist residue still leaves most of the original waste for final
disposal by either landfill or thermal techniques; and
Whereas Clarington already has an over-burdened airshed and the increase in
trucks containing mixed waste for pre-sorting at the Anaerobic Digestion and
Mixed Waste Pre-Sort Facility would add to the over-burdened airshed while
most of the original waste would still need to be disposed of in the Durham-York
Energy From Waste Facility;
Now Therefore be it Resolved that Clarington declare itself to be an Unwilling
Host Community to the Anaerobic Digestion and Waste Pre-Sort Facility.
Referred, later in the meeting, see following motions
Page 20
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
15
Resolution # JC-030-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That that matter of the Anaerobic Digestion Facility, be referred to Staff to report
back to the April 27, 2020, Planning and Development meeting; and
That the Region of Durham be requested to extend the public comment periods
for the anaerobic digestor and the expansion of the DYEC from 140 to 160
tonnes, and also examine alternate forums that allow the public meaningful
participation.
Yes (6): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones,
Councillor Neal, and Councillor Zwart
No (1): Councillor Traill
Carried on a recorded vote, later in the meeting, see following motions (6 to 1)
Resolution # JC-031-20
Moved by Councillor Anderson
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to
speak to the foregoing Resolution #JC-030-20 for a second time.
Carried
Resolution # JC-032-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to
speak to the foregoing Resolution #JC-030-20 for a third time.
Carried
The foregoing Resolution #JC-030-20 was then put to a recorded vote and
carried.
Recess
Resolution # JC-033-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Committee recess for 10 minutes.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 11:45 PM.
Page 21
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
16
23.2 By-law Enforcement Discretionary Powers
Resolution # JC-034-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Staff report back at the September 14, 2020 meeting on wording to be
included in all regulatory by-laws as follows: a Municipal Law Enforcement
Officer (MLEO) deems a reported violation of municipal by-law(s) to have been
made that is frivolous, vexatious or malicious in nature;
1. Where the complainant of the reported violation(s) is not adversely and/or
directly affected by the by-law violation;
2. Where the complainant of the reported violation does not reside or own
property within The Municipality of Clarington;
3. Where a reported violation does not compromise or otherwise negatively
affect the health, safety or security of person of the citizens of the Municipality
of Clarington;
4. The Municipal Law Enforcement Officer (MLEO) may exercise his/her
discretion in not proceeding with enforcement action; and
5. The complainant who has reported a violation of municipal by-law(s) pursuant
to (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be guilty of an offence, and subject to a
maximum fine of $1,000.00.
Carried
24. Unfinished Business
24.1 Report FND-006-20 - 2020 Development Charge Study Update and
Presentation (Referred from the March 23, 2020 Council Meeting)
Resolution # JC-035-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That Report FND-006-20, 2020 Development Charge Study Update and
Presentation, be referred back to staff for 3 months.
Motion Withdrawn
Resolution # JC-036-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That Report FND-006-20, 2020 Development Charge Study Update and
Presentation, be referred to the April 14, 2020 Council Meeting, to allow staff to
contact the Province for deadline clarification.
Carried Later in the Meeting, see following motion
Page 22
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
17
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # JC-037-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting until 12:30 AM.
Carried
The foregoing Resolution #JC-036-20, was then put to a vote and carried.
23.3 Staffing and COVID-19
Resolution # JC-038-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the CAO be directed to lay off all non-essential Staff on May 1, 2020 if the
COVID-19 emergency is still in effect on that date.
Referred
Resolution # JC-039-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the foregoing Resolution #JC-038-20 be referred to the April 14, 2020
Council meeting.
Carried
25. Confidential Reports
25.1 PSD-011-20 Surplus Properties
Resolution # JC-040-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the recommendations contained in Confidential Report PSD-011-20,
Surplus Properties, be approved.
Carried
Page 23
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
18
26. Adjournment
Resolution # JC-041-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the meeting adjourn at 12:17 AM
Carried
Mayor Deputy Clerk
Page 24
John Mascarin
Direct: 416.865.7721
E-mail: jmascarin@airdberlis.com
March 28, 2020
Anne Greentree
Municipal Clerk
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Dear Ms. Greentree:
Re: Closed Meeting Advice
We have been asked to provide our advisement with respect to various questions
respecting closed meetings of council and committees in order to assist and guide
members of Council with respect to their duties and obligations in relation to meetings,
gatherings and dealings with other members.
Municipalities and local boards in Ontario are subject to the open meeting rule which is set
out in subsection 239(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001. The general rule – which basically
provides that all business of councils, local boards and committees or either of them are to
be transacted in an open public meeting – is subject to a number of exceptions,
procedural requirements and various limitations.
We have been provided with a number of scenarios and have been asked to provide our
opinion with respect to each one. In Appendix A to our letter we have set out the different
scenarios and our responses to each of them. We have attempted to keep our responses
informal and to be practical in providing our advice. In some cases we have provided
some additional commentary where we thought it might be beneficial to the members.
Should you have any further questions or require any additional clarifications, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
AIRD & BERLIS LLP
John Mascarin
JM/jgp
Page 25
March 28, 2020
Page 2
APPENDIX A
Scenarios for Consideration
1. Communicating via email – reply all situations
A digital or electronic communication (email, text, chat room, etc.) that is sent
or copied to all or to a majority of members of cou ncil (or a committee) that
pertains to a matter relating to the business of council (or a committee) has
the danger of creating an illegal closed meeting.
a. Councillor X sends an email to all members of council advising that
Charity Group is going to be speaking at Monday’s meeting requesting a
grant of $2000 for their special event. Councillor X further states in their
email that “at Monday’s meeting it is my intention to introduce a motion to
give them the $2000 grant.”
Councillor X’s email to all members of council directly involved a matter
within council’s jurisdiction (a grant). Councillor X’s email gave notice of
an intention to introduce a motion. In itself, the email may have created an
illegal closed meeting.
The problem with Councillor X’s email is that it was not purely information
(i.e. Charity Group is going to be addressing council on a grant request).
Councillor X took it one step too far by noting that he would move to
provide the grant to the organization.
b. Councillor Y “replies all” and says “I’d support that”.
Councillor Y’s reply to all other members stating his support definitely
created an illegal form of closed meeting.
c. Given that there are 7 members of council and therefore it takes 4 to
make quorum, is it ok that Councillor Y replied all, and it would continue to
be ok if only 3 of them replied all, but once the 4 th member replied all and
stated their position it could be understood to be an illegal closed
meeting?
Simply because all or a number of members comprising a quorum h ave
not responded to the email message is immaterial to the issue.
The members – even if silent – were party to the communication and were
a part of an improper meeting.
Page 26
March 28, 2020
Page 3
Electronic Communications
Subsection 238(3.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides for electronic
participation by members where business of a council many be transacted.
The electronic participation provisions have recently been modified by the
Municipal Emergency Act, 2020 to address the COVID-19 emergency. The
amendments allow members who participate electronically in a meeting to
be counted for the purposes of determining quorum in order to protect the
health and safety of members, staff and the public and adhere to provincial
and health directives to limit social distances and to not gather in large
numbers in public.
If the electronic communications are not facilitated in the manner set out in
the municipality’s procedural by-law and as authorized by subsections
238(3.1)-(3.4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the electronic communications
are in contravention of the open meeting rule.
It is our view that a series of electronic communications between members
can amount to a serial closed meeting. For example, Councillors A, B and
C email and communicate with one another on a matter comin g up at a
forthcoming meeting. Councillor B then emails the chain of correspondence
with Councillors A and C to Councillor X. Four members are involved
(quorum is reached), municipal business has been transacted outside of a
public meeting and without closed meeting authorization or in compliance
with the electronic participation authority of the Municipal Act, 2001. In this
example, an illegal meeting has occurred.
The same logic and reasoning would apply to other analogous serial
correspondences (forwarded texts or a series of voice-mail messages left to
members who together comprise a quorum of council).
We are aware of the Ontario Ombudsman’s closed meeting report in the
City of Hamilton from February 22, 2019 that appears to have taken a
different view respecting email and electronic communications. We
expressly do not concur with the determinations of the Ontario Ombudsman
in that report and query the logic of his conclusions:
https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/reports-and-case-
summaries/municipal-meetings/2019/city-of-hamilton
Page 27
March 28, 2020
Page 4
2. Can a quorum of Council attend at the same conference or event?
A number of members that constitu te a quorum of Council are permitted to
attend a conference (i.e. AMO) at the same time. The members are
presumably attending the conference in their official capacity as members of
Council but there is no “meeting” if they do not gather together “in a way that
materially advances the business or decision-making of the council”.
Can the members sit together and socialize?
If the members all sit together there is an appearance that Council has
gathered and at the very least a perception that the members ma y be
speaking to one another on matters relating to the business of Council in an
illegal meeting, especially if the topic (i.e. municipal regulation of cannabis
operations, etc.) is a matter that is current an issue in the municipality.
There is nothing that precludes a majority of members of Council to gather
together to socialize (e.g. at a conference; holiday party; summer staff
barbeque; charity golf tournament, etc.) but members need to appreciate that
the perception is that they may be discussing matters within the normal
business of Council. Members are not prohibited from gathering together for
purely social purposes (provided no Cuncil business is discussed).
3. One of our hall boards is hosting a public hall board meeting. They have
invited members of council (all 7 members).
a. How many members of council may show up at the hall board meeting?
All of the members of council can attend the hall board meeting provided
that they are not meeting to materially advance the business or decision -
making of the council.
Members of council can gather together in numbers less than quorum
without any issue.
A group of members forming less than a quorum may meet and discuss
matters to advance the decision-making of Council.
All members of council or any number of members comprising a quorum
can get together as long as they do not significantly advance the business
or decision-making of council.
Page 28
March 28, 2020
Page 5
b. What if the hall board invites any members of council to “come on up
and sit up front at our speakers table”. How many can sit up there?
There is no issue for any or all of the council members to sit at the
speakers table.
c. What if the hall board invites members of council to address the
audience?
i. To simply say hello and bring greetings from council?
No issue – as there is no significant advancement of council
business.
ii. To answer questions of the audience? Let’s say one of the questions
is simply about what is happening in the hall board area (ie the
Ward)? What if the questions were pertaining to a matter th at is
quite contentious and is a matter that council is currently before
council?
Answers to questions not pertaining to matters normally forming the
basis of council’s typical business or anything that is specifically
upcoming before council (zoning amendment; by-law revisions;
contract award, etc.) is not an issue (i.e. what is happening in the hall
board area).
Responses to questions relating to contentious issues if not normally
within the business of council (i.e. assisted suicide; national defence;
the U.S. election) can be provided.
Answers to questions on matters currently before council – while in
the presence of a sufficient number of members of council forming a
quorum – is problematic.
iii. If it is ok for i. and ii. above, how many can do that?
i. Any number.
ii. If questions relate to matters:
a. not within council’s normal business – any number
b. within council’s normal business – less than quorum
Page 29
March 28, 2020
Page 6
4. A member of council is invited to a ratepayer’s group meeting to
address the audience about a matter that council is currently
considering.
a. Can that member talk about what has been deliberated by council and
how they would like to see the issue resolved by council? And to receive
comments and feedback from the audience?
Provided the member does not disclose any confidential information or
information gathered from a closed meeting, the member can speak freely
about his or her own views and disclose council deliberations. The
member can also receive comments and feedback from the audience
members.
b. Does the answer to a. above change if there is quorum of council in the
room of the ratepayers meeting?
Yes – if a quorum of members are in the same place and the member is
addressing a matter that is before council, it may constitute a meeting that
has not properly been called.
5. Our Planning Department Often hosts Public Information Centres (PICs)
where they have display boards and members of the community are
invited to drop in, look at the display materials and ask questions of
staff.
a. Would there be a limit to the number of members of Council permitted to
be in the PIC at any given time so as not to be seen as holding a meeting
of Council?
There may be a potential problem if the number of members who are all
present together and discussing planning matters form a quorum of
council. The ultimate determination of whether or not there is a violation
of the open meeting rule is fact-specific.
For example, if four (4) members are in attendance but do not speak to
one another in any manner that might constitute a discussion, then it is
likely to be just a gathering of members in the same place.
However, if the same four (4) members attend the PIC and one of them
addresses a congregation of people and is joined in the discussion by one
or more other members who then are all listening and potentially
interjected and debating, it will likely be viewed as a form of meeting of
council that have not been properly convened.
Page 30
March 28, 2020
Page 7
b. If no to a., would it make a difference if staff did a presentation at the
beginning of the PIC and then allowed for the drop-in one-on-one
questions to flow?
The potential for an improper closed meeting to occur depends very much
on the specific facts of the particular situation. If a quorum of members
attended the PIC and then all started to ask individual questions, possibly
coupled with an expression of their views, the attendance of the members
would appear to be closer to an illegal meeting than not.
39228339.2
Page 31
The Corporation of the Town of Midland
575 Dominion Avenue
Midland, ON L4R 1R2
Phone: 705-526-4275
Fax: 705-526-9971
www.midland.ca
March 23, 2020
By Fax to: 613.941.6900 & Twitter @CanadianPM, @JustinTrudeau
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Block,
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A2
Dear Prime Minister:
Re: Direct Payment of Federal Funds to Municipalities to Waive Property Taxes for the
Year 2020 - Financial help to alleviate the suffering from COVID-19 Pandemic
It is trite to repeat the human and financial toll of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Similarly, the
commitment of the federal, provincial and municipal governments toward alleviating the suffering of
Canadians does not require repeating.
We, at the Town of Midland, in the Province of Ontario, are proposing what we believe to be a
simple but effective solution to facilitate the delivery of our common and shared commitment to the
financial and psychological well-being of all Canadians.
Proposal:
1. Residential Properties (primary residence only)
a. Waive 100% of the 2020 property taxes for all residential properties currently
assessed at or below $ 500,000.00 by each governing provincial property
assessment body; and
b. Waive 50% of the 2020 property taxes for all residential properties currently assessed
below $ 1,000,000.00; and
c. Waive 25% of the 2020 property taxes for all residential properties currently assessed
above $1,000,000,00.
2. Industrial, Commercial and Farm Properties
a. Waive 100% of the 2020 property taxes for all; industrial, commercial and farm
properties currently assessed at under $ 10,000,000.00; and
b. Waive 50% of the property taxes for the year 2020 for all industrial, commercial and
farm properties currently assessed between $10,000,000.00 and $ 50,000,000.00; and
c. Waive 25% of the property taxes for the year 2020 for all industrial, commercial and
farm properties assessed above $50,000,000.00.
Page 32
Direct Payment of Federal Funds to Municipalities to Waive Property Taxes March 23, 2020
Page 2 of 2
3.Federal Transfer Payment to Canadian Municipalities
a.In lieu of the annual municipal property taxes, the Federal Government transfers
funds to municipalities across Canada, as a one-time grant.
Advantages of the Proposal:
1.Quick and timely relief;
2.Direct relief to all Canadian homeowners and the business community;
3.Directly protects Canadians who although may be solvent, are unable to easily meet the
financial pressures beyond their personal capacity due to COVID-19;
4.No additional resources required to assess individual need and delivery of the relief;
5.Negligible overhead costs for the disbursement of the relief. In fact, it may cut-down on some
of the work for municipal staff; and
6.The financial stimulus received from the federal government will come into circulation
immediately and will stay in the community.
There are a multitude of other direct and indirect financial and non-financial benefits that will result
from the implementation of this proposal. The biggest non-financial impact is that Canadians will see
an immediate financial relief respecting the pressures to make their property tax payments and be
better positioned to address other essential needs. In turn, removing this added stress will provide
some relief to the already strained financial and health systems.
As you are aware, Canadians are entering this time of crisis with a very high amount of house-hold
debt and a great deal of financial fragility. Taking this simple step should alleviate some of those
pressures. At the same time, it will keep your municipal governments, and school boards primed for
continued productivity and forward momentum to address the fallout from COVID-19.
Thanking you in anticipation of a favourable response.
Sincerely,
The Corporation of the Town of Midland
Stewart Strathearn
Mayor
sstrathearn@midland.ca
Amanpreet Singh Sidhu
Chief Administrative Officer
asidhu@midland.ca
c: Town of Midland Council
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Province of Ontario
Page 33
Historic Downtown Bowmanville Business Centre (BIA)
Board of Management Meeting Minutes
Tuesday March 10, 2020; 6:30pm
Clarington Meeting Room 1-C
Present: Edgar Lucas, Chair
Laura Holmes, Secretary
Gerri Lucas, Treasurer
Justin Barry (arrived 7:15pm)
Cathy Holmes
Ron Hooper
Absent: Carrie Hooper
Delegations Present: Amanda Tapp - Planner, Municipality of Clarington
Kristy Whittaker – Star Apples
The meeting was called to order by the Chair.
1. Presentation by Delegations
(a) Amanda Tapp – Mobile Street Vendors
Inquiry received at the Planning Department from owner of Pink Lemon Décor to be able to park
a branded vintage restored trailer on main street in Clarington (specifically downtown
Bowmanville) to conduct sales. Image of trailer provided by Amanda. The owner is looking to
set-up during Ladies Night events and certain Saturdays, whenever busy schedule permits.
Background: Pink Lemon Décor is a handmade maker of wood signs. Pink Lemon Decor
products are already available full-time in at least 3 businesses in Historic Downtown
Bowmanville, and regularly during pop-up markets at Gather. Similar wood signs are available
at nearly all retail gift shops in downtown Bowmanville. Pink Lemon Décor owns several
restored vintage trailers that are used as pop-up shops to display and sell product. Pink Lemon
Décor is a registered vendor for 2020 Maplefest and Applefest and has also participated in
previous years. The trailer is part of the branding strategy and has a large social media
following.
The owner is looking for additional opportunities, outside of the events in downtown
Bowmanville, to be able to conduct sales. The owner is not interested in setting up a brick and
mortar store but is very interested in keeping the pop-up trailer in Clarington as this is home-
base. The owner wants to be able to pop-up periodically in main business districts of
Clarington, not only Bowmanville, whenever suits scheduling, and does not want a permanent
space for the trailer.
Thus far, the owner has been directed to both CBOT and Clarington bylaw, and it has now ended
up in Community Planning to look at a Pilot Project and/or a bylaw revision. Amanda is seeking
input from the Bowmanville BIA on this.
Page 34
Historic Downtown Bowmanville 2 March 2020
Business Centre (BIA)
A pilot project, like done with restaurant roadside patio expansion, would allow for a trial period
and collection of feedback before any permanent decisions are made. The pilot project could
allow for a limited number of permits, limited dates of use, limits on where trailers can park, etc.
It could not, however, limit based on aesthetics of trailer or type of business. A permit fee
would apply and would be payable to the Municipality.
There is precedent for this in areas of Toronto. Toronto allows permits for pop-up shops to park
in designated areas, usually in front of vacant storefronts.
Peddlers bylaw does not apply to this business, unless the owner petitions to be classified as a
commercial business (as opposed to handmade items). If a Peddlers Permit is approved it would
allow the owner to set-up permanently for approximately $300 per year on any commercially-
zoned private property. Additional employees under the Peddlers Permit would require a
permit for $100 per year.
Refreshment vehicle bylaw also does not apply to this business, as it is not a food service trailer.
The refreshment vehicle bylaw has a provision that prohibits operation within 60m of a
restaurant. If a similar provision was applied to a pilot project for Pink Lemon Décor the owner
would not be satisfied because it would result in no ability to park within the main business
areas.
Ron Albright has been tasked with determining if there is any safety risk. Access would be
restricted to entrance from sidewalk only and liability insurance would be required.
The discussion involved a series of questions posed by BIA board members.
Several concerns about the impacts of allowing mobile street vendors were raised.
- Parking is already an issue in downtown Bowmanville – this would further reduce space
- Aesthetics – not all trailers will be appealing and restored like Pink Lemon Décor
- Trailers detract from the Historic characteristics of our downtown buildings
- Unlevel playing field – brick and mortar stores have fixed monthly expenses (rent, utilities,
etc) and higher overhead costs
- Property owners within the BIA pay an additional tax levy – premium rent to be located in
Historic Downtown Bowmanville
- Product/Service competition – vendors offering same/similar as our brick and mortars
- Incentivizes small business owners to move to a mobile business model – could result in
more vacant properties and loss of tax revenue
- Opportunities are already available – via events, via private property, via pop-up markets
- Public safety – potential for sizable crowds when roads are open to traffic
- Different from restaurant patio pilot because that was available to all existing restaurant
owners and did not introduce additional competition
- Noise and pollution concerns, if generators must be used to operate equipment
- Fairness - Existing brick and mortar stores are prohibited from using parking space to
execute sales
- Visibility – size of trailer could block storefront windows/signs and thus reduce sales and
customer flow at existing businesses
- Duty to promote BIA members to keep downtown stores and services open for business
Page 35
Historic Downtown Bowmanville 3 March 2020
Business Centre (BIA)
The Bowmanville BIA does not support a Pilot Project or any bylaw revisions to allow mobile
pop-up street vendors.
Amanda was thanked for soliciting input from the BIA on this proposal. At this time, Amanda
has no immediate plans to solicit input from the other BIAs or Chambers of Commerce.
Amanda departed at 7:25pm.
(b) Kristy Whittaker – attracting customers to Star Apples
Star Apples is concerned about lack of traffic to their business that has been open for
approximately one year. They are relying upon the upcoming festivals to draw foot traffic
towards the east end so that they can attract new customers. Maplefest and Applefest are not
a concern, it is more the summer events Summerfest and BluesBERRY that they would like
increased traffic and activity. Kristy asked if it would be possible to place more vendors near
their location during the summer events.
The Director of Events responded saying that the typical number of participants in Summerfest
and BluesBERRY is only one tenth of the larger events so it is not possible to fill the street with
vendor tents, as the numbers just aren’t there. For Summerfest, the Green Street Challenge is
being located at the east end this year so that will help fill the street and draw larger crowds.
For BluesBERRY, the bike parade staging and judging zone will be in the east end. There was
also an offer to place a band in the east end which Kristy felt might help. Kristy was thanked for
her input and encouraged to bring forward any ideas.
2. Adoption of Minutes
Moved by R. Hooper, seconded by C. Holmes
THAT the minutes of the meeting of February 11, 2020 be approved as circulated.
CARRIED
3. Business Arising from Previous Minutes
(a) Spring Street Pole Banners
4 new design proofs reviewed.
Moved by L. Holmes, seconded by C. Holmes
THAT a request for design option 2 with revised background colours be issued.
CARRIED
(b) Parking Meters
Page 36
Historic Downtown Bowmanville 4 March 2020
Business Centre (BIA)
The Chair attended Council meeting on February 18, 2020 to provide feedback on parking
meters in downtown Bowmanville. Parking, specifically availability of parking, is an
increasing issue in Historic Downtown Bowmanville.
The following requests were made:
- No bagging of meters in December
- Eliminate 2 hour free parking
- Update fees to current market rates
Moved by G. Lucas, seconded by J. Barry
THAT the Chair’s report be adopted as presented.
CARRIED
(c) Nerivon Website Redevelopment
Discussion deferred
4. Correspondence
Correspondence was received from
i. Canada Revenue Agency approving the request to classify the BIA as a ‘determined
municipality’ for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act
ii. Kasey Schewaga, Accountant - MOC, with an interpretation of the Canada Revenue
Agency letter and directions for moving forward (via email)
iii. Ashlee Kielbiski, Tourism Programmer – MOC, regarding a session explaining how local
business can partner with the film industry (via email)
iv. Lions Club of Bowmanville regarding supply list for Maplefest pancake breakfast (via
email)
Moved by R. Hooper, seconded by G. Lucas
THAT the correspondence be received for information.
THAT item 4.iii. be distributed to Bowmanville BIA members.
CARRIED
5. Treasurer’s Report
The Treasurer presented the following:
i. $38 961.34 in current account
ii. Transfer of BIA Levy has not been received
iii. Bank services fees have been higher recently owing to number of vendor cheques being
deposited (limit of 20 transactions per month included with our account)
Moved by C. Holmes, seconded by J. Barry
THAT the Treasurer’s Report be adopted as presented.
CARRIED
Page 37
Historic Downtown Bowmanville 5 March 2020
Business Centre (BIA)
6. Directors’ Reports
(a) Council Liaison – R. Hooper:
Reported that a request had been made to the Acting Director of Operations to schedule
snow removal in downtown Bowmanville, which was honored. Unfortunately, following the
removal there were complaints lodged with the Municipality about evening noise of snow
removal. The Councillor thanks Operations for taking care of the snow banks and salting
the area. Suggests inviting the Acting Director to a BIA meeting to discuss a snow removal
strategy for next season.
(b) Events – C. Holmes:
Reported that vendor spaces at Maplefest are 75% sold out and Applefest vendor space is
85% sold out. This is the earliest ever. Overflow parking access has been granted at 45
Raines Avenue for May 2 by the new property owner. Bylaw has been consulted about
increasing accessible parking spaces during events and they may be able to supply accessible
branded bags for parking meters. Green Street Challenge is confirmed for Summerfest but
will be located at the east end for 2020 which will allow more space for Touch A Truck and
free up space for business participation at the west end. Met with Emergency Services and
Operations about road closures for 2020. Additional safety measures are planned for
Moonlight Magic. Food Truck Friday closure will be Temperance N and S all day Friday with
food trucks on north side, and municipal stage and picnic tables on south side. Summerfest
main road closure will commence at 5pm on Friday. Emergency Services Director has asked
the BIA to start thinking about planning for COVID-19.
(c) Membership Relations – J. Barry:
Reported that Brianna’s Sweet Treats is closed. Intowne Gallery has moved out of their
location and will provide custom framing services out of The Willow Branch.
(d) Streetscape – G. Lucas:
Reported that discussions are ongoing for order of spring flower baskets. Inspection of
winter planters will occur once removed. New soil will need to be placed in permanent
flower planters. Inspection of planter lids to see if new screws are needed for next season.
(e) Communications – (vacant):
No report.
(f) Website – L. Holmes:
No report.
(g) Media Relations – C. Hooper:
Page 38
Historic Downtown Bowmanville 6 March 2020
Business Centre (BIA)
Councillor Hooper reported that the 2020 Events Flyer is posted on facebook.
7. New Business
(a) Update on Digital Main Street (DMS) Program
Provided by Jamie Nowe, Digital Services Squad member, via email
56 businesses registered with DMS (upon review: 9 are not Bowmanville BIA members)
8 began training modules
5 completed training modules
5 applied for and received DMS grant
5 received services from digital service squad unrelated to grant
Digital Service Squad assistance is available to any Bowmanville BIA business until March 31.
Moved by R. Hooper, seconded by L. Holmes
THAT the report be adopted as presented.
CARRIED
(b) Maplefest Pancake Breakfast
The Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary met with Steve Coles and Moe Richards of the Lions
Club of Bowmanville on March 3, 2020 regarding the operation of the pancake tent. The
Secretary presented a draft letter addressed to the Lions Club outlining the discussed
changes for 2020.
Moved by G. Lucas, seconded by L. Holmes
THAT the letter be approved without changes and sent to the Lions Club representatives.
CARRIED
(c) Appointment of New Board Member
Erin Kemp from Kemp Travel has indicated interest in appointment to the vacant position on
the Board of Management.
Moved by C. Holmes, seconded by R. Hooper
THAT Erin Kemp be appointed and notice sent to Council for approval.
CARRIED
(d) Meeting with Support Staff
The Chair and Treasurer met with the support staff to go over duties. The empty street pole
banners on the side streets were pointed out and a reminder was issued that in future
banners must be placed on these. Concerns were raised over lawn sign placement and staff
asked about use of fewer and larger signage but, as explained, this would be contravention
of bylaws. Staff raised complaints about the quality of the winter hanging planters this year,
Page 39
Historic Downtown Bowmanville 7 March 2020
Business Centre (BIA)
including chain hangers being twisted which led to difficulties when installing. Staff plans to
clean out storage shed when weather is conducive and may require a dump bin to dispose
of obsolete supplies.
(e) Snow Banks
Store owners have received feedback and have witnessed customers having difficulty
navigating around and over the significant banks of snow along the curbs and icy sections of
sidewalk this year. Oftentimes, those in street side parking spaces were unable to open
passenger side doors as a result of the large banks of snow that had frozen solid. There is
recognition that this winter season was particularly difficult, as snowfall was often followed
by periods of melting and then refreezing.
8. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Board of Management is scheduled to be held on Tuesday April 14,
2020 commencing at 6:30pm in Clarington Meeting Room 1-C.
9. Adjournment
Moved by C. Holmes, seconded by L. Holmes
THAT the meeting adjourn.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 9:00pm.
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Memo
Planning Services Department
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 | 905-623-3379
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Staff continue to work on the Neighbourhood Character Study amidst the changes resulting
from COVID-19. This includes determining an appropriate time to bring forward the
Recommendation Report to Council. We are to provide adequate public notice and
measures for engaging and soliciting public feedback on the draft zoning by-law and Official
Plan Amendment.
To continue to engage those interested in the project, we will be updating our webpage for
the project on April 22nd. The update will include a revised draft Zoning By-law amendment
that considers public comments received to date. Staff will continue review the comments
and proposal.
Attached is the revised draft Zoning By-law amendment which includes guidance notes on
the right-hand side of the document explaining the revisions from the previous draft released
in January. The proposed Official Plan amendment remains unchanged. Interested Parties
will be notified and asked to provide additional feedback, with comments to be received by
May 6, 2020.
Sincerely,
Faye Langmaid
*av
Attachments
i:\^department\pln files\pln 8 other by-laws\pln 8.6 interim control by-law\pln 8.6.7 elgin_memorial_central\icbl 2018-083\amendments\94
elgin\memo_mmc_icbl_94elgin.docx
To: Mayor and Members of Council
Cc: CAO and Department Heads
From: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Date: April 22, 2020
Subject: Recommendation Report – Proposed Official Plan Amendment and
Rezoning to Implement the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study
File No: PLN 8.6.7, COPA2019-0002 & ZBA2019-0019
Page 43
feedback from the public and the ongoing review by the Planning Services Department.
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 20___-______
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for
the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington for ZBA 2019-0019;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 12. Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone is amended by adding a new
section 12.2.1 as follows:
“12.2.1 Neighbourhood Character Overlays 1 and 2
The following alternate regulations shall apply to the “Urban Residential Type One (R1)
Residential Zone” and all special exceptions to that zone located within the
a. For the purpose of Section 12.2.1, the term:
i)
a)
b)
c) In the case of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, the average height
between the eaves and the ridge.
1. Height of Dwelling
at the street line, rather than from the lowest point of grade. It will control the appearance
ii)
line to existing principal buildings on one side of the street measured
a minimum of four lots on either side of the lot within the same zone
category.
2. Established Building Line
iii) Fixed grade means the elevation of the ground at the street line measured
at the midpoint of a lot.
iv) Soft landscaping³ means the portion of a lot comprised of any combination
not covered with impervious surfaces. It does not include any buildings or
structures, any hard surface areas such as, but not limited to, driveways,
landscape architectural elements.
3. Soft Landscaping
This term is referenced in the regulations for landscape open space. It has been
created to ensure half of a front yard will be vegetated.
Page 44
b. Yard Requirements
i)
a) 6.0 metres minimum to the garage or carport
b) Minimum to the dwelling is the established building line
c)Maximum to the dwelling is 2.0 metres from the established building
line
4. Front Yard Setback
within 2 metres of the established building line to address areas with shallow front
yards.
ii)
a) 3.0 metres on one side where there is no attached garage;
b)1.2 metres for dwellings 1.5 stories or less; and
c)1.8 metres for dwellings greater than 1.5 stories
5. Interior Side Yard
c.
i) For dwellings 1.5 storeys or less 35 percent
ii) For dwellings greater than 1.5 storeys 30 percent
iii) A covered and unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable
the following:
a) In the case of an interior lot, the maximum total area of 12.0 square
metres is permitted within the front yard.
b)In the case of an exterior lot, the maximum total area of 20.0 square
metres is permitted within the front yard and/or exterior side yard.
6.Lot Coverage - iii)
This regulation was added to provide an exclusion for porches from lot coverage.
This will help address concerns expressed by builders that the proposed lot coverage
was too restrictive. This is a similar approach to what is accommodated in newer
residential zones.
d.
i) Overall 40 percent
ii) Front yard 50 percent, which must be soft landscaping
7. Landscaped Open Space - ii)
This regulation was revised to reference soft landscaping rather than hard surfaced
areas.
e.
8.5 metres in Overlay 2
8. Building Height
To recognize the proposed change to how height is being measured, the maximum
Study indicated that average heights in the study areas did not exceed 8 metres.f.
9. Special Regulations
The format of this regulation was changed for readability. Rather than regulate the
outside width of a garage, this regulation has been revised to regulate the width of the
and will accommodate variations in framing and exterior cladding.
i) The maximum permitted width of a garage door is 3 metres and the
combined width of garage doors on an attached garage shall not exceed 6
metres and the following, whichever is less:
a) Where facing the exterior side lot line
for all dwellings 25 percent of the
exterior side lot line
b) Where facing the front lot line for single
detached dwellings 25 percent of the
exterior side lot line
c)Where facing the front lot line for
semi-detached dwellings 35 percent of the
front lot line Page 45
ii)10. Special Regulations - ii)
This regulation was revised to refer to the garage doors rather than the garage itself to
clarify for implementation.iii)
11. Special Regulations - iii)
This regulation was added as it is a common standard for new residential zones and
ensure front porches do not tower over the street, but are built at a height that provides
the neighbourhood.
iv)Entrances for an apartment-in-house can be in the front yard through a
common entrance with the principal dwelling. Where a separate entrance
12. Special Regulations - iv)
Ontario Building Code.
g. Exceptions
i)
metres.
ii)
is 43 percent.
iii) Notwithstanding 12.2.1 b. i) c., c.i), d. ii), and f. ii), 10 Victoria Street shall
a.
b. Lot coverage (maximum)43 percent
c. Front yard landscape open space (minimum)35 percent
d.A garage door may not extend in front of the front wall of the
dwelling.
2.Section 26 is amended by adding a new section 26.8 as follows:
“26.8 Overlay Zones
In addition to the permitted uses and zoning regulations for each zone there are
Overlay Zones. Where applied the Overlay Zones are read together with the
except in the case of a special exception. The Overlay Zones are shown on the
Schedules to this By-law.”
3.
the “Neighbourhood Character Overlay” as illustrated on the attached Schedule
4.
5.
the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this _____ day of ____________, 20___
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
Page 46
Page 47
Memo
Planning Services Department
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 | 905-623-3379
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Staff provided Council with a memo (attached) regarding the changes to the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) which comes into effect on May 1, 2020. The previous memo
provided a high-level summary of the changes to the PPS. It noted that while there are
changes within the PPS, the changes provide additional clarity and reinforce the
direction Clarington has had in place for many years.
On April 22 I provided a redline version of the PPS and the training materials from the
Ministry to members of Council. This memo highlights some of the projects that we are
working that implement the strengthened PPS policies.
Increasing Housing Supply & Mix
Affordable Housing Task Force
o Affordable Housing units are encouraged in all new Secondary Plans
Density and intensification is focused in Regional Centres and along Corridors
where transit will be most available
Protecting the Environment & Public Safety
Climate Change Resilience
o Corporate Climate Action Plan
o Corporate EV Strategy
Stormwater Management
o Two ongoing Subwatershed Studies integrate natural heritage systems,
natural hazards and storm water management for use in the planning of our
Secondary Plan areas.
Natural Hazards
o In co-operation with our Conservation Authorities updating the Lake Ontario
Shoreline Hazard Management Plan
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Date: April 24, 2020
Subject: Provincial Policy Statement update memo
File: PLN 1.1.5.4
Page 48
Page | 2
Supporting Rural, Northern and Indigenous Communities
Agriculture
o Inclusion of On-farm diversifies uses direction within the Rural Portion of the
Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw
Indigenous Engagement
o All Secondary Plans using the Integrated Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment process includes consultation with our indigenous communities.
Supporting Certainty and Economic Growth
Employment Planning
o The Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan is planning for our Major
Transit Station Areas (around the Courtice GO Station) and our
Provincially Significant Employment Zone in Courtice. This work is also
linked to the updates to the Energy Park Secondary Plan.
Land Use Compatibility
o Staff Report PSD-013-20 regarding the siting of the Anerobic Digester
within the Clarington Energy Park
Faye Langmaid
Acting Director of Planning Services
*av
Attach.
i:\^department\pln files\pln 1 planning legislation\pln 1.1.5.4 pps 2019\correspondence\mmc on pps coming into force.docx
Page 49
Memo
Planning Services Department
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 | 905-623-3379
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Province, in May 2019, indicated that a number of changes would be forthcoming to
land use planning and development legislation in Ontario. In July 2019, the Province
released a draft of the PPS for public review and comments. On Friday February 28,
2020 the Province released the final PPS, 2020 which will come into effect on May 1,
2020 (see Attachment 1 Provincial Backgrounder).
The preamble states that municipal Official Plans are the most important vehicle for
implementing the PPS. A policy moved to the preamble speaks to Zoning as also being
important for implementation of the PPS and that Planning Authorities shall keep their
Zoning By-laws up to date with their Official Plans and the PPS.
Staff have undertaken a preliminary review of the policy changes and their potential
impact on Clarington’s Official Plan and other land use policies and regulations, such as
Zone Clarington and the 11 Secondary Plans that are underway. While there are a
number of changes within the PPS, they provide additional clarity and reinforce the
direction which has been in place for many years. The significant additions are:
recognition of the need to plan with climate change in mind;
Inclusion of indigenous perspectives in land use planning and with regard to
cultural heritage resources;
Providing more housing choices and options;
Integration of storm water management into planning from its initial stages;
Support for alternative energy sources including district heating;
Strengthening of on-farm diversification policies and the agricultural system;
Reaffirming that the creation of lots in the rural area is not allowed within prime
agriculture;
Restrictions on ground mount solar on prime agriculture lands;
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Date: March 5, 2020
Subject: Provincial Policy Statement 2020
Page 50
Page | 2
Permitting adjustment to settlement area boundaries outside of a comprehensive
review subject to criteria;
Consideration for locating sensitive lands uses in proximity to industrial
developments where impacts are minimized and mitigated subject to criteria;
Consideration for converting employment areas outside of a comprehensive
review to non-employment uses that have not been identified as provincially or
regionally significant subject to criteria;
Ensuring there is an “appropriate range” and mix of housing options to
accommodate residential growth for 15 years and where new development is to
occur, by advance zoning and approved draft/registered plans, and advancing
servicing to provide at least a three-year supply of residential units; and
Requiring Planning Authorities to establish and implement minimum targets for
affordable housing to low- and moderate-income households.
Section 2.1 Natural Heritage remains unchanged and Section 2.2 has been expanded
to include a policy to evaluate and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate to
water resource systems at the watershed level.
The policy changes do not have significant implications for the Clarington’s Official Plan
adopted in 2016, as many of the new directions such as climate change were included
in the Plan, and the policy framework allows for the remaining policies to be
implemented in the Secondary Plans and Zoning By-law. Implications on housing
choices and storm water management can be addressed within the Secondary Plans
before they are presented in draft to Council. The first draft of the Zoning By-law
included regulations to address second units and on-farm diversified uses.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Faye Langmaid
Acting Director of Planning Services
c: CAO and Department Heads
Page 51
Attachment 1 – Provincial Backgrounder
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 Overview
February 28, 2020 11:30 A.M
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) establishes province-wide standards for how we
use land and resources and guides decision-making on key land use issues across
Ontario. These initiatives will help Ontario deal with the affordable housing crisis that
has been created over the past 15 years.
The release of Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 is part of the government's plan to
build healthier, safer communities, make life more affordable and create a more
competitive business environment. It does this while continuing to protect the
environment, including the Greenbelt, for future generations. The PPS, 2020 has new
policies across five themes.
1.Increasing Housing Supply and Mix
Make more land available for housing to help people find homes close to where
they work.
Give clear direction to municipalities to plan for the right range and mix of
housing to meet local needs.
Give greater certainty to home builders to encourage more housing.
Give municipalities greater flexibility and control over local planning decisions,
including settlement area boundary expansions and rural residential development
that is appropriate for the community.
2.Protecting the Environment and Public Safety
Enhance stormwater management and climate change policies while continuing
to protect important natural features like wetlands, wildlife habitat and the
Greenbelt.
Ensure municipalities plan and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate.
Make policies clearer for development, while keeping policies in place that direct
development away from hazardous areas, such as those prone to floods.
3.Reducing Barriers and Costs
Make it easier for municipalities to encourage business investment by reducing
the number of studies needed to approve smaller projects.
Give municipalities more flexibility and control over local planning decisions to
meet the economic needs of their communities.
Page 52
4. Supporting Rural, Northern and Indigenous Communities
Give northern and rural communities more flexibility to support appropriate
development in areas without full municipal sewer/water services.
Enhance municipal engagement with Indigenous communities on land use
planning matters, cultural heritage and archeological matters.
Maintain the protection of prime agricultural lands to support critical food
production and the agricultural sector as a significant economic driver.
5. Supporting Certainty and Economic Growth
Protect existing employment areas, like manufacturing and warehousing, so jobs
are not lost.
Better protect manufacturing and industrial facilities where non-employment
uses, like residential, are planned nearby.
Encourage local planning authorities to identify strategic sites for investment and
address any barriers to investment.
Give municipalities greater control over employment area conversions to support
local development and job creation that suits local needs.
The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 comes into effect on May 1, 2020.
https://news.ontario.ca/mma/en/2020/02/provincial-policy-statement-2020-overview.html
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 1 of 12
Information Package - Anaerobic Digestor Project
What is Anaerobic Digestion?
“Anaerobic Digestion” (AD) refers to the decomposition of organic matter by bacteria in an
oxygen-limiting environment (as defined in Regulation 347 under the Environmental Protection
Act). It is a naturally occurring biological process that uses microorganisms to break down organic
material in the absence of oxygen.
How Does Anaerobic Digestion Work?
Engineered AD occurs within specially designed reactors where conditions such as moisture,
temperature, and pH levels are controlled to maximize biogas generation and waste
decomposition rates. In this tightly controlled and closed process, the breakdown of organics
occurs much more quickly and effectively than through natural conditions, and the methane gas
can be efficiently captured for beneficial use.
Why Pursue Anaerobic Digestion?
AD is one part of a broader and integrated residential waste management solution for the
collection, processing and disposal of organic waste. Due to the population and employment
growth in the region, a long term and sustainable waste management solution is needed. In spring
2019, Regional Council directed staff to begin work on a new Long-Term Waste Management
Plan and endorsed a vision statement for a new 2021-2040 Strategy, as follows:
“To manage solid waste as a resource through innovation and adaptability to enhance
environmental sustainability.”
Sending food and organic waste to landfill is unsustainable as it puts additional strain on the
environment by requiring new landfill space, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions by trucking
waste to remote locations, releases additional methane to the atmosphere, puts groundwater at
risk with the potential of leachate, and does not capitalize on this resource opportunity.
The biogas generated through AD can be used to fuel electrical generators, or it can be further
processed into renewable natural gas. This renewable natural gas is a low-carbon fuel that does
not add new carbon to the atmosphere and can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions when
substituted for fossil natural gas and is compatible with conventional natural gas infrastructure
and equipment.
The recovery of digestate from AD can be used to build new or improve existing soils by improving
soil fertility, soil structure or to help build soils where they do not exist.
The Planning Policy Context
In Ontario, the Planning Act establishes a land use planning system that is led by provincial policy.
The Planning Act allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to issue policy statements,
including the Provincial Policy Statement (or PPS) on land use planning matters that are of
provincial interest.
Page 56
Page 2 of 12
All decisions on planning matters under the Planning Act must be “consistent with” the PPS.1
Such decisions also must either conform, or not conflict, with any provincial land use plans in
effect, such as “A Place to Grow” – the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.2
There is a two-tiered system of planning in Durham. The Durham Regional Official plan provides
the general land use structure and broad structural and land use policies of Regional interest,
while more detailed land use policies and area specific policies are provided within the
Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. Zoning controls are administered by the Municipality of
Clarington.
Clarington Energy Business Park: Land Use Planning Designations and Zoning
One of the locations being considered for the proposed AD facility is within the Clarington Energy
Business Park. A description of vacant Regionally-owned properties, land use designations and
zoning controls that apply are as follows.
Property 1 is 18.95 hectares (46.8 ac.) in
size, fronts onto Megawatt Drive and
Energy Drive and is visible from Highway
401.
Property 2 is 8.05 hectares (19.89 ac.) in
size with frontage onto Energy Drive and
is bisected by Haul Road.
Property 3 is 12.11 hectares (29.92 ac.)
in size and has frontage onto Energy
Drive and Haul Road to the south. This
site is next to the DYEC.
The Clarington Energy Business Park is
within a Provincially Significant
Employment Zone (PSEZ).
1 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was issued under the authority of section 3 of the Planning Act
and came into effect on May 1, 2020.
2 The Growth Plan was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No 641/2019
under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and came into effect on May 16, 2019.
Page 57
Page 3 of 12
The Clarington Energy Business Park is
within the ‘Employment Areas’
designation on Schedule ‘A5’ of the
Durham Regional Official Plan.
The Clarington Energy Business Park is
within the ‘Business Park’ designation in
the Municipality of Clarington Official
Plan, on Schedule A2 – Courtice Urban
Area.
Portions of Regionally owned properties
within the “Environmental Protection
Area” designation.
Energy Drive is proposed to be
designated as a Type C arterial road
within the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan.
A decision on this designation was
deferred by the Region of Durham
pending the completion of ROPA 171.
With ROPA 171 approved, the Region will
be approving the Type A arterial
designation later in 2020.
A portion of a property south of Energy
Drive is within a Flood Plain, on Map F1 –
Natural Environment, Natural Hazards
and Waste Disposal Assessment Areas
of the Municipality of Clarington Official
Plan.
A designated Trail abuts the west side of
the southerly property, as shown on Map
K – Trails of the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan.
Page 58
Page 4 of 12
Within the Clarington Energy Business
Park Secondary Plan (currently under
review), the applicable land use
designations are currently as follows:
The northerly property is designated
“Light Industrial 1” and “Prestige
Employment Node”;
Properties south of Energy Drive are
designated “Proposed Stormwater
Management Pond”, “Environmental
Protection Area”, “Open Space”,
“Prestige Employment Node” and “Light
Industrial 1”.
Within the Municipality of Clarington
Zoning By-law 84-63, the following zoning
categories are in effect:
The northerly property is zoned (H) MO1
and (H) ML1;
Properties south of Energy Drive are
zoned (H) MO1, (H) ML1 and EP.
Planning Rationale
The following is a planning rationale in support of the establishment of an AD facility within the
Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan area.
Managing Our Waste
Municipalities have a responsibility to deal with waste in an environmentally responsible manner.
The PPS indicates that waste management systems need to be provided to accommodate
present and future requirements. The PPS also promotes reduction, reuse and recycling
objectives.3 It is provincial policy that municipalities develop and implement official plan policies
and other strategies that support integrated waste management, enhanced waste reduction,
composting, recycling, energy from waste, reuse and diversion.4 Similarly, the Durham Regional
Official Plan includes a policy that states that Regional Council will pursue measures related to
the reduction, re-use and recycling of waste.5
The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan supports a waste management strategy that
emphasizes reusing, reducing, and recycling to minimize adverse impacts to the environment.6
3 Provincial Policy Statement, policy 1.6.10.1
4 Growth Plan, policy 4.2.9.1 b)
5 Durham Regional Official Plan, policy 2.3.35
6 Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, policy 3.7.16
Page 59
Page 5 of 12
The proposed AD would reuse organic material for other beneficial uses, including soil
amendments and methane capture for use as an alternative natural gas fuel source.
As part of any AD proposal, detailed reports would be filed which address the requirements of the
Plan, the impact on the natural heritage system and surrounding residents including traffic, noise
and dust, and the financial implications for the Municipality.7 It is noted that such studies would
be subject to peer review in accordance with Section 3.7.15 of the Clarington OP.
The Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan indicates that waste-to-energy facilities,
small-scale electrical generation and cogeneration facilities, and alternative fuels manufacturing
may be permitted in Light Industrial 2 areas by site-specific zoning amendments8, subject to
detailed study of the proposed facility relating to compatibility within surrounding and adjacent
land uses; proposed environmental impacts that may require Ministry of Environment approval;
traffic impacts on the road network; site planning and urban design issues and measures to
mitigate any impacts where appropriate.
The Secondary Plan includes a policy that any waste-to-energy facility must be fully enclosed.9
This would be consistent with the proposed operation of an AD facility.
Addressing Climate Change
The proposed AD facility would help to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and by generating renewable energy. It is a policy of the Durham Regional Official Plan
that Regional Council shall support alternative, renewable energy sources and green
technology.10
The Municipality of Clarington seeks to address climate change and become a more sustainable
community that minimizes the consumption of energy, water, and other resources and reduces
impacts on the natural environment.11 This includes, among other matters, promoting the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the reduction, reuse and recycling of
waste.12
Consistent with the foregoing, the Secondary Plan includes objectives pertaining to conservation.
It states that the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the use of renewable energy,
should be among the highest priorities in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of
all development in the park, including infrastructure, buildings and the landscape. Adverse
impacts from development on natural systems should be minimized.13 The proposed AD facility
provides opportunities for the use of renewable energy. Any adverse impacts on the natural
environment, if any, would be addressed through any required environmental reports.
Supporting Innovation
The proposed AD provides an opportunity to support and showcase renewable energy practices
and Regional climate change mitigation initiatives. In this respect, it would also advance
7 Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, policy 3.7.14
8 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 3.6.2
9 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 3.6.5
10 Durham Regional Official Plan, policy 2.3.47 b)
11 Clarington Official Plan, Section 5.5 - Sustainable Design and Climate Change
12 Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, policy 5.5.1
13 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 1.3b)
Page 60
Page 6 of 12
Clarington’s goal to distinguish the Business Park as a unique and innovative employment area
within the Greater Toronto Area.14
It would also advance Clarington’s innovation objectives for the Business Park by advancing
innovative technologies, particularly in the field of energy. The Park itself is intended to be
innovative in its design and demonstrate environmental sustainability to the world.15 The AD would
represent a unique opportunity to further highlight the Region’s waste management and waste
diversion strategies, while showcasing alternative energy production. The deployment of district
energy is not financially viable at this time due to the pricing of natural gas when compared to
electricity.
However, the project represents an opportunity for developing an energy supply including
electricity generation facilities, district energy, renewable and alternative energy systems to
accommodate current and projected needs in keeping with provincial policy.16 The AD would also
advance municipal objectives toward integration through the promotion of linkages and synergies
among related businesses.17
Finally, the AD is another opportunity to advance the concept of a “Sustainability Centre”18 for this
area in keeping with the Secondary Plan policies. Similar to, and in tandem with the DYEC, the
AD could demonstrate and promote innovative energy and environmental technologies.
Ensuring Land Use Compatibility
Land use compatibility is a planning principle whereby uses should be able to function without
causing undue adverse impact on neighbouring uses. The PPS states that major facilities (such
as waste management systems) and sensitive land uses (such as residential uses and parks) are
to be planned and developed to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any
potential adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health
and safety, and to ensure the long-term operational and economic viability of major facilities in
accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures.19
The Growth Plan requires that municipalities plan for all employment areas within settlement
areas by providing an appropriate interface between employment areas and adjacent non-
employment areas to maintain land use compatibility.20
To support planning decisions to protect for compatibility, the provincial D-Series Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines provides direction to land use planning authorities on how to decide
whether new development or land uses are appropriate to protect people and the environment.
These guidelines identify considerations and criteria to influence buffers, separation distances
and other measures to prevent or minimize adverse effects from the encroachment of
incompatible land uses. This is also consistent with the policies of the Durham Regional Official
Plan which indicate that development within the Region shall take into account matters such as
aesthetics as well as noise, odour, dust and light pollution.21
14 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 2.2
15 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 1.3a)
16 Provincial Policy Statement, policy 1.6.11.1
17 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 1.3d)
18 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 9.9
19 Provincial Policy Statement, policy 1.2.6.1
20 Provincial Growth Plan, policy 2.2.1.7 c)
21 Durham Regional Official Plan, policy 2.2.5
Page 61
Page 7 of 12
This also reflects the Region’s objectives for establishing Employment Areas that provide for the
development of industries and businesses that require separation from sensitive land uses, and
efficiently guiding their development to obtain the greatest benefit for the Region.22
As part of an AD proposal, the Region will undertake appropriate studies to ensure that the
proposed facility and any influence area would not encroach on approved sensitive land uses.
Protecting Employment Uses
The PPS indicates that employment areas planned for industrial or manufacturing uses should
include an appropriate transition to adjacent non-employment areas (including residential uses
and parks). Planning authorities are also required to protect employment areas in proximity to
major goods movement facilities and corridors for employment uses that require those locations.23
The proposed AD facility would be in proximity to Highway 401, the province’s primary truck and
goods movement transportation corridor. Close access to the site from Highway 401 is an
advantage, without the need to access extensive neighbouring roadways.
The Clarington Energy Business park is within the ‘Employment Areas’ designation of the Durham
Regional Official Plan. These areas are set aside for uses that by their nature may require access
to highway, rail, and/or shipping facilities, separation from sensitive uses, or benefit for locating
close to similar uses. Locally permitted uses are prescribed within the area municipal official
plan.24 It is estimated that up to 40 employees would be required for the facility.
The area is well-suited to the proposed use, given its location near Highway 401, the context of
the site near the DYEC and other Regional infrastructure, as well as the Darlington Nuclear
generating station.
Advancing Sustainable Design Excellence
There is an opportunity through the AD facility to advance Clarington’s intent to promote energy
innovation while demonstrating environmental sustainability in its design.25 There is an
opportunity to continue to establish high-quality buildings within this area, advancing Clarington’s
objectives toward design excellence.
Through careful design, there is an opportunity to provide aesthetically and functionally distinct
buildings while incorporating new energy innovations, contributing to making it a showcase for
Clarington, Durham Region and Ontario.26 Consistent with the Secondary Plan policies, there is
an opportunity to incorporate sustainable design practices and standards such as green
infrastructure and green building design features which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
help in adapting to climate change.27 In this regard, there is an opportunity to promote innovative
building designs with a high urban design standard, applying principles of energy efficiency and
by considering LEED certification.28
22 Durham Regional Official Plan, policy 8.1.17
23 Provincial Policy Statement, policy 1.3.2.6
24 Durham Regional Official Plan, policy 8.C.2.1
25 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 1.2
26 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 1.3e)
27 Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, policy 5.5.4
28 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 2.9
Page 62
Page 8 of 12
Other measures that can be applied to advance the urban design objectives and to ensure the
park maintains a consistent, high-quality image and sense of place 29 include the following:
Providing for “green” buildings (i.e., buildings that incorporate certified energy-saving and
environment-friendly techniques);30
Designing well-articulated buildings and using high-quality exterior cladding materials;31
Utilizing or demonstrating new building sciences that maximize energy conservation and
efficiency;32
Providing for or contributing to public art to support a high-quality public realm and identity
in the Energy Park;33
Incorporating techniques to reduce stormwater runoff, improve water quality and conserve
energy such as:
o rain barrels or cisterns to capture rainwater for reuse in landscape irrigation and
other non-potable water applications;
o vegetated swales to filter and detain stormwater;
o porous surfaces for pathways and parking lots to allow infiltration of stormwater;
o greywater systems that capture stormwater runoff and other greywater for reuse
in toilets and industrial operations;
The use of renewable energy sources for building systems and exterior lighting, such as
solar, wind and geothermal;
Green roofs;
Establishing an interconnected network of sidewalks that joins areas within the Energy
Park and providing links to adjacent trails and open spaces.34
Supporting Growth in the Business Park
There is an opportunity to consider the southerly site for the proposed AD, which would leave the
northerly site open for more employment intensive uses that would provide services to employees
within OPG’s Darlington Energy Complex, and the planned OPG Headquarters Corporate
Campus. It is anticipated that there would be strong demand from the private sector for this parcel
as the OPG HQ project moves forward. There may be an opportunity for commercial-office
development on that site such as professional service companies and engineering consultants,
who may want to establish their offices in proximity to the OPG HQ. The development of these
complementary uses on the northerly parcel would also advance the Municipality’s design
objectives for this parcel as a ‘gateway’, given its visibility from the Highway and its proximity to
planned Waterfront Area to the west.
29 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 8.1.5
30 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 8.1.1
31 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 8.2.9
32 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 8.1.2
33 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 3.2.9
34 Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, policy 4.1.3
Page 63
Page 9 of 12
Responses to Questions
As the Local Councillor for Ward 1 in Clarington I have heard from many residents and
although I have encouraged them to forward their comments and questions to you I know
they don’t always follow through so I am summarizing them here. I also live approximately
5km from the proposed site in Courtice.
1. What extent did you consult with Clarington Planning Services when looking at the
Courtice site? There are concerns that there was a lack of communication in
regards to this.
There has been extensive communication between the Region and Clarington on this issue.
As part of its review of the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, the Municipality of
Clarington retained the consulting firm of Urban Strategies Inc. (USI) to assist. As part of the
review, USI interviewed Regional Waste staff, and in USI’s October 2018 Technical Report to
Clarington, they noted that: “the Regional Waste Department is currently working on a business
case and proposal to Regional Council for an Anaerobic Digester which produces electricity from
the digestion of organic waste. Their preferred site for this facility is the parcel adjacent to the
EFW, on the south side of Energy Drive, as there are a number of operational synergies to be
gained with this location. This proposal is expected to be considered by Regional Council in early
2019.”
USI’s Technical Report also indicated that “there remain opportunities to build on this energy
related character through potential new energy production facilities (such as an anaerobic
digester), opportunities for District Energy, sustainable development and design standards, and
future opportunities in the renewable and alternative energy sector.”
Regional staff have regularly attended secondary plan meetings, represented by Heather Finlay,
a senior planner within the Region. Comments on the Secondary Plan were subsequently sent
from the Region on March 1, 2019 noting the Region’s interest in AD in light of the secondary
plan process currently underway.
In addition, the Region has been conducting its own public consultation process for the proposed
siting of a mixed waste transfer/pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. This process began in
late 2019, and includes:
A dedicated webpage, which provides background information on anaerobic digestion
facilities and how to provide comments on the proposal. To date, there have been 12,000
unique page views of the project webpage (see durham.ca/ADProject).
The public has been invited to provide their questions and comments by sending an email
to ADProject@durham.ca. A total of 25 emails have been received to date.
On February 19, 2020 Regional staff, together with its project consultant (GHD) hosted a
session with the area municipalities (including Clarington), where participants were
provided an update on DYEC Capacity, the 2021-2040 Long-Term Waste Management
Plan and the short list of potential sites.
The Energy from Waste-Waste Management Advisory Committee meets regularly, which
has been attended from staff at Clarington Planning and well as political and public
representatives from the Municipality. At its February 25, 2020 meeting, Mr. Gioseph
Anello, Manager, Waste Planning and Technical Services with the Region, provided a
presentation on the Mixed Waste Pre-Sort Facility and the Anaerobic Digestion siting
process.
Page 64
Page 10 of 12
On February 27, 2020 the Region hosted a Public Information Centre at Regional
Headquarters where a short-list of potential sites was presented. 48 members of the
public were in attendance.
On March 6, 2020 the Mixed Waste Transfer/ Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Facility
Siting Report was posted to the project website for review and comment. 14 emails with
comments on the Report have been received to date.
2. Did you consider the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan and Courtice
Employment Lands Secondary Plans when considering the Courtice site? To those
of us living here, it doesn’t look like it.
Yes.
As noted earlier, the Region has been an active participant on the Secondary Planning
process. The site is within the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan area
which is currently under review by the Municipality of Clarington.
As noted above, Clarington’s consultant (USI) for this Secondary Plan review interviewed
Regional Waste staff. The subsequent Technical Report acknowledged that existing
development in this area has resulted in energy focus, and there are likely to be
opportunities to build on its energy-related character. USI noted that the Darlington
Nuclear Generating Station, the OPG DEC and the EFW facility continue to be significant
features and there are opportunities to build on this energy related character through
potential new energy production facilities (such as an anaerobic digester), opportunities
for District Energy, sustainable development and design standards, and future
opportunities in the renewable and alternative energy sector. The location of the area next
to Highway 401 also makes it attractive from a goods movement perspective.
3. Was Ontario Power Generation consulted as an interested party? As you know they
are moving their headquarters there and are bringing 2500 jobs to Clarington – with
the news of the AD being built right next door to them, will this make them
reconsider this move? Will putting the AD in the Courtice location risk losing these
jobs?
DYEC staff have communicated with the OPG staff on the proposed plans for the AD. OPG has
also been party to the Municipality’s secondary plan process mentioned earlier.
The facility would be developed in keeping with provincial environmental standards. Due to the
location of the site, delivery vehicle traffic would not need to enter the balance of the Energy Park.
This facility would be compatible with existing and approved uses within the Energy Park. A
recent telemeeting between Regional Staff (CAO and Works staff) and OPG staff (Jennifer Knox
and Ray Davies) provided the opportunity for a project update as well as an exchange of
information and an opportunity for mutual cooperation.
4. Courtice Residents are looking forward to the Courtice Waterfront being designed
and developed in the near future, they have said they do not want another industrial
building there.
a. What will the architectural design be? Will it fit in with the look that residents
want for their walking trails and a large municipal park?
b. This location is very close to Darlington Park, people won’t want to camp
there any more
The site is within a designated “Employment Area” in the Durham Regional Official Plan, which
allows industrial uses. The project will incorporate a high standard of architectural design, using
Page 65
Page 11 of 12
high quality building materials and will be consistent with the quality and character of the existing
Energy Park.
According to the Darlington Provincial Park Management Plan (1985), there were approximately
30,000 visitors to the provincial park in 1982. According to the Darlington Provincial Park Guide
(2019), there were 150,000 visits to the park. This increase occurred with operations such as
OPG Darlington, the Courtice WPCP, and the DYEC being in place.
The proposed site for the anaerobic digester would be over 1 km away from Darlington Provincial
Park. The site would not interfere with a potential future municipal park nor a public trail system.
5. This may become a residential area, concerns that this will cause bad smells for
area residents.
The facility will be designed to ensure that operations are well below the required provincial odour
and emission standards. The facility will operate within enclosures that are under negative
pressure and appropriately filtered. Odours will be controlled such that neighbouring properties
will not be adversely impacted.
The currently approved policies in the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan would
allow for the completion of a land use compatibility study. By applying this to anaerobic digestion,
waste sorting and transfer facilities, a detailed study of any potential emissions, odour or related
concerns and mitigation approaches can be developed and implemented to ensure that they meet
or exceed provincial standards.
Any new proposed residential uses within the surrounding area of the Clarington Energy Business
Park would need to be studied to ensure that they are not located within the area of influence for
any of the existing or planned uses in the Energy Park.
6. Concerns with the already poor air shed. This will be adding more trucks and
therefore worsening the air quality of South Courtice. With St Mary’s Cement, DYEC
and the Hwys 401 & 418 in close proximity residents are very concerned.
a. I have heard many concerns about the trucks that will be coming and going
from the site
The MECP recently provided Clarington with information that demonstrated that the air quality in
south Courtice is not problematic. Each of the operations noted are required to meet provincial
requirements for emissions and provide regular reporting.
The location is ideally suited given the proximity of Highway 401, which is the province’s primary
truck route for the movement of goods and materials. The Region will be managing truck routing
to the facility and will be looking to mandate trucks that deliver waste to the facility to run on
compressed natural gas, which will also help to further reduce emissions.
From a goods movement and land use perspective, it is better to have an anaerobic digester site
in an area where industrial uses are permitted, and close to Highway 401, than to have a site that
is internal to a community, with extensive use of Regional or local roads.
7. Are there regulatory/development issues, this will be a large centre. How does
zoning work for this area?
The proposal would need to meet provincial regulatory requirements and would adhere to
required planning processes. The developable areas within the Energy Park that are candidates
for the proposed anaerobic digestor facility are zoned as follows:
Page 66
Page 12 of 12
a) The lands adjacent to the existing EFW facility are zoned Holding - Energy Park Light
Industrial Zone - (H) ML1. Currently permitted uses include:
i) Energy-related business or administrative office;
ii) Energy-related commercial or technical school;
iii) Energy industry;
iv) Outside storage of goods and materials where such use is accessory and incidental
to a permitted use; and
v) Research and development facility.
b) The northerly property is zoned (H)ML1 (see above) & Holding – Energy Park Office
Zone (H) MO1. Currently permitted uses include:
i) Financial office without a drive-through facility;
ii) Energy-related business or administrative office;
iii) Convention centre;
iv) Day nursery;
v) Fitness centre;
vi) Hotel;
vii) University or college facilities;
viii) Research and development facility; and
ix) Eating establishment without a drive-through facility.
A (H) Holding provision applies, to ensure that matters pertaining to adequate servicing, access,
and protection from physical or man-made hazard or conditions are addressed to the satisfaction
of the Municipality, and that agreements and any associated financial requirements are satisfied.
8. The land that the AD would be built on could be developed in so many other ways
that residents would prefer. Could the Region sell this land and make a good profit?
The proposal for AD would be a benefit for the Region as a whole, by providing a Regionally
controlled and operated facility to that diverts a waste stream away from landfill and by developing
useful by-products in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner. Using industry best
practices, the facility would advance the profile of the Energy Park as a centre for innovation.
There is the potential to integrate this facility into EFW operations is a way to harness renewable
energy sources. This would further promote the Energy Park’s profile as a location of
environmental sustainability to the world, with a focus on conservation of energy and natural
resources, while showcasing how renewable energy and resources can be harnessed efficiently.
The AD facility could advance the Energy Park as a unique industrial location that attracts new
industry and jobs related to the energy sector.
Page 67
BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL (ONTARIO) LP
3381 Steeles Avenue East, Suite 100
Toronto, Ontario M2H 3S7
Tel: 905.477.5111
Fax: 416.492.5870
www.brookfieldhomes.ca
April 21, 2020
Mayor Adrian Foster & Council
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6
Dear Mayor and Council:
Request for Use of 'Howard Allin' as an Approved Street Name in North Village, Newcastle
Brookfield Residential owns several properties in the development area of Newcastle referred to as North
Village. One of the properties at municipal address 879 North Street has an important family history that
was documented as part of a Heritage Impact Assessment for the house on the property.
Brookfield would like to commemorate the Allin family and the history of their property by naming one of
the streets in the development after a member of the family. Brookfield has a close relationship with the
Allin family, and they have told us that the most meaningful name for them would be 'Howard Allin'.
Howard Allin arrived at the farm at 879 North Street in 1902, when his parents purchased the property.
He was 6 years old at the time. When he was 33, he bought out his siblings and assumed control of the
farm. Howard and his son worked the farm until 1979 and he passed away 2 years later. His son Glenn
stayed on at the farm until it was sold to Brookfield.
As such, we are requesting Council approval to make an exception to the street-naming protocol by
allowing us to add 'Howard Allin' to the list of acceptable street names.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Haslett
Senior Project Manager, Land Development, East GTA
Brookfield Residential
905-447-9486
Page 68
Memo
Planning Services Department
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 | 905-623-3379
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
This memo has been prepared to request that Council consider the name “Howard Allin”
to be used as a street name in the North Village Subdivision in Newcastle.
History of Howard Allin
The property known as 879 Regional Road 17 was originally owned by the Beach family
(circa 1828). William McIntosh Sr. purchased the property from the Beach family estate
in 1838. McIntosh Sr. passed away around 1849, and the property passed to his wife
Elizabeth and was later acquired by their son William McIntosh Jr. It appears the
McIntosh family never resided on the property and rather rented it to tenant farmers.
Records indicate William McIntosh Jr. was a merchant living in the village of Newcastle.
The farmhouse on the property was constructed around 1870 (pictured below).
Figures: Allin Farmhouse (circa 1940); Howard and Gladys; Howard and Edna
(Photo Source: Newcastle Village District Historical Society, Spring 2019 Newsletter)
Howard Allin’s mother and father, Ellen and Thomas Allin, acquired the property from
McIntosh in1902. The Allins used the house and property as the family farm for over
100 years. Howard Allin bought out his siblings for control of the family farm upon his
father’s passing in 1920. Howard and his wife Gladys raised their four children on the
farm, before Gladys passed away from tuberculosis in 1935. Howard married Edna two
years later, and it was she who named the farm “the Maples”. Howard continued to farm
the property with his son Glenn until 1979. Howard passed away in 1981, and in 1989
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Faye Langmaid, Planning Services Department
Date: April 22, 2020
Subject: Recommend Approval of “Howard Allin” to be used as a Street Name
File: PLN 25.2 – Street Names
Page 69
Page | 2
the 100-acre farm was sold, with the exception of the house, barns and a surrounding
10 acres. The family’s neighbour and relative, Hugh Allin rented the 90 acres of
farmland and continued to farm the property. Howard’s son Glenn and his wife Jean
resided in the farmhouse until approximately 2014, after which their daughter Shirley
and her husband Moe Schroter lived in the house until July 2019. Members of the Allin
family still reside and farm in the area.
Municipality’s Procedure for Naming New Streets
Clarington’s current practice in naming streets in new subdivisions require priority to be
given to war dead and war veterans tied to the local area. This policy was adopted by
Council in May 2001 and introduced a poppy symbol on the street name sign. Any
deviation from this policy requires Council approval.
Clarington has a pre-approved list of names to be used in accordance with the street
naming policy. There are currently 175 war dead or war veteran street names on the
reserve list, of those, 30 names are reserved for the Newcastle area.
Prior to 2001, the Municipality had a practice of recognizing historic names of early
settlers and community builders, such as the one being proposed. The objective was to
honour significant figures in the community that settled or contributed to the historic
growth and development of communities in Clarington. A written explanation was
required as proof of the significance of the name. Clarington continues to recognize
historical figures in the community by naming streets after them, however, this must be
done through a Council resolution.
In reviewing any names for consideration, the Municipality is required to co-ordinate and
approve all street names with the Durham Region Planning Department to prevent
duplication of similar sounding street names within the local municipalities that comprise
the Region. The Region has been the approval authority since 1974.
The main objective of the Region’s involvement is to avoid duplication, which helps to
reduce errors in reporting locations during phone calls for emergency services such as
fire, police, and ambulance. This benefits the municipality as it reduces misdirection by
businesses, the general public, and mail deliveries as well.
The Region maintains an inventory of all street names presently in use in the Region
and keeps a list of all street names reserved for future use in each local municipality.
Prior to selecting a new street name, the local municipality confirms the name is not a
duplication of any existing or reserves street name within the Region. Where there is no
conflict, the name is reserved for that municipality. Ultimately, the local municipalities
are responsible for naming the streets within their jurisdiction by using one of the names
from the reserve list.
Planning Staff forwarded the request to the Region for the name “Howard Allin” to be
used as a street name in the North Village Newcastle subdivision. The Region has
approved the street name “Howard Allin”, see attachment for the Region’s
correspondence. It is important to note that the name “Allin” was initially considered but
Page 70
Page | 3
given its close proximity to an existing street name “Allin Road” in Clarke, it was
rejected.
Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Council endorse the name “Howard Allin” to be used
as a street name in a plan of subdivision in the North Village Neighbourhood in
Newcastle.
Faye Langmaid
Attachment 1 – Clearance Letter from the Region
I:\^Department\PLN Files\PLN 25 Street Names and Municipal Numbering\PLN 25.2 - Street Names\1. By Name\Allin\Howard Allin\memo to Council April_2020.docx
Page 71
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning and Economic
Development Department
Planning Division
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
4TH FLOOR
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L1N 6A3
CANADA
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax: 905-666-6208
Email: planning@durham.ca
www.durham.ca
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP,
RPP
Commissioner of Planning
and Economic Development
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact
the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 1-900-372-1102 ext. 2009.
April 16, 2020
Nicole Zambri, Planner II
Development Review Branch
Planning Services Department
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Dear Ms. Zambri,
Re: Street Name Request – Municipality of Clarington
Thank you for your email request on March 31, 2020.
The following street names have been added to the Municipality of
Clarington reserve list:
• HOWARD ALLIN
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Carla Acosta
Carla Acosta, MPL
Planning Analyst
Page 72
Town ofWhitby575 Rossland Road EastWhitby, ON L1 N 2M8 ^ A ^a •.905.430.4300whitby.caMarch 13,2020Via Email:Honourable Doug FordPremier of Ontariopremier@gntariQ,caRe: Provincial Electric Vehicle Rebate ProgramPlease be advised that at a meeting held on March 9, 2020, the Council of the Town ofWhitby adopted the following as Resolution # 41-20:1. That the Council of the Town of Whitby requests that the Provincial Governmentre-establish an electric vehicle rebate program to encourage consumers topurchase zero emissions vehicles; and,2. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Minister of Transportation, theMinister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, the Minister of Finance, thelocal M.P.P., the local M.P., and Durham Region municipalities.Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the PublicWorks Department at 90^430.4307.^^—-7Kevin NarrawayManager of Legislative Services/Deputy ClerkCopy: S. Beale, Commissioner of Public Works - beales@whitby.caS. Klein, Director of Strategic Initiatives - klein@whitby.caHonourable Caroline Mulroney, Minister of Transportation -carol ine.mulronev@pc.ola,orgHonourable JeffYurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks -ieff.vurek@pc.ola.orgHonourable Rod Phillips, Minister of Finance - rod.phillips@)pc.ola.orqLorne Coe, M.P.P. - lorne.coe@pc.ola.orgPage 73
Ryan Turnbull, M.P. - Rvan.Turnbull@parl.gc.caN. Cooper, Director of Legislative and Information services, Town ofAjax-clerks@ajax.caB. Jamieson, Township of Brock - biamieson(a)townshipofbrock.caA. Greentree, Municipal Clerk, Municipality of Clarington - clerks@clarington.netM. Medeiros, City Clerk, City of Oshawa - mmedeiros@5oshawa.caS. Cassel, City Clerk, City of Pickering - clerks@pickering.caJ. Newman, Municipal Clerk, Township of Scugog - jnewman@scugoci.caD. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge - dleroux@town.uxbridge.on.caPage 74
3-5 Pineridge Gate Gravenhurst, Ontario P1P 1Z3 Office: (705) 687-3412 Fax: (705) 687-7016
info@gravenhurst.ca www.gravenhurst.ca
Transmitted via Email
April 22, 2020
RE: TOWN OF GRAVENHURST RESOLUTION – Province of Ontario add Community
Gardens, Garden Centres and Nurseries as essential services during the COVID-19
Pandemic
At the Town of Gravenhurst Committee of the Whole meeting held on April 21, 2020, the following
resolution was passed:
Moved by Councillor Cairns
Seconded by Councillor Morphy
WHEREAS the Town of Gravenhurst Council fully understands, upon the direction of the
Provincial Government, that only businesses and services deemed to be essential are to
remain open during the COVID-19 Pandemic;
AND WHEREAS our Not for Profit Community Partners rely on Community Gardens for
the ability to grow vegetables that assist in meeting the food related needs as well as
providing physical and mental health benefits for our most vulnerable citizens;
AND WHEREAS physical distancing measures would still be needed for those working in
Community Gardens;
AND WHEREAS Garden Centres and Nurseries could be required to provide curb-side
car drop off service to reduce the risk;
AND WHEREAS the Medical Officer of Health for the Simcoe Muskoka District Health
Unit, supports the continuation of Community Gardens throughout the COVID-19
Pandemic;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of Gravenhurst Council requests
that the Province of Ontario add Community Gardens, Garden Centres and Nurseries as
essential services;
AND FINALLY THAT this resolution be circulated to Scott Aitchison, MP for Parry
Sound-Muskoka, Norm Miller, MPP for Parry Sound-Muskoka, Premier Ford and all
Ontario Municipalities requesting their support.
CARRIED
We trust the above to be satisfactory.
Sincerely,
Melanie Hakl
Administrative Clerk 2, Legislative Services
Page 75
PO BOX 365, Bowmanville, ON, L1C 3L1
April 20, 2020 delivered via email
Dear Mayor and Municipal and Regional Councillors,
On March 23, 2020, eight (8) of the Business Improvement Area associations located in Durham Region
wrote to Durham Regional Council to express urgent concerns regarding the impact of COVID-19 on small
business and to request immediate action on behalf of over 3,200 main street businesses representing
over 20,000 citizens of Durham Region.
As per the letter, “during these difficult times, small businesses need our BIAs more than ever, to advocate
and lobby on their behalf today, while also planning to execute plans to rejuvenate tourism, economic
development, and sense of community when life returns to a sense of normalcy in the future.”
Collectively, the BIAs understand the desire of our local businesses to manage their meagre cash flow, and
these businesses need our support more now than ever before. Unfortunately, a reduction in the BIA
levies is not the solution as this will impact our abilities to provide the level of service needed now and
throughout the recovery period, and the money budgeted for 2020 has already been allocated and spent.
Therefore, our request for the Region is to help keep our ability to support our members whole. We
requested a grant estimated at $350,000 - twenty-five percent or one fiscal quarter of budgeted BIA
monies per BIA– which will allow us to support our members to the best of our abilities in the short term
and prepare for recovery later in the year. Provided that this request is supported, the BIAs will, in turn,
ask our local municipalities to reduce the annual levy by a corresponding amount. This would have the
effect of providing the local businesses some immediate relief for 2020 and for the fiscal quarter from
May to June.
Historic Downtown Bowmanville Business Centre (BIA) is seeking an endorsement and letter of support
from Municipal Council towards the request authored by the Durham BIAs and in support of the BIAs
located in Clarington. If approved, we are also seeking an immediate letter of support and endorsement
for the BIA(s) grant request be sent to the Regional Chair, John Henry, prior to the April Regional Council
meeting.
On behalf of the downtown businesses, we look forward to future years of collaboration, and we thank
you for your leadership during these challenging times!
We kindly thank you for the attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Holmes, MSc, CNIM
Secretary, Bowmanville BIA
Page 76
March 23nd, 2020
Office of the Regional Chair, John Henry
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, ON, L1N6A3
john.henry@durham.ca
Re: Support for Durham Region Business Improvement
Associations through the COVID-19 Pandemic
Dear Chair Henry and Members of Regional Council,
Thank you all for your brave leadership during these
unprecedented times.
On behalf of over 3,200 Durham Region businesses within eight
(8) Business Improvement Areas, we are writing to share the
urgent concerns of our members who require immediate action.
In recent days, we have partnered with the Ontario Business
Improvement Association (OBIAA) and the Tourism Industry
Association of Ontario (TIAO) to create and share their survey,
through our contacts, that speaks specifically to the needs of the
Region’s small businesses.
We can confirm that businesses are suffering severe financial
impacts and are struggling to make ends meet by paying rent,
utilities, and most importantly employees. While some costs
have been deferred, and that has been a welcome announcement,
the loss of revenue and cancellations are causing extreme
uncertainty and concern, that once closed, they may very well
never reopen. Already layoffs are happening.
During these difficult times, small businesses need our BIAs
more than ever, to advocate and lobby on their behalf today, while
also planning to execute plans to rejuvenate tourism, economic
development, and sense of community when life returns to a sense
of normalcy in the future. In these current circumstances, Durham
BIAs are providing an essential service to our members with
respect to communicating the most factual information regarding
the crisis and are in constant contact with our members regarding
their situations. This is valuable intelligence that the Region and
City’s needs as they implement their response plans. As we move
from crisis to recovery, the BIAs will also have a crucial role with
respect to moving forward with encouraging residents to shop
local and support the businesses in our downtown areas.
Page 77
2
The BIAs understand the desire of our local businesses to manage their meagre cash flow and we
appreciate the calls from a number of members to reduce the BIA levies in the short-
term. However, the dilemma is that reducing the levies will impact our abilities to provide the
level of service needed now and through the rest of the year.
Our request of the Region is to help keep our ability to support our members whole. We are
requesting a grant estimated at $350,000 - twenty-five percent or one fiscal quarter of budgeted
BIA monies per BIA– that will allow us to support our members to the best of our abilities in the
short term and prepare for recovery later in the year. As government agencies and Boards of
Management for each of our cities, towns, and villages under your purview, this assistance ensures
a return-on-investment with a multiplier effect resulting in over 200 million dollars in economic
stimulus and impact through our programs and events1. Provided that this request is supported, the
BIA’s will in turn ask our local municipalities to reduce the annual levy by a corresponding
amount. This would have the effect of providing the local businesses some immediately relieve
for 2020.
BIAs build on the idea that pooled social and financial resources within a commercial area can
improve the opportunity to generate revenue for local business owners. The district levy works to
provide guaranteed revenue dedicated to streetscape improvements, promoting and advertising the
downtowns and so much more, leading to increased foot-traffic and tourism benefits, which in turn
shifts the general business mindset from independent wealth to the collective benefit.
The cultural, historical, and commercial significance of traditional main streets brings with it the
need for stewardship and investment in order to move through anticipated and continuous
economic cycles. As an Ottawa mayor once quipped, “BIAs are the canary in the coal mine.” They
are the first to show and feel the impact of policy decisions and face the market pressures which
shift our provincial economy. With this in mind, the BIA offers a window for government at all
levels to see what’s happening in commercial districts across the province. This view makes BIAs
essential for the revitalization, market and promotion, and advocacy of downtowns.
A successful BIA has a revolutionary impact on the identity of the Region, turning obsolete
commercial areas into highly sought-after urban environments. Our successful BIAs are magnets
for new businesses, new residents, and out-of-town visitors. We are a generator of life and energy
that stimulates civic pride and communal culture. We bring more people together for social
interaction than any other activity. We provide goods and services, inspiration, delight, recreation,
and romance. Together, we host over 40 community events and programs Region-wide, with
stakeholders that include musicians, vendors, external agencies, health care professionals, our
Rotary Clubs, and so many others. The Durham Region also benefits from the efficiency that its
strong downtowns sustain in matters, such as public infrastructure and transportation. The
Region’s growth plan is highly dependent on the success of its BIAs.
1 According to the Tourism Regional Economic Impact Model (TREIM) based on 2019 visitor rates
Page 78
3
Unlike Chambers of Commerce or Boards of Trade, which are essential in their own right and
advocate specifically for their voluntary paid membership of businesses within the Region, our
BIAs affect every member of the community and membership in a BIA is compulsory for
communities in which they reside. Durham BIAs, if considered a collective whole and a fabric of
the Region, are the largest employers with over 20,000 local employees. Direct beneficiaries and
members include not only private businesses, but also post-secondary institutions such as Ontario
Tech University, Durham College, Trent University, and not-for-profits, churches, parks, civic and
cultural centres. Each BIA should be recognized as unique and should not be forced into a one-
size-fits-all description. The intent here is to provide the foundation for you to understand how
essential we are and the diversity that is our main streets and downtowns.
Our BIAs are organized by the collective listed above, but primarily our main streets and
downtowns are "mom and pop" small businesses. When a citizen of the Durham Region shops
with us they are helping a mom or dad put food on the table, a family pay a mortgage, or pay their
loyal local employees. The citizens of this great Region are our shareholders, and they are the ones
we strive to make happy, the ones we put on events to invite and join us. This initiative will keep
extra money in small businesses pockets to manage during these challenging times, while knowing
that the organization they founded that is prepared to kick-start the recovery process will be there
to help them afterwards.
We look forward to setting up a follow-up conference call to further discuss the plan and details.
Thank you for supporting small businesses and we look forward to working together through these
coming months.
Yours truly,
Durham Region BIAs
cc: Durham Region Council Members
Page 79
Comments on AD as preferred site in Courtice to Clarington and Regional Council and Staff
April 24, 2020
I wish that I could participate directly, but as per Regional and Clarington website, both buildings
are closed to public. That was the reason my making health appointment for April 27, 2020 long
time ago.
Public consultations and involvement in planning process is very limited, if not
unapproachable during the COVID - 19. I believe that all important issues that will influence
public life health-wise, safety-wise and financially should be postponed until public can be
engaged fully in the planning process. We are not aware of any selection of site in Courtice as
preferred site. We have just attended the long-list of site meeting that didn’t make any
conclusions on preferences.
I have attended all meetings on Courtice Commercial/industrial Park from the beginning
when this project was not called Energy Park. All kind of promises to public were made by
the Region. Unfortunately, none of them were kept. The environmental quality of this Park
that are influencing our health, safety and taxes are deteriorating with each new project at the
site.
It started with Sewage Treatment Plant. In spite of public comments, hedgerows, Tooley
Creek with its coastal wetland and the original trail disappeared. According to all PPS,
both OP Plans, protection of Species, etc. the consideration should be given to these
policies. The invasive plants took over some areas and the Region is refusing to eradicate
them.
Today, Sewage Treatment Plant doesn’t even have tertiary treatment, but even more flows
from development even outside of Clarington will be diverted to this insufficient plant. Many
times, when we were planning to take the trail, we had to leave because of unpleasant odour
coming from this facility.
The same case as now with AD plant happened with DYEC. No matter how many people
were opposed to this facility, it was placed in our Energy Park. If at least, the state-of the-art
facility would be built, as premised, none of the emissions deadly to public health would have to
be released. The same case scenario applies to sorting at the DYEC.
The most important thing for regional projects in general is to spent least money, not
human health. What worries me the most is that the design of DYEC was more important
than updated technology. In case of AD now, the design cannot be improved, so that it
would fit at this Park’s cornerstone of GATEWAY to our Park that is highly visible from
the Hwy 401. Tourists and their financial contribution to Clarington who are visiting or camping
close-by Darlington Provincial Park will think twice if they would like to spent time in the area
surrounded by unpleasant looking location. So will the local residents avoid the waterfront trail.
Courtice is the only area in GTA without real, safe and walkable waterfront. Most of this
trail leads along the Hay 401 that with its emissions from constant traffic is unbearable for
Page 80
walkers. Bikers may use it, because they just whisk through quickly. DYEC donated very
narrow piece of land for the waterfront trail that doesn’t lead west nor east. Because the
trail is so close to ever present bank erosion it may disappear in few year, if the vegetation
will not be kept there all the time. We have bad experience with Westside properties in
Bowmanville where the Ontario bank is steady in progressive erosion.
I would like to get replies from the Region to these unanswered QUESTIONS:
Will the expansion of DYEC be postponed, if this would not be needed after building the
AD?
Will the frontage fencing around AD be permanent at this cornerstone of the gateway to
our Energy Park? Mr. Ewans was trying to reply to this question by stating that there is no
fence south of Megawatt DR. that is not owned by the Province (Hwy 407, 418). Who then
erected this fencing at Regional site? The line of few trees along this fence are not there
anymore.
How can the design of AD be beautified to fit in this prime location (ROP and Clarington
OP)? You cannot beautified tanks and other necessary buildings for AD process. The size of
building for 30 (something) employees that could be built at this cornerstone of property would
not quantify the expense of public funds.
How can the Region ignore their own evaluation of Courtice north and south residents as
being with higher prevalence of rate of ASTHMA in the whole Region after removal of 18
ha of forested PSW, additional removal of trees along both Highways and the emissions, in
general coming from certain industries at the Energy Park (no matter how small - example
the additional trucks coming to and from the AD)?
Will the Region adhere to COW and the Regional Council resolution to expand the
Clarington waterfront trail?
Will the Region contribute to restoration of Tooley Creek and its coastal wetland prior to
additional building w ithin the Energy Park?
Will the Region help to rehabilitate wildlife that was displaced by Regional projects at
waterfront and the other areas in Courtice? Waterfront and the other areas are now infested
by mosquitoes and ticks. We need swallows, bobolinks, bats, and other mammals that used to
consume the above mentioned pests. You should take in consideration that the degraded natural
areas and neighbourhoods are prime suspect to air/water/soil pollution that germs, viruses love.
To avoid something else than coronavirus, require better understanding of how nature works.
Thank you for consideration of my comments,
Libby Racansky from Courtice
Page 81
Anne Greentree
Municipal Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
Clerk’s Department
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street, 2nd Floor
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
April 27, 2020
File 9365
Re: Region of Durham Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion
Organics Processing Facility
Comments on Report PSD-013-20 & Evaluation of Site Selection Process and
Identification of Preferred Site
113 DOWN RD & PT LT 31 CON BROKEN FRONT DARLINGTON PT 1
Weston Consulting is the authorized planning consultant for 1725596 Ontario Limited, the
registered owner of the lands municipally known as 113 Down Road and legally described as PT
LT 31 CON BROKEN FRONT DARLINGTON PT 1 in the Municipality of Clarington (“MOC”). The
purpose of this correspondence is to provide comments on the MOC Staff Report PSD-013-20,
dated April 27, 2020, (“MOC Report”) and Durham Region’s investigation of a preferred site for a
Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Organics Processing Facility (“AD facility”).
Our client’s lands are located on the south side of Darlington Park Road, abutting the east and
west sides of Down Road. The properties have a combined area of approximately 51.94 hectares
(128.36 acres) and are currently being used for agricultural purposes and are accessed by Down
Road. Our client’s lands are situated along the waterfront within an area of land south of Highway
401, east of Darlington Provincial Park and west of the Clarington Energy Business Park. These
lands form a significant portion of the Courtice Waterfront Study Area, which together with the
Energy Park lands to the east constitute the expanded Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park
Secondary Plan Update Area.
As noted in the MOC Report, the Region’s recommended preferred “South Clarington” site is
located within the Clarington Energy Business Park and is comprised of three (3) adjacent land
parcels with a total area of approximately 16 hectares (herein referred to as the “South Clarington
Site”). The South Clarington Site is situated along the west boundary of the Clarington Energy
Business Park and adjacent to the east boundary of the Courtice Waterfront Study Area and east
of our client’s lands, and occupies a central location within the Courtice Waterfront and Energy
Park Secondary Plan Update Area.
The MOC Staff Report reviews and evaluates Durham Region’s site selection process and
preferred site identification for the AD Facility, ultimately recommending additional study and siting
considerations. Based on our review of relevant technical background materials and participation
Page 82
2
in the public consultation process, and further to our preliminary comments contained in the
attached email correspondence to Durham Region, dated March 25th, 2020, we concur with
Clarington Staff’s conclusions and recommendations, including that a “more fulsome assessment
of land use compatibility, economic impact, and alternative siting options is needed, and the
development of a comprehensive communication and engagement strategy” and that the “broader
long-term vision and opportunities in the area of the recommended preferred Site should be taken
into account.”
As described below, the Siting Report for the AD Facility, prepared by GHD, and dated March 6,
2020, examines land use compatibility relating to existing development and existing land use
permissions, but does not take into account ultimate planning objectives for this area, and the
potential range of future uses that are currently envisioned for the Courtice Waterfront and Energy
Park Secondary Plan Update Area.
Employment Area Considerations
The establishment of a gateway to the Energy Park at the Courtice Road and Highway 401
interchange, which is utilized by commuters coming from the west, constitutes a key objective of
the Energy Park Secondary Plan. Also, Courtice Road provides a key connection to the Courtice
Waterfront area. The intersection at Highway 401 and Courtice Road is important to cultivating the
Clarington community image.
Furthermore, the South Clarington Site forms part of an area within South Clarington, inclusive of
the Energy Park, adjacent South Courtice Employment Lands and proposed Courtice GO MTSA,
to the north, that represents economic growth and investment that is regionally and locally
significant. The economic significance of these lands is recognized and preserved by the
Provincially Significant Employment Zone (“PSEZ”) designation which was applied by the province
to the South Clarington Site and surrounding employment areas, to the north and south of Highway
401. The regional and local economic value of the AD Facility, including the Siting Report’s
projection that it will provide an estimated 30-40 full-time positions, needs to be evaluated within
the context of the South Clarington Site’s potential economic significance, which is provincially
recognized.
Furthermore, it is recognized that the Siting Report’s comparative analysis of short-listed sites
includes a summary of GHD’s consideration of social and cultural impacts of the future AD Facility
on surrounding areas. However, it is our opinion that this analysis fails to fully consider the AD
Facility’s potential impacts on, and compatibility with, the Energy Business Park’s current and
emerging social/cultural dynamics, including but not limited to, consideration of OPG’s plan to
establish a new corporate headquarters within a community campus setting, amongst other multi-
faceted opportunities for prestige employment development in the park. While the synergies
offered by siting the AD Facility in proximity to the Durham York Energy Centre are noted, GHD’s
analysis of the social/cultural impacts remains incomplete as it lacks a comprehensive assessment
of key community development considerations related to the ongoing cultivation of the Energy
Business Park as a prestige employment area with a focus on creating an energy employment
cluster in Clarington.
20
Page 83
3
Further to the above, it is our opinion that the siting determination process for the AD Facility would
benefit immensely from a robust comparative analysis of alternate employment use options on the
South Clarington Site. These potential alternative economic uses would be evaluated based on
their fulfillment of, and compatibility with, provincial, regional and municipal planning objectives for
these lands and surrounding employment areas. These planning objectives include, and are not
limited to, the establishment and promotion of a key gateway that cultivates Clarington’s
community image, as well as the ongoing development of a provincially, regionally and locally
significant economic hub that will maintain and continue to cultivate its attractiveness to current
and future prestige employment and related industrial and commercial interests.
Long-Term Planning Vision Considerations
As noted in the MOC Report, in September 2019, MOC Staff presented to Council a strategy to
plan for the development of the Courtice Waterfront which included the expansion of the Clarington
Energy Park Secondary Plan Update study area to include the Courtice Waterfront. The inclusion
of the Courtice Waterfront lands as part of the Secondary Plan Update Area has provided the
opportunity for the development of a comprehensive planning vision that will integrate a range of
uses that are complementary to the Energy Business Park. Clarington Council had identified the
planning for development of the Courtice Waterfront in its Strategic Plan 2019-2022 as a Legacy
Project.
Two of four planned public consultation sessions have been held for Courtice Waterfront Energy
Park Secondary Plan Update. As noted in the MOC Report, based on the public consultations
conducted thus far, key vision elements under consideration for the study area have emerged and
include the following: i) mixed use waterfront with a potential range of housing types, ii) commercial
amenities to support the waterfront as a tourist destination and to complement employment uses
in the Energy Park, iii) a desire for an improved and fully connected multi-use path and trail network
and iv) a naturalized design approach that protects the environmental integrity of the area.
Based on our review of GHD’s Siting Report, and in concert with the conclusions contained in the
MOC Report, it is apparent that GHD’s analysis of land use compatibility is limited to existing
development and does not take into account future uses that are envisioned for the Energy Park
or the Courtice Waterfront. This deficiency in GHD’s land use compatibility analysis extends not
only to its assessment of sensitive receptors within 500 metres of the South Clarington Site, but
also to its assessment of social/cultural implications in the context of surrounding areas. In our
opinion, these assessments lack fulsome contemplation of future potential land uses in the
Courtice Waterfront Area, particularly in the context of the Secondary Plan Study Update which
has evolved, through public consultation, to initiate in-depth consideration of a wider range of uses,
that would include sensitive uses within the Courtice Waterfront Area. In our opinion, the
compatibility assessment as presented in the Siting Report is deficient as it does not contain a
fulsome examination of the appropriateness of the AD Facility in the context of long-term land use
visions that are currently being contemplated and developed as part of the Courtice Waterfront
Energy Park Secondary Plan Update.
Page 84
4
Conclusion
Further to the above, it is our opinion that GHD’s site selection analysis, as contained in the Siting
Report, lacks an appropriately fulsome examination of current planning objectives including the
establishment and promotion of a key gateway that cultivates Clarington’s community image, as
well as the ongoing development of a provincially, regionally and locally significant economic hub
that fulfills its provincial mandate as enshrined in the PSEZ designation. Furthermore, the siting
selection process lacks a fulsome examination of the appropriateness of the AD Facility in the
context of long-term land use visions that are currently being contemplated and developed as part
of the Courtice Waterfront Energy Park Secondary Plan Update. For these reasons, we support
the recommendations contained in the MOC Report.
We respectfully request that the comments contained above be appropriately considered by MOC
Joint Committees, Council and Staff.
Furthermore, Weston Consulting and our client would like to reserve the right to provide further
comments on the Region’s Site Selection Process for the AD Facility, the MOC Report and any
other related technical materials or correspondences, and respectfully request to be notified of any
future MOC reports, public meetings and decisions in relation to this matter.
Please also note that a copy of this correspondence is being provided to the Region for their
consideration as input to their process.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact the undersigned at
extensions 241 or 253.
Yours truly,
Weston Consulting
Per:
Ryan Guetter, BES, MCIP, RPP Jason De Luca, BURPI, RPP
Senior Vice President Planner
c. 1725596 Ontario Limited
Carlos Salazar, Municipality of Clarington
Paul Wirch, Municipality of Clarington
Corporate Services Department, Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Durham
Gioseph Anello, Waste Planning & Technical Services, Regional Municipality of Durham
Attachment: Preliminary Comment Submission, Weston Consulting, March 25, 2020 March 20, 2020
Page 85
From: Jason De Luca
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:46 PM
To: ADProject@durham.ca
Cc: Ryan Guetter <rguetter@westonconsulting.com>; Hannu Halminen <Hannu@halminenhomes.com>;
Kirk Kemp <kirk@algomaorchards.com>; Wirch, Paul <pwirch@clarington.net>; Salazar, Carlos
<csalazar@clarington.net>
Subject: RE: Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park - Online Survey
To whom it may concern at Durham Region,
As you are aware, Weston Consulting is the authorized planning consultant for 1725596 Ontario Limited,
the owner of the lands municipally known as 113 Down Road and legally described as PT LT 31 CON
BROKEN FRONT DARLINGTON PT 1, in the municipality of Clarington (the “subject lands”). In response to
the request for input regarding the Region’s anaerobic digester, please find below our preliminary
comments.
Given the current direction of the planned activities for the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park
Secondary Plan area, and the success of the visioning workshop and community consultation efforts for
the Secondary Plan amongst other factors, we think it would be appropriate for the Region to consider
alternate locations for the anaerobic digester. In addition to these concerns, we will be providing a more
detailed outline of comments under separate cover in support of our request that the Region re-
consider the current preferred location for this facility.
We look forward to further opportunities to discuss our concerns with the Region.
Regards,
Jason De Luca, BURPl
Planner
Vaughan office: T. 905.738.8080 ext. 253 | 201 Millway Ave, Suite 19, Vaughan, ON. L4K 5K8
Toronto office: T: 416.640.9917 ext. 253 | 268 Berkeley Street, Toronto, ON. M5A 2X5
1-800.363.3558 | F: 905.738.6637 | jdeluca@westonconsulting.com | www.westonconsulting.com
Page 86
CC. Minister Anita Anand, MP Pam Damoff, MPP Effie Triantafilopoulos, MPP Stephen Crawford
April 20, 2020
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford:
Thank you for the strong work your governments have done to address the COVID-19 crisis.
In addition to our own municipal revenue crisis which threatens our ability to maintain the
services our residents and businesses and you depend on us to provide, the foodservice industry
is in even more dire straits across Ontario. With little to no revenue, restaurant operators will be
unable to pay rent and other fixed costs, forcing them to permanently close their doors before
recovery can even begin.
We are encouraged by word that the provincial Premiers and Prime Minister are meeting and
discussing options to address the need for up to three months of rent relief for small businesses
that have been hardest hit by the crisis.
We mayors believe the Federal and Provincial governments can assist businesses to address the
spectre of impending rent with the following essential steps:
An immediate moratorium on commercial evictions
A program of direct rent subsidies to businesses equivalent to the business’s sales volume
reduction
Measures to continue throughout the recovery period to allow business to ramp back up
As these measures have been for the greater public good, Government should compel
landlords and banks to share the cost of the emergency measures. They should not be
borne solely by the lessee.
Premier, you have been very clear in your public statement that you are aware of the crisis the
cities and our businesses are facing. When we move into the recovery phase of the COVID-19
pandemic, Ontario will need every business, large and small, available to pull together, and cities
able to provide essential municipal services that support the Province, its businesses, and
Ontario's residents.
Sincerely,
Mayor Rob Burton,
Town of Oakville
Page 87
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Joint Committees
Date of Meeting: April 27, 2020 Report Number: EGD-006-20
Submitted By: Ron Albright, Acting Director of Engineering Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: B.BF.12.03.GA.01 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Cedar Crest Beach Rd and West Beach Rd Berm Review and Estimates
Recommendations:
1. That Report EGD-006-20 be received;
2. That no further flood mitigation work be undertaken on West Beach Rd ;
3. That Council provide direction to staff to proceed with the construction of a flood
mitigation berm along the length of the Cedar Crest Beach Road at an estimated
cost of $85,000; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report EGD-006-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 88
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report EGD-006-20
1. Background
1.1 Report CAO-006-19 dated June 17, 2019 outlines the history and background of the
actions that have been taken over the past 3 -4 years by the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and the Municipality with regard to the multiple natural
hazards present in the Port Darlington (west shore) reach of Lake Ontario shoreline.
This report focuses on the riverine flood hazard from the adjacent Westside Creek,
Bowmanville/Soper Creek and marsh systems.
1.2 At the March 19, 2020 CLOCA Board Meeting the CLOCA Board approved the following
motion:
“THAT the CLOCA Board of Directors recommends that the Council of the Municipality
of Clarington consider the options to improve safe access along municipal road in the
Port Darlington area as part of capital planning and budgeting and that the
implementing road works be constructed where feasible and appropriate.”
1.3 In response, Council considered the following as part of a larger motion during the April
17, 2020 Council meeting, and resolved to refer it back to staff for a report detailing a
cost estimate for the proposed work:
“That Clarington adopt CLOCA “Port Darlington Shoreline Hazard Study” Staff Report
#5630-19 Recommendation #5 to raise the road elevation of Cedar Crest Beach Road
via the deployment of gravel by Operations;
That Clarington construct a berm/berms on the marsh side of Cedar Crest Beach Rd.
and West beach Rd. (southerly section) with 50% of the funds drawn from the
“Clarington Station A Reserve Fund” and requesting that St. Marys pay the other 50% of
the cost;”
1.4 During the discussion at Council, emphasis was placed on the berm mitigation option
and that is the focus of this report. The main purpose of the berm is to reduce the
possibility of road flooding when the marshes that abut the road are experiencing high
water levels which occurred in 2017 and 2019. Another purpose is to construct a
Report Overview
The residents of the Cedar Crest Beach Road and West Beach Road portions of the Port
Darlington (west shore) reach have experienced flooding of their access roads in 2017 and
2019. Based on direction provided by Council, staff have reviewed both West Beach Road
(most southerly portion) and Cedar Crest Beach Road relative to options for raising the
roads and providing flood mitigation berms along the marsh side of the roads. This report
summarizes staffs’ findings, preliminary costs and recommendations.
Page 89
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report EGD-006-20
permanent berm solution to avoid having to deploy resources to create a barrier with
sand bagging along this edge as has been done in the past. Figures 1-3 show past
flooding of Cedar Crest Beach Road.
Figure 1: Cedar Crest Beach Road Flooding
Page 90
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report EGD-006-20
Figure 2: Cedar Crest Beach Road Flooding
Page 91
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report EGD-006-20
Figure 3: Sandbag Berm on Cedar Crest Beach Road
1.5 While staff did not undertake a detailed analysis of the option to raise the roads, which
would need to be done especially for Cedar Crest Beach Road, it should be noted that
gravel has been previously placed along a particularly susceptible area of West Beach
Road to address localized flooding. To date, this solution has successfully addressed
Page 92
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report EGD-006-20
the flooding issue. Any further adjustment would restrict the ability of service vehicles to
use the road, mainly garbage trucks, due to reduced clearance from overhead utilities.
Figure 4 shows the current West Beach Road.
Figure 4: West Beach Road
1.6 In reviewing the implementation of a flood mitigation berm solution for West Beach
Road, there are a number of challenges such as the irregular property boundaries,
varied ownership and the close proximity of the marsh water’s edge to the road. These
challenges would make it very difficult to implement a berm solution without filling in part
of the marsh. Based on past experience with natural environmental features such as
this marsh, staff would need to undertake a significantly more detailed review and
consultation with approval authorities in order to determine if berm mitigation would be a
potential option for West Beach Road. For this reason, and the success of road works
Page 93
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report EGD-006-20
to date, it is suggested that staff continue to monitor this section of road, but no further
flood mitigation be undertaken. Figure 5 shows an aerial photo of the irregular property
limits as well as the proximity of the marsh to West Beach Road.
Figure 5: Property Limits and Marsh Along West Beach Road
1.7 In reviewing the flood data from the 2017 and 2019 highwater events, it was found that
75.85 m was the flood elevation that compromised Cedar Crest Beach Road. During
these events, attempts were made to protect the road with sand bagging at strategic
low-lying areas along the north side of the road, however some flooding still occurred.
1.8 The detailed topographic information for the area indicates it is relatively flat between
the West Side Creek bridge and Watson Crescent. Due to this, the flood mitigation berm
will need to run the entire length of the road to ensure that the flood waters do not “wrap
around” the end of the berm and compromise the road. A typical design of this nature
would incorporate a 0.3 m (1 foot) buffer from the high-water level to the top of the
berm. However, for this area, we are proposing a 0.15 m buffer to reduce the impact of
the berm footprint on the area and to reduce the cost of the flood mitigation. This
design would see roughly 700 m of berm constructed on the land between Cedar Crest
Beach Road and the West Side marsh. In order to address road drainage during
normal rain events and winter snow melt, several openings in the berm will be required
to allow for drainage from the road to the marsh. These openings could be culverts
Page 94
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report EGD-006-20
through the berms or reduction in berm height in certain areas to form an opening.
There would be approx. 8-12 openings that would need to be blocked with several
sandbags during all subsequent flood events in the marsh. Based on initial design, the
cost of a flood mitigation berm is estimated at $85,000. This estimate differs from the
one provided at Council on April 14, 2020 as a result of extending the berm to provide a
barrier along the entire length of the road. This change represents an increase in length
of approximately twice that of the original design which was estimated without the
benefit of detailed topographic information.
1.9 While staff have used projects with aspects that are comparable to this berm to develop
the estimate, the actual cost will be determined through a request for quotations for the
work.
1.10 It should be noted that if Council chooses to protect these areas from marsh flooding
with the temporary option of sandbags, it would require filling and deploying 8,000 to
10,000 sandbags.
1.11 While there is enough land to construct the berm, it should be noted that a large number
of trees and shrubs will have to be removed in order to construct the berm. Additionally,
there are several areas where residents have made improvements such as grading,
cutting grass and planting gardens. While the construction of the berm will be adjusted
to reduce the impact, these areas will still be affected. The following link provides a
short video showing the area noted above: Cedar Crest Beach Road – April 2020
1.12 Based on the forecasts provided by experts in the field, it is estimated that the highest
water levels in Lake Ontario this year will be experienced between mid-May and early-
June. Should Council wish to proceed with this solution, it is suggested that staff be
directed to post a request for quotations for one week following Council’s direction. Per
our Purchasing By-law, the Director of Engineering can then approve the award of the
work to the successful bidder.
1.13 Should Council direct staff to proceed with this option at the May 4, 2020 Council
meeting, a request for quotations will be posted the following day for one week, closing
on May 12, 2020 at 4:30:00 pm local time. The scope of this work is such that the quote
should be able to be reviewed and awarded by the end of the week. Start of
construction will be dependant on the contractor receiving the necessary clearances
from the utility locating agencies. Wherever possible, staff will consult with the agencies
in advance to expedite the required locates.
1.14 Should Council direct staff to proceed, staff will consult with CLOCA on the final design
to ensure all necessary approvals are in place prior to commencement of construction.
Staff have been in contact with CLOCA during the preparation of this design, cost
estimate and report to ensure they are informed and aware of the status of this project.
Page 95
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report EGD-006-20
1.15 As approved by Council, funding for the work can be provided from a reserve fund
account identified by the Director of Finance. As directed by Council, staff will request a
50% contribution for the project from St. Marys Cement.
2. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Director of Finance who concurs with the
recommendations.
3. Conclusion
Staff have prepared a design for a flood mitigation berm along the length of Cedar Crest
Beach Road and request direction from Council if they wish to proceed with the work at
an estimated cost of $85,000. Staff recommend that the current gravel treatment
provided for West Beach Road be monitored over the year to gauge performance and
that no further flood mitigation be undertaken along this road due to the complications
highlighted in this report.
Staff Contact: Ron Albright, Acting Director of Engineering Services, x2302 or
RAlbright@clarington.net
Attachments:
Not Applicable
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 96
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Joint Committees
Date of Meeting: April 27, 2020 Report Number: COD-014-20
Submitted By: Marie Marano, Director of Corporate Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: RFP2020-2 Ward Boundary Review
Recommendations:
1. That Report COD-014-20 be received;
2. That the proposal received from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd, being the
most responsive bidder meeting all terms and conditions and specifications of
RFP2020-2 and subject to a satisfactory reference check, be awarded the contract
for the provision of consulting services to complete the Ward Boundary Review;
3. That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $66,074.80 (Net HST
Rebate) which includes the over budget amount of $1,074.80 be funded from within
approved budget allocations as provided from the following accounts:
Description Account Number Amount
Elections Professional Fees 100-19-193-10190-7161 $65,000
Admin Professional Fees 100-19-130-00000-7161 $1,074
4. That all interested parties listed in Report COD-014-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 97
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report COD-014-20
1. Background
1.1 A Request for Proposal (RFP) was drafted for the provision of Professional Services for
the completion of the Ward Boundary Review in accordance with the terms of reference
provided by the Municipal Clerk’s Department.
1.2 The intent of the RFP was to secure the services of a consultant to conduct a
comprehensive review of the Municipality of Clarington’s ward boundaries to develop an
effective and equitable system of representation with reference to the overall projected
growth within the Municipality.
1.3 The current ward system has remained unchanged since their establishment in 1996.
1.4 RFP2020-2 was issued by the Purchasing Services Division and advertised
electronically on the Municipality of Clarington’s (the Municipality) website. Notificat ion
of the availability of the document was also posted on the Ontario Public Buyers
Association’s website. The RFP was structured on the price – based two envelope RFP
system. Six companies downloaded the document.
1.5 The RFP closed March 25, 2020.
2. Analysis
2.1 The RFP stipulated, among other things, that the proponents were to provide a
description of the Firm/Consulting team, key qualifications, firm profile, highlights of past
service and experience of team members with projects of similar size, nature and
complexity, and demonstrate an understanding of the Municipality’s requirements.
2.2 Five submissions were received (refer to Attachment 1) by the closing date and time.
Four submissions met the mandatory requirements and moved forward to the first
phase of the evaluation process.
Report Overview
To request authorization from Council to award the Request for Proposal RFP2020 -2 for the
provision of consulting services to complete the Ward Boundary Review.
Page 98
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report COD-014-20
2.3 Each submission consisted of a comprehensive proposal identifying:
Qualifications and experience
Experience of the consultant/sub-consultant with projects of similar nature, size
and complexity
The proposed team who would be working with the Municipality
The Proponent’s understanding and approach
The proposed tasks and timelines; and
Identification of accessibility design, features
2.4 The submissions were reviewed and scored in accordance with the established criteria
outlined in the RFP by an evaluation team consisting of staff from the Clerk’s
Department, Planning Services Department and the Purchasing Services Division.
Some of the areas on which the submissions were evaluated were as follows:
The Proponent’s understanding of the Municipality’s requirements
Highlights of services provided performing similar work on projects of comparable
nature, size and scope, in a municipality of similar population size
A methodology describing the Proponent’s project management approach, work
plan, goals, objectives and methods of communications to be utilized to meet the
requested deadlines.
The proposed solution must include a detailed work plan indicating the project
method, schedule, Gantt chart, tasks and deliverables showing an estim ated
overall timeline of the project.
Proponent’s assumptions regarding the roles of Municipal staff and the estimated
amount of their time involvement.
2.5 Upon completion of the evaluation one submission met the established threshold of
85% for Phase 1 and moved forward to Phase 2.
2.6 It was deemed, by the evaluation committee, that a presentation from the short-listed
Proponent would not be required and the pricing envelope was opened.
2.7 The pricing received from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. exceeded the
approved 2020 budget by $1,074.80 Net HST. Funding of the over budget amount to
be drawn from the Admin Professional Fees account.
Page 99
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report COD-014-20
3. Financial
3.1 That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $66,074.80 (Net HST
Rebate) which includes the over budget amount of $1,074.80 be funded from within
approved budget allocations as provided from the following accounts:
Description Account Number Amount
Elections Professional Fees 100-19-193-10190-7161 $65,000
Admin Professional Fees 100-19-130-00000-7161 $1,074
3.2 Queries with respect to the department needs should be referred to the Municipal Clerk.
4. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Clerk who concurs with the
recommendations, and the Director of Finance has signed off approval to the financial
components of this report.
5. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Watson & Associates Economists Ltd, being the
most responsive bidder, be awarded the contract for the provision of Consulting
Services to complete the Ward Boundary Review in accordance to the terms, conditions
and specifications of RFP2020-2.
Staff Contact: David Ferguson, Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 ext. 2209 or
dferguson@clarington.net.
Attachment:
Attachment 1 – Summary of Submissions Received
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 100
Attachment 1 to
Report COD-014-20
Summary of Submissions Received
RFP2020-2
Ward Boundary Review
Proponent
Andrew Sancton Consulting *
Anuara North Incorporated
Meredith Consulting Services *
StategyCorp Inc.*
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. *
Note: * Denotes Proponents who were shortlisted.
Page 101
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Joint Committees
Date of Meeting: April 27, 2020 Report Number: FND-009-20
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Finance/Treasurer
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: Resolution#:
Report Subject: Annual Commodity Hedging - 2019
Recommendation:
1. That Report FND-009-20 be received for information.
Page 102
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FND-009-20
1. Background
Under the Ontario Regulation 635/05, the Treasurer is required to report annually to
Council the status of existing commodity hedging agreements, including a comparison of
the expected results to actual of using the agreements and confirmation that they comply
with the Municipality’s policies and goals.
As required by the Municipal Act, 2001, Council adopted a Commodity Price Hedging
Agreement Statement of Policies and Goals in report COD-054-08, on Monday October 6,
2008. In this statement of policies and goals, the responsibilities are dele gated as follows:
The Director of Finance/Treasurer or designate is responsible for the financial
administrative matters pertaining to commodity price hedging. The Director of Corporate
Services or designate is responsible for the procurement and contractual administrative
matters pertaining to commodity price hedging.
2. Comments
Through the Co-operative Buyers Group, Request for Proposal issued by the Region of
Durham and approved through Report COD-003-20, the Municipality has an existing
energy consulting agreement with Blackstone Energy Services Inc., Toronto, for the
provision of consulting and related services for the supply of natural gas . Blackstone acts
as an independent agent of the Municipality of Clarington to execute direct purchase
agreements (subject to the approval of the Corporate Service’s Department). The term is
for three years with an option to extend for two additional one-year terms.
The Municipality’s energy consumption trends have been studied since 2008. Detailed
budget estimates are made based on these consumption trends and pricing projections of
the various utilities including natural gas for the Municipality’s operating departments. This
information together with the procurement strategy aimed at reducing risk and stabilizing
cost continues to focus on the need for a stable natural gas supply contract.
Blackstone Energy Services Inc. on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington is authorized to
enter into fixed priced natural gas agreements as required, considering market conditions
at any given time. Previously natural gas was supplied from two pools – Dawn
(southwestern Ontario) and Empress (western Canada). All of the Municipality’s natural
gas is now supplied from the Dawn hub.
The Municipality of Clarington had natural gas commodity hedging agreements in place up
to October 2019. These agreements were consistent with the Municipality’s statement of
Report Overview
This report complies with the annual reporting requirements to report to Council the status of
the existing commodity hedging agreements.
Page 103
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FND-009-20
policies and goals relating to the use of financial agreements to address commodity pricin g
and costs. In 2017, in consultation with Blackstone, the Municipality entered into a hedging
agreement from November 2017 to October 2019; where 100% of the gas supply was
hedged. The Municipality did not enter any new hedges and continues to float the c urrent
market pricing since November 1, 2019.
In the 2019 fiscal year, the Municipality purchased approximately 1.44 million m3 of natural
gas over 22 accounts at a cost of approximately $427,000 including utility administration
charges, taxes and carbon cost. The weighted average cost of the natural gas commodity
for 2019 ranged from $0.1079/m3 to $0.1854/m3 (note that these prices include some
transportation costs).
Over 2019, it is estimated that the Municipality’s hedging transactions resulted in costs that
were approximately $1,200 higher than otherwise would have been incurred if natural gas
was purchased through traditional utility accounts.
Staff receive regular market intelligence and analysis from Blackstone Energy Services on
the natural gas market. With the information received from Blackstone, the Municipality is
able to proactively respond to the market conditions to ensure a secure supply source and
cost certainty where determined to be prudent.
To date the Municipality has not hedged electricity. The structure of electricity hedging is
different from natural gas. A significant portion of the large electricity accounts is the
Global Adjustment. Hedging of the electricity commodity does not reduce the Global
Adjustment charges. Electricity hedging could be explored in the future, but it is not
anticipated that the Municipality would be hedging electricity in 2020.
3. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Director of Corporate Services who concurs with the
recommendation.
4. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that this annual commodity hedging report be received for
information in compliance with Ontario Regulation 635/05 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Staff Contact: Catherine Carr, Manager of Internal Audit, 905-623-3379 ext. 2606,
ccarr@clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – 2019 Natural Gas Summary
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 104
2019 Comparison of Clarington Natural Gas Cost to Market Cost Attachment 1 to Report
FND-009-20
*Calculated using Enbridge annual conversion factor of .03868 GJ per m3
Month Total Costs
($)
Total
Purchases
(GJ)
WAC ($/GJ)
Total
Purchases
(m3)*
WAC
($/m3)*
Enbridge
Commodity
Price ($/m3)
Transport
to Enbridge
(A)
Enbridge
Dawn
Transport (B)
Net
Enbridge
Transport
(A-B)
Total Enbridge
comparable
cost ($/m3)
Estimated
Cost (no
Hedging)
Variance
Gain
(Loss)
19-Jan 19,970$ 4,774 $4.1830 123,423 $0.1618 0.130656 0.043355 0.010638 0.032717 0.163373 20,164$ 194$
19-Feb 20,672$ 4,312 $4.7940 111,479 $0.1854 0.130656 0.043355 0.010638 0.032717 0.163373 18,213$ (2,459)$
19-Mar 21,766$ 4,774 $4.5592 123,423 $0.1764 0.130656 0.043355 0.010638 0.032717 0.163373 20,164$ (1,602)$
19-Apr 17,105$ 4,620 $3.7023 119,442 $0.1432 0.119034 0.043355 0.008347 0.035008 0.154042 18,399$ 1,294$
19-May 19,673$ 4,774 $4.1209 123,423 $0.1594 0.119034 0.043355 0.008347 0.035008 0.154042 19,012$ (661)$
19-Jun 16,342$ 4,620 $3.5372 119,442 $0.1368 0.119034 0.043355 0.008347 0.035008 0.154042 18,399$ 2,057$
19-Jul 18,649$ 4,774 $3.9063 123,423 $0.1511 0.116123 0.043355 0.008347 0.035008 0.151131 18,653$ 4$
19-Aug 17,638$ 4,774 $3.6946 123,423 $0.1429 0.116123 0.040925 0.008347 0.032578 0.148701 18,353$ 715$
19-Sep 16,607$ 4,620 $3.5945 119,442 $0.1390 0.116123 0.040925 0.008347 0.032578 0.148701 17,761$ 1,154$
19-Oct 20,646$ 4,774 $4.3246 123,423 $0.1673 0.096268 0.040925 0.008191 0.032734 0.129002 15,922$ (4,724)$
19-Nov 13,912$ 4,290 $3.2430 110,910 $0.1254 (1)0.096268 0.040925 0.008191 0.032734 0.129002 14,308$ 395$
19-Dec 12,371$ 4,433 $2.7907 114,607 $0.1079 (1)0.096268 0.040925 0.008191 0.032734 0.129002 14,785$ 2,413$
215,350$ 214,132$ (1,217)$
(1) No active hedges. Clarington is purchasing system gas (i.e float the current market price).
Page 105
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Joint Committees
Date of Meeting: April 27, 2020 Report Number: PSD-012-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 15.2.2 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Cedar Crest Beach Update – Beach Erosion / Property Loss Study
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-012-20 be received;
2. That in accordance with the Purchasing By-law the lower of the bids from the qualified
consultants will be awarded the consulting contract, to the maximum of the $30,000
budget for the completion of the Cedar Crest Beach Erosion/Property Loss Study;
3. That Staff report back to Council with the results of the study, once completed; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-012-20, including all landowners in the
Port Darlington (west shore) reach and any delegations, be advised of Council’s
decision.
Page 106
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-012-20
1. Background
1.1 Report CAO-006-19 dated June 17, 2019 outlines the history and background of the
actions that have been taken over the past 3 -4 years by the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and the Municipality with regard to the multiple natural
hazards present in the Port Darlington (west shore) reach of Lake Ontario shoreline .
These include lake flooding, erosion and dynamic beach, and riverine flood hazard from
the adjacent Westside Creek, Bowmanville/Soper Creek and marsh systems. The
specific area of study has been the Port Darlington (west shore) reach of the lakefront;
1800 metres from St. Marys to the piers at Bowmanville Creek.
1.2 Section 1 in CAO-006-19 (specifically 1.1 to 1.8), outlines the history of actions taken up
to June 17, 2019.
1.3 As a result of the June 17, 2019 report Council passed Resolution #C-275-19 on July 2,
2019. This resolution had a number of requests of staff which are outlined and the
actions taken were reported in CAO-010-19.
1.4 The purpose of this report is to address:
That Clarington Staff provide a report to Council on the quantum of waterfront
property and public beach that have been lost along Cedar Crest Beach Road
since the St. Marys / Votorantim dock expansion took place due to erosion and
all other environmental factors and report back to Committee in September 2019;
1.5 Section 3 of CAO-010-19 recommended a course of action to obtain an answer to the
question posed above. Council tabled the report. However, during the 2020 budget
deliberations Council approved $30,000 for the consulting assignment to determine a
response to the above noted question. At the April 14, 2020 Council meeting the report
was lifted from the table and Staff asked to:
Report Overview
The residents of the Cedar Crest Beach Road portion of the Port Darlington (west shore)
reach have experienced flooding in 2017, 2019 and most likely will again in 2020. The
residents approached the Municipality and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
seeking a solution to address shoreline erosion . CLOCA retained consultants who proposed
options for shoreline protection. The sho reline protection regardless of the option reviewed
flooding and erosion hazards and pursued requires major infrastructure funding and would
not eliminate flooding hazards. To obtain such funding from governmental sources a “public
benefit” must be demonstrated. A project outline for the consulting study titled Cedar Crest
Beach Erosion/Property Loss Study has been circulated to two qualified consultants.
Funding of $30,000 was approved in the 2020 Budget by the Municipality to fund this
consulting study.
Page 107
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-012-20
With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3, staff are to report back on April 27th, 2020 as to
whether Zuzek Inc. or Baird is the most appropriate option to undertake the Cedar
Crest Beach Erosion/Property Loss Study.
1.6 Zuzek Inc. has been providing professional services for 25 years dedicated to
increasing the health and resilience of the world’s coastal communities and
ecosystems. The consulting team have extensive experience managing complex
multidisciplinary investigations on coastal erosion and flooding, risk assessments,
coastal zone planning, shoreline management plan development, water quality
investigations, habitat protection and restoration, living shorelines, and climate change
adaptation.
1.7 Baird has been providing professional services for almost 40 years dedicated to the best
in engineering and science in coastal, riverine, estuarine and ocean environments. Baird
is dedicated to bringing their clients expertise and passion on every project. Baird has
worked exclusively ‘where water meets land’ in river, estuary and coastal environments
for almost four decades. The consulting team are scientists, engineers and designers
specializing in professional services exclusively for projects at the land-water interface.
We undertake projects ranging in size from small planning studies to designs of large
development projects.
2. The Consulting Assignment
2.1 Attachment 1 to Report CAO-010-19 was the project outline for the work to be carried
out. This project outline has been provided to Baird for them to prepare a quote and
provide a timeframe for the completion of the work. It has been previously provided to
Zuzek and a proposal received.
2.2 In discussion with CLOCA Staff they believe both consultants are equally qualified to
complete the assignment. The difference is that Zuzek has recently been working on
the Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan Update and has completed specific tasks
such as:
Detail bathymetric (multibeam) and topographic surveys of the study area
including the latest lakebed and beach elevation information, existing conditions,
and historic information.
The numerical modelling of waves, hydrodynamics and sediment transport along
the shoreline which are used to assess any potential impact of the piers on flood
levels as par of the hydrodynamic modelling.
2.3 Baird has been informed of this work and assured they would be provided access to the
data. Baird is taking this into consideration in preparation of their response to the
project outline which was provide to them on April 15, 2020 (should we receive it prior to
Council we will provide an update memo).
Page 108
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-012-20
2.4 Baird has already provided a proposal to CLOCA for additional work as a result of the
following question from the November 19, 2019 CLOCA Board meeting:
Report back to the Board with written clarification from Baird regarding Baird’s
comments in the report about the impact the St. Marys Pier has had on erosion
by starving the beaches along Cedar Crest in Clarington and specifically,
whether Baird believes the pier is a significant contributor to erosion; and report
back to the Board if there is an fee associated.
2.5 Baird’s proposal was included in the March 17, 2020 report by C LOCA Staff to the
Board. The question being asked by the CLOCA Board, while having similar elements,
differs from the question Clarington is seeking to answer. The difference is with regard
to the “public asset”, the public beach, that has been lost. It is well understood that the
Federal Government approved the St. Marys Pier and that natural forces have a far
greater effect.
3. Comments
Quantum of waterfront property and public beach lost along Cedar Crest Beach
Road
3.1 The importance of determining the quantum of public beach lost relates to the potential
for seeking and pursuing funding for the construction of shoreline erosion protection
works.
3.2 Sections 3.2 to 3.5 in CAO-010-19 outline that a consultant with expertise in coastal
engineering is required to determine the quantum due to erosion and environmental
factors. It also outlines the works which have occurred to date and are to be taken into
consideration.
3.3 Section 3.8 of CAO-010-19 outlines the work by Municipal and CLOCA staff with regard
to review of historical records, aerial photographs, subdivision plans and land ownership
records a review of which clearly demonstrates public ownership of a “beach” has not
been applicable to this area. Unlike West Beach dedication of a beach block was never
part of the subdivision plan along Cedar Crest Beach Road.
Additional considerations
3.4 The potential funding options available to implement the recommend ed options by Baird
as part of the Port Darlington (West Shore) Shoreline Management Report by
AquaSolutions are the subject of Section 5 of CAO-010-19. The conclusions (Section
5.18 to 5.20) were:
No clear path to public monies being available to fund Option 3 or any option,
existed.
In the absence of land acquisition, showing a “public benefit” was not likely.
Page 109
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-012-20
Regardless of the two forgoing items a significant investment of local funding of
at least $9.6 million, plus 100% of associated permitting, planning, Environmental
Assessment, public consultation and design would be required should the
Federal or Provincial Government provide funding.
3.5 Clarington has yet to act upon the CLOCA Board Resolution requesting the Municipality
implement the Regulatory Shoreline Policies set out in the Official Plan through the
Zoning By-law review as the rural portion has been tabled. Section 3 of CAO-006-19
sets out the policies and history of the Residential Shoreline (RS) Zone. At this time the
draft zoning mapping released in November 2018 shows the entirety of the shoreline as
a special study area. The study is the Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan
Update which will recommend a new regulatory shoreline erosion setback. This study is
nearing completion and is to be released in June 2020.
4. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Acting Director of Engineering Services,
Municipal Solicitor who concur with the recommendation.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The upset limit of $30,000 has been established by the budget approval for this project.
5.2 It is respectfully recommended that once both quotes have been received, in keeping
with the Purchasing By-law, the contract for the Cedar Crest Beach Erosion/Property
Loss Study will be awarded to the lower of the proposals for the project outline.
Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services, 905 -623-3379 x2407,
flangmaid@clarington.net
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 110
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Joint Committees
Date of Meeting: April 27, 2020 Report Number: PSD-013-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: PLN 33.19 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Region of Durham Mixed Waste Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion
Organics Processing Facility – Site Selection Process Municipal
Comments on Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and Identification of
Preferred Site
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-013-20 be received;
2. That Report PSD-013-20 be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington’s comments
on the Mixed Waste Transfer / Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Organics
Processing Facility Siting Report (GHD, March 6, 2020);
3. That the Region of Durham be requested to address the comments in Report PSD-
013-20;
4. That the Region of Durham be requested to collaborate with the Municipality by
committing and contributing to the economic development objectives of the Courtice
Waterfront and Energy Park area;
5. That a copy of Report PSD-013-20 and Council’s decision be sent to the Region of
Durham, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, and the other
Durham Region area municipalities; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-013-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 111
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-013-20
1. Background
Investigation of anaerobic digestion (AD) technologies as a potential component of the
Region of Durham’s integrated waste management system began in earnest in 2011. In
June 2018, Regional Council approved AD coupled with a mixed-waste transfer and
pre-sort facility as the preferred technologies for the Region’s long-term organic waste
management solution.
The Region’s long-term organics management strategy seeks to respond to the
significant growth being experienced in Durham Region; support the achievement of the
Region’s 70% waste diversion target; ensure the Region is in full compliance with
changing provincial legislation, including the ban of organics from disposal; and reduce
the amount of waste sent to the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), optimizing its use
and postponing the need for expansion of the facility.
Report Overview
The Region of Durham has been investigating anaerobic digestion as a technology option for
the management of organic waste since 2011. The Region’s Long-Term Waste
Management Plan (2021-2040) highlighted that organics in the waste stream were impacting
the capacity of the Durham York Energy Centre and would contribute to requiring expansion
sooner than later, if not removed. The Region’s green bin system partially addresses the
issue. Approximately 40% of the curb-side garbage pick-up consists of organics that have
the potential to be managed through anaerobic digestion.
In 2018, anaerobic digestion coupled with a mixed waste transfer and pre -sort facility was
approved by Regional Council as the preferred technologies for the Region’s long -term
organics management strategy. Approval to proceed with an evaluation of siting options
was granted a year later. While an Environmental Assessment is not required for the
proposed facility, the Environmental Assessment siting framework methodology informed the
process followed.
This report is in response to the recent release of the mixed waste transfer, pre -sort and
anaerobic digestion facility siting study report for public comment. The Region’s consultant’s
report identified the Regionally owned lands in Clarington’s Energy Park as the preferred
site.
While Environmental Compliance Approval and land development processes are yet to
come, the current siting exercise is the opportunity for both Municipal and Regional Council
to thoroughly consider the appropriateness of th e facility in the recommended preferred
location.
Report PSD-013-20 are Clarington staff’s comments and recommendations for additional
study and siting considerations.
Page 112
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-013-20
A mixed waste transfer and pre-sort facility would receive the residual waste from single
family and multi-family dwellings in Durham Region and then separate out the
recyclables and organics that were not diverted at the source. The recyclables would
be sent to market, the organics would be processed by AD along with the source
separated “green bin” organics, and the remaining residual waste would be disposed of
at the DYEC.
In June 2019, based on an updated preliminary business case, the identification of a
service delivery approach, and the investigation of the beneficial end uses of the by-
products from an AD facility, Regional Council directed Regional staff to proceed with a
siting evaluation prior to proceeding with the procurement process for design, build,
operate and maintain private sector contract.
On March 6, 2020, the Region issued the Mixed Waste Transfer / Pre -Sort and
Anaerobic Digestion Organics Processing Facility Siting Report (Siting Report) prepared
by their consultants, GHD. The report details the methodology, criteria and results of
their siting exercise. It identifies and recommends a preferred site. While an
Environmental Assessment (EA) is not required for the proposed undertaking , a site
selection process based on the framework of the EA process was implemented. The
Region’s summary of the siting process, criteria and public consultation is provided in
Attachment 1.
As a result of their review, the Region’s consultants have identified the “South
Clarington” site (the “Site”) as the recommended preferred site for the mixed waste
transfer, pre-sort and AD facility (the “Facility”). The Site is located within the Clarington
Energy Business Park (Energy Park) near Courtice Road and Highway 401. The report
has been issued for public and agency comments. Regional Council will consider a
recommendation report from Regional staff for siting of the Facility and seeking approval
to proceed with vendor / technology procurement on May 13, 2020.
On April 14, 2020, Clarington Council referred a proposed motion to staff to report back
at the April 27, 2020 Joint Committee meeting regarding the Facility Siting Report
(Attachment 2).
The purpose of this report is to provide comments on the recommended preferred siting
of the Facility. Staff have not reviewed the other sites considered by the Region, rather
this report discusses and focuses on the compatibility of the Facility with the land use
goals and urban design objectives for the South Courtice area. It details the broader
long-term vision and economic opportunities of the area, including local, regional and
provincial interests. Regional commitments to support alignment of the “South
Clarington” site with existing policy and economic development objectives and
contribute to sustainable growth of the community are recommended.
Page 113
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-013-20
2. Site Description
The recommended preferred “South Clarington” site is located within the Courtice urban
boundary, south of Highway 401, in the Clarington Energy Park. It is comprised of three
adjacent land parcels, transected by Energy Drive, with a total area of 16.1 hectares
(Ha). The Site location is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Recommended Preferred “South Clarington” Site
The Site is owned by the Region of Durham and is currently vacant of buildings and
structures. It is situated west of and abuts the DYEC, also owned by the Region. A
private access lane for the DYEC crosses the southern extent of the Site connecting
with Courtice Shores Road.
Page 114
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-013-20
The surrounding uses in immediate proximity to the Site are:
North - Megawatt Drive and realigned Highway 401 and off ramps
South - Canadian National Railway (CNR) line and the Region of Durham’s Courtice
Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)
East - Future location of East Penn Canada Power Battery Sales Ltd. head office and
warehouse and the DYEC
West - Realigned Highway 401 off ramps and vacant lands owned by the Ministry of
Transportation and Region of Durham, and the future Courtice Waterfront park
Other nearby uses include:
North - Industrial lands and the future Courtice GO Train Station
South - Waterfront trail and publicly and privately-owned vacant lands
East - Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) Darlington Energy Centre and OPG
Headquarters Campus expansion area, privately owned agricultural land, and
OPG’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station
West - Tooley Creek and associated publicly owned buffer lands, privately owned
agricultural land, and Darlington Provincial Park
Land ownership in the area is shown in Figure 2 and includes 85 Ha of land owned by
the Region and 32 Ha of land owned by the Municipality.
Figure 2 – Land Ownership – Site and Surrounding Area
Page 115
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-013-20
3. Planning Framework
Provincial Policy
Sustainable community planning underlies Ontario’s land development policy direction,
including ensuring that necessary infrastructure is or will be available to meet current
and projected needs.
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), in effect May 1, 2020, sets out settlement
areas as the focus of growth and development. Appropriate land uses are based on
efficient use of land, resources and infrastructure.
Major facilities, including waste management systems, are to be planned and developed
to avoid, or where not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse and nuisance effects.
Economic development and competitiveness are supported in the PPS by an
appropriate mix and range of employment uses. Municipalities are to provide
opportunities for a diversified economic base, including providing for a range and choice
of suitable sites for employment uses. Employment areas in proximity to major goods
movement facilities, and corridors for employment uses that require those locations,
shall be protected.
Growth Plan
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) further emphasizes
sustainable infrastructure planning. This includes the consideration of cost efficiency,
growth planning, land use compatibility and environmental protection.
Economic development and competitiveness in the Growth Plan are supported by
making more efficient use of vacant and underutilized employment lands , increasing
employment densities, and integrating land use planning and economic development
strategies.
The Growth Plan directs that upper-tier municipalities establish minimum density targets
for employment areas within settlement areas, which are to be implemented through
Official Plan policies, land use designations and zoning by-laws. Municipalities may
identify and protect prime employment areas along major goods movement facilities and
corridors, including major highway interchanges.
Page 116
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PSD-013-20
Provincially Significant Employment Zones
Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZ) were introduced to the Growth Plan
with the release of updates in May 2019. PSEZs are large, contiguous and constraints
free lands located along major transportation infrastructure, designated for the purpose
of long-term planning for job creation and economic development. PSEZs, as identified
by the Growth Plan, are crucial to the Province’s economy and cannot be converted to
another land use without a comprehensive assessment of employment land needs and
the implications for economic development. The development roll-out strategy for
PSEZs by the province is underway.
In Clarington, portions of south Courtice have been identified as part of the “Durham
South (Oshawa East and Clarington) Provincially Significant Employment Zone ” and
include the Site (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 – Durham South (Oshawa East and Clarington) Provincially Significant
Employment Zone
Page 117
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-013-20
Official Plans
Durham Region Official Plan
The Durham Region Official Plan designates the Site as Employment Area.
Employment Areas are intended to accommodate uses that may require access to the
highway, rail and/or shipping facilities, separation from sensitive uses, or may benefit
from locating close to similar uses. Uses permitted in this area may include
manufacturing, assembly, and processing of goods, service industries, research and
development industries, and warehousing. Redevelopment, intensification and
beautification of existing Employment Areas abutting Highway 401 is encouraged.
The Durham Region Official Plan, currently under review, recognizes the importance of
key economic drivers that will influence the future growth and development of the
Region. Relevant drivers include the Clarington Energy Business Park where the Site is
located, Highways 401 and 418 (part of the new Hwy. 407 extension) located adjacent
to the Site, and the potential future expansion (New Build) of the near-by Darlington
Nuclear Generating Facility.
Policy direction in the Durham Region Official Plan relating to the development of waste
management sites is limited to new or expanding landfill operations.
Clarington Official Plan
The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands Business Park. A small area
of land is identified as part of the natural heritage system. This area is associated with a
small tributary of Tooley Creek.
Business Parks have prime exposure along Highway 401 and major arterial roads.
Development within Business Parks is intended for employment intensive uses
exhibiting the highest standard of building design and landscaping in order to provide an
attractive appearance that reflects or takes advantage of this high visibility. Goals,
objectives and policies applicable to Business Parks are set out in Secondary Plans.
A minimum density target of 30 jobs per gross hectare is required on lands designated
Business Park.
In any land use designation, an amendment to the Clarington Official Plan is required for
new composting sites, or expansions to existing sites. Studies that address the
potential impacts of the composting site on the natural heritage system and surrounding
residents, including traffic, environmental and nuisance impacts (i.e. noise, odour, dust)
and the financial implications for the Municipality, are required as a component of the
development application. If the Region of Durham were a private corporation, they
would be required to address this requirement for the proposed Facility.
Page 118
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PSD-013-20
Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan
The Site is located within the Clarington Energy Business Park (Energy Park)
Secondary Plan area, which designates the subject lands a mix of “Prestige
Employment Node” and “Light Industrial 1”. Energy Park Secondary Plan Map A - Land
Use and Primary Roads is provided in Attachment 3.
The Energy Park Secondary Plan was adopted in 2006. It outlines a vision for the
Energy Park that focuses on the development of prestige, energy-related employment
uses on a site that is adjacent to the OPG Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. The
intent of the Energy Park policies is to promote growth in the energy and environment
sectors of the regional economy and to create an energy cluster. The Energy Park
Secondary Plan is currently being updated. The updated plan will continue to promote
and grow a prestige employment area with a focus on creating an energy employment
cluster in Clarington.
The Prestige Employment Node designation permits business office; research and
development facilities; university and college facilities; hotels and convention centres;
and commercial and recreational uses to support the businesses in the Energy Park and
their employees. The Light Industrial 1 designation permits business office; research
and development facilities; manufacturing, assembling and fabricating facilities;
industrial processing, excluding the processing of waste, and warehousing ancillary to
an industrial use.
The Secondary Plan provides urban design standards with respect to streetscaping, site
layout and design, landscaping and location of parking and loading areas. These
policies have the eff ect of creating a high-quality streetscape and building form that
reflect the prestige employment area created by the Energy Park.
Zoning By-law
For the Site, the zone boundaries align with the Energy Park Secondary Plan area
designation boundaries. Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the lands designated Prestige
Employment Node as Energy Park Office (MO1) Zone, while the lands designated Light
Industrial 1 are zoned Energy Park Light Industrial (ML1) Zone. The uses permitted in
these zones reflect the permitted uses prescribed for the corresponding land use
designation.
While the processing of waste is not a permitted use within any zone on the Site,
provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63 grant an exemption for public uses provided by a
public authority. As such, the Region can override the regulations of Zoning By-law 84-
63 and locate the Facility in any zone.
Page 119
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PSD-013-20
4. Long Term Planning Vision
Courtice Waterfront Park and Energy Business Park
In 2018, not long after the approval of Clarington Official Plan Amendment 107, the
Municipality of Clarington retained Urban Strategies Inc. to review and update the
Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan. The purpose of the review was to
identify a renewed vision and updated policy framework for the future of the area.
In September 2019, and to address the deferral by the Region of the Municipal Wide
Park, Report PSD-033-19 presented to Council a strategy to plan for the development of
the Courtice Waterfront. This strategy included the expansion of the Clarington Energy
Park Secondary Plan Update study area to include the Courtice Waterfront, providing
the opportunity for the development of a comprehensive, integrated, and
complementary planning vision for this adjacent area. Planning for development of the
Courtice Waterfront is identified by Clarington Council in its Strategic Plan 2019 – 2022
as a Legacy Project.
The expanded study area adopted by Council shown in Figure 4, includes all lands
south of Highway 401, between Darlington Provincial Park and Darlington Nuclear
Generating Station.
Figure 4 – Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan Study Area
Page 120
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PSD-013-20
The expanded study of the area began in the fall of 2019. It seeks to provide a fresh,
comprehensive vision for the area, including a clearly delineated Municipal Wide Park
spanning the waterfront area. The Municipality’s goal is to make the waterfront a
destination with a mix of uses and amenities that compliment the Energy Park. The
study is expected to be completed early in 2021.
To date, two of four planned public consultation sessions have been held. At the first
public information session held in December 2019, attendees provided feedback on the
issues and opportunities the study should address. The second public information
session consisted of a visioning workshop focused on the desirable land uses for the
waterfront park and the complimentary characteristics of the surrounding private
development areas, including the Energy Park.
The Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan Update Vision Workshop
presentation is provided as Attachment 4 and highlights the attributes and opportunities
of the area, including the following:
A distinct, prestige employment area not found anywhere else in Clarington;
The opportunity to provide public access to a Municipal-wide park along Lake
Ontario as both a local amenity and a potential tourist draw;
Proximity to major regional transportation corridors;
Existing significant publicly owned open space and natural features;
A network of existing and planned trails;
Announcement of the move of OPG headquarters to the Energy Park, representing
approximately 2,000 jobs; and
Proximity to the future GO East Expansion – Courtice Station and the related
proposed Courtice GO major transit station area.
The Courtice Waterfront Energy Park Secondary Plan Update Vision Workshop
feedback summary is being prepared by Urban Strategies Inc. Based on the public
consultations, key vision elements under consideration for the study area are:
A mixed use waterfront with a range of housing types;
Commercial amenities to support the waterfront as a tourist destination and
complement employment uses in the Energy Park;
A desire for an improved and fully connected multi-use path and trail network; and
A naturalized design approach that protects the environmental integrity o f the area.
Page 121
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PSD-013-20
South Courtice Employment Lands and Transit Hub
The Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan area is located north of the Site,
immediately north of Highway 401, with the Courtice GO station at its centre. The
Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan will create a blueprint that will transform
south Courtice into the major employment and innovation centre for Clarington and
Durham Region. The Courtice Employment Lands are intended to accommodate a
minimum of 50% of the Municipality’s forecasted employment by the year 2031. These
areas will be designed to achieve high employment densities with the greatest densities
being found around the Courtice GO Station.
On February 20, 2020, the Metrolinx Board of Directors endorsed the GO Train
extension, with two-way, all-day train service, to Courtice and Bowmanville. The location
of the Courtice GO Station is within lands designated Transportation Hub within the
Clarington Official Plan and is a Provincial Major Transit Station Area (MTSA). The
MTSA offers a unique opportunity to create a transit-oriented centre from scratch. The
MTSA will be developed as a major mixed-use area for employment and residential
development. These lands will be the focal point for the greatest density within the
Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan area.
5. Discussion
According to the evaluation undertaken by the Region’s consultant, the Site in
Clarington has more advantages than disadvantages when compared to the other short-
listed sites from an environmental, cultural, technical and capital / transportation cost
perspective.
Clarington staff recognize that there may be potential capital and transportation cost
advantages and synergies offered by siting the Facility in proximity to the DYEC. The
focus of the following comments from staff highlight the substantive issues related to
land use compatibility, economic opportunity, potential limitations to development, and
public consultation that have not been adequately addressed to date . In addition,
comments relating to selection of the Site and alternative Site considerations within the
Energy Park are brought forward.
Land Use Compatibility
The Siting Report states that development of the Facility at the Site is “consistent with
existing, proposed and surrounding land uses and land use designations and allows for
an acceptable use within the land use planning context.” The examination of land use
compatibility is limited to existing development and does not take into account
future uses envisioned for the Energy Park or the Courtice Waterfront. There is no
discussion of the land use planning framework that applies to the Site and the
compatibility of the Facility with Provincial, regional and local planning policy objectives
(Clarington has not received, to date, a Planning Justification Report confirming the
Page 122
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PSD-013-20
statements made in the consultant’s report). There has been little consideration of the
original Secondary Plan goals/objectives or the update to the Secondary Plan which
began prior to the initiation of the siting exercise. The expanded study to create a
comprehensive vision for the Courtice Waterfront area began in late 2019 with Regional
Planning concurrence. The significance of the recent designation of the area as
part of a Provincially Significant Employment Zone should also be addressed in a
fulsome manner.
Region staff were involved in the Energy Park Secondary Plan in 2005 and have been
members of the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan Update Steering
Committee since its inception in 2018. Analysis of future waste facilities within the
Energy Park were previously discussed and concerns were raised regarding
compatibility with the vision for the Energy Park and the Waterfront.
A key objective of the Energy Park Secondary Plan is to establish a gateway to the
Energy Park at the Courtice Road and Highway 401 interchange. The Site (northern
portion) is the cornerstone of the gateway, highly visible from Highway 401 and intended
to define the entrance to the Energy Park. The Prestige Employment Node designation
envisioned in the Energy Park Secondary Plan concentrates higher-order and higher-
density uses characterized by high quality urban design at this gateway. With an
expanded planning strategy for the area underway, Courtice Road provides connection
to the waterfront. In many ways this intersection is the face of the Municipality for those
arriving in Clarington from the west.
With an estimated contribution of 40 jobs, the Site does not align with the minimum
employment density target in the Growth Plan and the Clarington Official Plan for
Employment Areas (2.5 jobs per gross hectare compared to a target of 30 jobs per
gross hectare). The significance of this area from an economic / employment
perspective is discussed in sections 5.10 – 5.13.
The Siting Report indicates that the Facility fits into the Energy Park’s sustainable
development and design standards. Details relating to the site components, layout and
design have, to date, not been provided. Compatibility of the Site and Facility
design with the Streetscape and Sustainable Development Design Guidelines for
the Energy Park and committing to the site plan process, in a similar manner to
the DYEC and other Regional facilities, is an expectation. For new development,
the Secondary Plan policies, including urban design and sustainable development
directives, are reviewed and implemented through the Municipality’s site plan
development process.
The Siting Report indicates that the Facility has potential to build upon the energy-
related character of the Energy Park through the development of this Facility and new
energy production facilities. Biogas consisting mostly of methane will be a major by-
product of the AD process at the Facility. Uses include combustion to generate
electricity and heat, or processing into a renewable natural gas (RNG) and/or
Page 123
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PSD-013-20
transportation fuels. Region of Durham report #19-COW -17 outlines the potential
beneficial uses of the by-products of the AD process.
The Siting Report indicates that an RNG injection station will be required at the Site.
Several references are also made to the potential for district energy. One of the major
advantages attributed to the DYEC in its EA and Host Community Agreement was its
district energy potential. However, the necessary infrastructure beyond the east wall of
the DYEC has not been implemented to encourage / promote and utilize the district
heating and cooling potential of the EFW facility. The energy opportunities that will
be pursued and demonstrate alignment with the Energy Park objectives and
support the Energy Cluster concept should be clearly articulated and
implemented.
Economic Opportunity Potential
The economic evaluation outlined for the site selection process by the Region’s
consultant was limited to the consideration of capital and transportation costs. Capital
costs included connection of the Facility to utilities and services, site preparation, and
road infrastructure upgrades. Transportation costs considered the haul distance for
waste to travel from the three private waste transfer stations currently contracted by the
Region to the Facility for pre-sorting and the subsequent transfer of pre-sorted residual
garbage and recyclables to the DYEC for final disposal and marketing, as applicable.
The Energy Park and adjacent South Courtice Employment Lands and proposed
Courtice Go MTSA (to the north) collectively represent a regional and locally significant
area of economic growth and investment. This significance is also provincially
recognized through the recent designation of the area as a PSEZ. Alignment with
employment density targets for the area previously cited (section 3.15) has yet to be
demonstrated. Consideration and comparison of future development potential of the
Site for other purposes are not addressed. A more robust assessment of the
potential economic value of the Site should be taken into consideration.
To support the consideration of economic potential by the Region, Emerging Vision and
Planning Principles are being prepared by Urban Strategies Inc. as a component of the
Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan Update.
Clarington’s efforts to develop and integrate the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park
area implements the Clarington Official Plan and Council’s Strategic Plan 2019 to 2022
as a Legacy Project. Appropriate development of this unique area in the Region would
support the strategic goals and Economic Prosperity priorities outlined in the Durham
Region Strategic Plan: 2020 – 2024, recently adopted by the Region.
Page 124
Municipality of Clarington Page 15
Report PSD-013-20
Public Engagement and Consultation
On February 19, 2020, Clarington staff attended an information session hosted by the
Region for local area municipal representatives on upcoming waste management
initiatives, including the Facility. The Region’s consultants provided an overview of the
siting process and presented the six sites that were short-listed for evaluation and
comparative assessment. The need for consideration of the economic importance and
opportunity for the Site was raised by Clarington staff at this time.
The siting process and six short-listed sites were introduced to the public at a Public
Information Session hosted at Region headquarters on February 27. The Siting Report
and results of the comparative analysis were made available for a two-week public
comment period on March 6, with comments due on March 20. The tight procurement
timeline has not allowed the Region’s public consultation process to fully engage
with the public. This has been amplified due to the impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic.
While the Region has been working on AD since 2011, there is limited understanding by
the general public of what an AD looks like and how it functions. Members of the
Region’s Waste Management Advisory Committee have received presentations from
staff and third-party proponents over the past couple of years, as have interested
groups such as the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington. However, little
opportunity for the general public to become familiar with the technology has been
available. The Region has an AD at the Courtice WPCP and could provide tours to
build community knowledge and support for AD.
The Public Information Session held on February 27 had the misfortune of being on a
terrible weather date and thus was not well attended. Public comments were due by
March 20 to meet the April 15 Regional Committee meeting date. However, global
events have shifted everyone’s focus. The Region notified Clarington that it was
acceptable to submit our comments late. The comment deadline has not been updated
on the project website. To allow for a more fulsome public consultation process,
the Region may wish to consider delaying their decision or separating the
procurement aspects from the siting selection decision.
Clarington Council and staff have heard concerns from the community about the public
consultation process and questions about the siting, which are reflected throughout this
report.
Site Selection
The siting exercise was limited to properties currently owned by the Region of Durham.
The list of candidate sites provided to the Region’s consultant for review and evaluation
included opened/closed waste management facilities, operations facilities, and vacant
undeveloped lots. The report outlines potential capital and transportation cost
Page 125
Municipality of Clarington Page 16
Report PSD-013-20
advantages and synergies offered by siting the Facility in proximity to the DYEC. It is
the opinion of Clarington staff that, in order to evaluate all sites equitably, alternative
sites in close proximity to the DYEC warrant consideration and comparative
evaluation, as well.
The Courtice WPCP is located south of the Site and DYEC. While geographically
separated from the DYEC by the CNR line, a level rail crossing exists, facilitating entry
to the Courtice WPCP immediately east of the DYEC from Osborne Road. The Courtice
WPCP property measures approximately 43 Ha. The existing developed footprint on
the property is approximately 11 Ha. The Region also owns a vacant, undeveloped 12
Ha land parcel abutting the Courtice WPCP to the east. A 1.2 km off road section of
waterfront trail extends across the southern extent of these properties from the base of
Courtice Shores Road.
The Region’s Envision Durham Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper
(June 2019) identifies a privately-owned land area within the Energy Park as
“underutilized”. Underutilized property in the Energy Park may offer an opportunity for
the Facility to achieve many of the same advantages a s noted for the Site on another
property and also achieve other economic development goals including employment
targets.
The three parcels that comprise the Site do not independently satisfy the size criteria
established for the siting exercise. The site footprint used for the siting exercise was
from 8 to 15 Ha. Given their proximity, the parcels have been amalgamated and
considered as a single site. Energy Drive divides the Site into northern and southern
portions. The individual parcel sizes are provided on Figure 1. Notably, the two parcels
located on the south side of Energy Drive, combined, meet the Region’s minimum size
criteria with a total area of 8.2 Ha. The need for the Site parcel on the north side of
Energy Drive is questionable. The removal of the land parcel on the north side of
Energy Drive from the Site would serve to maintain the future economic development
potential for this property.
The Siting Report indicates the potential for nuisance effects with mitigation being
achieved through best management practices for the handling and storage of waste and
facility design. Siting evaluation criteria considered the number of sensitive receptors
currently within 500 m of the property boundary for each site. The Site has no existing
sensitive receptors within this buffer area (Figure 5).
Page 126
Municipality of Clarington Page 17
Report PSD-013-20
Figure 5 – Recommended Preferred “South Clarington” Site with 500 m Buffer from
Sensitive Receptors
The significance of the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Business Park as the western
gateway to Clarington, a regional and local destination, and a key employment area has
previously been described. The East Penn development and OPG headquarters
expansion lands will bring more than 2,200 employees within immediate proximity of the
Site. This is in addition to the up to 5,000 employees at OPGs existing sites. Site
design details, and nuisance management and mitigation planning are critically
important components of the project regardless of its location.
6. Community Development Considerations
The original vision for the Energy Park was established at a time when growth in
energy-related uses and expansion (New Build) at the Darlington Nuclear Generating
Station were expected. Soon after the adoption of the Secondary Plan, the New Build
plans for Darlington were completed and subsequently placed on hold. Development of
the Energy Park has been complicated by the siting of the DYEC and construction of the
Page 127
Municipality of Clarington Page 18
Report PSD-013-20
401/407/418 interchange. Energy Park development did not proceed as rapidly as
initially anticipated due to these and other limiting factors, such as the global banking
crisis in 2008/9.
In 2019, the vision for the Energy Park received a major boost when OPG announced it
was moving its headquarters to the Energy Park. While still in the early stages, the
expanded Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan Update has infused
excitement into the community about the potential that exists in South Courtice to create
a waterfront destination with amenities and connections that support tourism
development and employment opportunities. Concurrent planning for the proposed
Courtice MTSA to the north and provincial recognition of Clarington’s western gateway
as a PSEZ underline the economic and growth opportunity for the area.
Based on the Siting Report, staff recommend that the Region undertake these additional
steps prior to making a decision on the preferred recommended Site for the Facility:
Evaluate the economic value of the Site and potential impact of the Facility,
including consideration of the future development potential of the Site for other
purposes and the economic opportunity loss, and mitigation measures for any
identified economic/employment losses;
Prepare a Planning Justification Report;
Evaluate vacant Region-owned lands surrounding and east of the Courtice WPCP
and other privately-owned, underutilized land of suitable size in the Energy Park;
Undertake an integrated design process, involving Region and Municipal
representatives from Engineering / Works, Planning and Economic Development, to
examine opportunities, constraints and potential solutions relating to siting of the
Facility in the Energy Park or other publicly owned land in the immediate vicinity of
the Energy Park and the development of the Courtice Waterfront;
Remove the land parcel on the north side of Energy Drive (PIN 266050114) from
the Region’s preferred Site; and
Fulfill the outstanding commitment made by the Region during the Courtice WPCP
Class Environmental Assessment process to coordinate and construct the
pedestrian crossing of the CNR line for the waterfront trail. The Region as part of
the Host Community Agreement for the DYEC supported the Municipality’s goal of
further improving the waterfront trail by constructing the section along the waterfront
from Courtice Shores Road east to the extent of their lands.
Should the Region approve the recommended “South Clarington” site as the preferred
location for the Facility, the following is requested to demonstrate commitment and
contribution to the development of the Courtice Waterfront and the Energy Park:
Examine all of the remaining lands in the Energy Park and north / south of the CNR
line to determine an appropriate location for the Facility in proximity to the DYEC.
Page 128
Municipality of Clarington Page 19
Report PSD-013-20
Exclude the parcel on the north side of Energy Drive from inclusion in any Region
Waste Management Master Plans.
Use the land parcel on the north side of Energy Drive for economic development
purposes, to address the employment targets established for the PSEZ designation
for all of the Region’s land parcels in the Energy Park.
Implement the Energy Park Secondary Plan vision and policies (as amended),
including urban and sustainable design directives, through a site plan development
process.
In addition to the above:
o Design the facility as a landmark, reflecting an innovative building design;
o Mitigate negative visual impacts of the Facility from all sides;
o Develop a layout that is suitable to the required process and eliminates vehicle
flow to the DYEC and Courtice WPCP on public roadways;
o Provide well designed landscape elements in and around the Facility that
strengthen the character of the building(s) and support the vision for the area.
Plan and design the Facility to avoid or minimize and mitigate any potential adverse
or nuisance effects from odour, noise and other contaminants.
Form a multi-stakeholder working group for comprehensive nuisance management
planning involving other waste site and industrial operators in the general area (e.g.
Waste Management of Canada, Miller Waste, Ontario Power Generation, St. Marys
Cement).
Foster energy innovation via the energy component of the Facility.
Examine and act upon the potential for district energy from the DYEC and synergies
with the development of the Energy Park and Courtice Waterfront.
Irrespective of siting for the Facility, the Region should consider a communications
strategy that will supplement the work done to date with additional opportuni ties for the
general public to become familiar with the AD technology and its advantages. If the final
approved Facility location is within Clarington, engagement opportunities must be
provided within the Municipality.
The Region currently makes payments in lieu of taxes to the Municipality for the DYEC.
Payments in lieu would also be expected for any siting of the Facility within Clarington.
7. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Director of Engineering Services who concurs
with the recommendations.
Page 129
Municipality of Clarington Page 20
Report PSD-013-20
8. Conclusion
Pre-sorting of the residual waste from households in Durham Region to capture
additional recyclables and organics will support achievement of the Region’s 70%
diversion target and make available capacity at the DYEC, delaying expansion.
The addition of AD to the Region’s integrated waste management system presents new
opportunities for energy innovation, while ensuring the Region’s long-term organics
management solution remains adaptable to evolving regulatory requirements.
The recommended preferred location is within a regionally and locally significant area of
economic growth and investment and is envisioned as a prestige employment and
energy cluster. The broader long-term vision and opportunities in the area of the
recommended preferred Site should be taken into account. It is understood that the
potential synergies with the DYEC accrue appreciable benefits to siting the Facility in
Clarington’s Energy Park.
The Region and the Municipality have important roles to play in accommodating
appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs for the
community. A more fulsome assessment of land use compatibility, economic impact,
and alternative siting options is needed, and the development of a comprehensive
communication and engagement strategy. The Region has been and will continue to be
a partner in the development of the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park and should
contribute to realizing its potential.
The Environmental Compliance Approval and land development processes are yet to
come. The current siting exercise is an opportunity for both Municipal and Regional
Council to thoroughly consider the appropriateness of the Facility in the recommended
preferred location.
The Mixed Waste Transfer, Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Organics Processing
Siting Report (GHD, March 2020) has been issued for public and agency comments.
Region of Durham Council will consider a recommendation report from Regional staff for
siting of the Facility and seeking approval to proceed with partnerships and procurement
processes on May 13, 2020.
Staff Contact: Amy Burke, Acting Manager – Special Projects Branch, 905-623-3379 ext. 2423
or aburke@clarington.net or Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services, 905-623-
3379 x2407 or flangmaid@clarington.net
Page 130
Municipality of Clarington Page 21
Report PSD-013-20
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Summary of Project Site Selection Process
Attachment 2 – Proposed Resolution and Referral Motion (Resolution #JC-030-20)
Attachment 3 – Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan Area Land Use Map
Attachment 4 – Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan Update Vision
Workshop Presentation
Attachment 5 – Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan Update Vision
Workshop Feedback Summary
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
Page 136
Anaerobic Digestion Facility
Resolution # JC-029-20 Moved by
Councillor Traill Seconded by
Councillor Jones
Whereas the Municipality has plans to create a Courtice Waterfront Park;
Whereas the proposed site of the Anaerobic Digestion and Mixed Waste Pre-Sort
Facility will be located at the gateway of the Courtice Energy Park;
Whereas only part of fuel values available can be converted by anaerobic
digestion and the moist residue still leaves most of the original waste for final
disposal by either landfill or thermal techniques; and
Whereas Clarington already has an over-burdened airshed and the increase in
trucks containing mixed waste for pre-sorting at the Anaerobic Digestion and Mixed
Waste Pre-Sort Facility would add to the over-burdened airshed while most of the
original waste would still need to be disposed of in the Durham-York Energy From
Waste Facility;
Now Therefore be it Resolved that Clarington declare itself to be an Unwilling Host
Community to the Anaerobic Digestion and Waste Pre-Sort Facility.
Referred, later in the meeting, see following motions
April 6, 2020 Joint Committee Minutes
Resolution # JC-030-20 Moved by
Councillor Hooper Seconded by
Councillor Neal
That that matter of the Anaerobic Digestion Facility, be referred to Staff to report
back to the April 27, 2020, Planning and Development meeting; and
Yes (6): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones,
Councillor Neal, and Councillor Zwart
No (1): Councillor Traill
That the Region of Durham be requested to extend the public comment periods for
the anaerobic digestor and the expansion of the DYEC from 140 to 160 tonnes,
and also examine alternate forums that allow the public meaningful participation.
Carried on a recorded vote, later in the meeting, see following motions (6 to 1)
Page 137
HIGHWAY 401CRAGO ROADCANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYCRAGO ROADOSBORNE ROADCOURTICE ROADENERGY DRIVELEGENDLight Industrial 2Light Industrial 1Open SpaceClarington Business Park Area BoundaryEnvironmental Protection AreaPrestige Employment CorridorPrestige Employment NodeProposed Storm Water PondCLARINGTON ENERGYBUSINESS PARKSECONDARY PLANOCTOBER, 2017OFFICE CONSOLIDATIONLAND USEAND PRIMARY ROADSMAP APage 138
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop
Courtice Waterfront + Energy Park Secondary Plan
Vision Workshop5 March 2020
Page 139
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop
We want to think big about the opportunity to create a waterfront destination.
Page 140
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop
We want to capitalize on the new OPG campus to grow the Energy Park and provide amenities and connections for the coming 2,000 employees.
Page 141
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop
We want to provide a signature park , with recreational uses and public access to the water’s edge.
Page 142
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop
We want to support the development of a mixed use community on the Down Road Lands.
Page 143
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop
We want the waterfront to be for all of Clarington.
Page 144
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop
TODAY’S AGENDA
Page 145
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 1
CONTEXT AND PROCESS
Page 146
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 2
The project area includes all lands south of Highway 401, between the Darlington Provincial Park and the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
Page 147
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 3
The Energy Park already has existing anchors such as Durham's EFW facility, and OPG's Darlington Energy Complex.
Page 148
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 4
natural features.
Page 149
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 5
The highway network provides regional access to the waterfront.
Page 150
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 6
Expansion of GO's Lakeshore East rail line is being planned.
Page 151
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 7
The OPG campus will host 2,000 jobs.
Page 152
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 8
The East Penn development will bring another 200 jobs.
Page 153
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 9
The Region is planning an expansion of the EFW facility.
Page 154
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 10
Robinson and Tooley Watershed Study
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan Update
Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan
Bowmanville GO Expansion Business Case
Study (Metrolinx)
Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary
Several ongoing planning studies and initiatives will guide this growth and provide context for the waterfront.
Page 155
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 11
The planning process will consider a full range of opportunities.
Page 156
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 12
•There should be a waterfront
destination park with amenities to
attract tourists.
•Development of the waterfront to
create a “western gateway” for the
municipality.
•There is a lack of access to the project
area, there should be better access for
a variety of modes.
•Trail connections along the waterfront and over the 401 would be great for recreation
in the community.
•There are concerns about compatibility between existing and planned land uses.
Page 157
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 13
WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE COURTICE
WATERFRONT?
Page 158
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 14
Other Durham municipalities have well-established waterfront destinations.
Page 159
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 15
Clarington has the longest waterfront, but proportionately, the least waterfront open space.
Page 160
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 16
The 401 and rail corridors present challenges for connecting Courtice to its waterfront.
There are opportunities to enhance / extend:
•Robinson & Tooley Creeks
•Courtice Road
•Trulls Road
Page 161
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 17
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS
Page 162
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 18
Page 163
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 19
is bisected by Tooley Creek and anchored by existing parkland on either end.Page 164
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 20
The site is topographically varied, providing impressive views to the lake.Page 165
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 21
The shoreline is varied and terraced with limited points to access the water.Page 166
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 22
There is a network of existing and planned trails on the waterfront.Page 167
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 23
There are opportunities to reinforce existing open space connections.
Page 168
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 24
Further planning is required to determine the balance of urban and open space development.Page 169
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 25
The site is in proximity to major regional transportation corridors.
Page 170
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 26
North-south connectivity is the biggest constraint for the future Waterfront. Courtice Road south of the 401 will already be over capacity by 2031.
Page 171
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 27
Page 172
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 28
Page 173
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 29
Character nodes and viewpoints in the Energy Park (2011).
Page 174
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 30
The emerging vision for the OPG campus.
Page 175
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 31
Potential precedents for highway amenity node
Page 176
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 32
VISION FOR THE WATERFRONT
Page 177
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 33
How big is an 18 ha park?
Page 178
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 34
How big is an 18 ha park?
The South Courtice Arena site is 10 ha.Clarington Fields is 24 ha.
Page 179
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 35
How big is an 18 ha park?
Ontario Place in Downtown Toronto is 20 ha.
Page 180
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 36
How big is an 18 ha park?
It's about the size of downtown Bowmanville from Church Street to Queen Street and from Scugog Street to Ontario Street.
Page 181
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 37
What should the waterfront park be?
Page 182
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 38
What should the waterfront park be?
Page 183
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 39
What should the waterfront amenity node be?
Page 184
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 40
What should the waterfront neighbourhood be?
High density Medium density Low density
Page 185
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 41
DISCUSSION
Page 186
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 42
What are your three big ideas for the waterfront park?
•What would draw you to the waterfront in all four seasons?
•What activities do you envision in the Municipal-Wide Park?
DISCUSSION 1 - WATERFRONT PARK
DISCUSSION 2 - LAND USE & CHARACTER
REPORT BACK & PLENARY
What are your three big ideas for development?
•What types of commercial uses or other amenities would contribute
to a destination on the waterfront?
•What types would complement the Energy Park?
•What type of residential development do you think is appropriate
adjacent to waterfront public spaces?
Page 187
Courtice Waterfront & Energy Park Secondary Plan | Vision Workshop 43
Page 188
Courtice Waterfront and
Energy Park Secondary Plan
Public Consultation #2
Engagement Feedback Report
March 5, 2020
Page 189
Acknowledgments
Consulting Team
Tim Smith, Principal, Urban Strategies Inc.
Warren Price, Partner, Urban Strategies Inc.
Alex Heath, Associate, Urban Strategies Inc.
Haya Rizvi, Planner, Urban Strategies Inc.
Stephen Brophy, Designer, Urban Strategies Inc.
Municipality of Clarington Project Team
Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design
Karen Richardson, Manager of Development Engineering
Paul Wirch, Senior Planner, Community Planning and Design
Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Julia Pingle, Development Coordinator
Project Steering Committee
Jeff Almeida, Regional Municipality of Durham
Heather Finlay, Regional Municipality of Durham
Carlo Pellarin, Manager of Development Review, Municipality of Clarington
Bonnie Wright, Clarington Board of Trade
Stefanie Penney, CLOCA
Ray Davies, OPG
Kirk Kemp
Ryan Gueter, Weston Consulting
Hannu Halminen, Halminen Homes
Page 190
3
To access Appendix documents, please visit the project website at:
http://www.clarington.net/courticewaterfront
• Appendix 1: Written Feedback
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 4
2. Meeting Overview 6
3. Feedback Themes 7
4. Detailed Feedback 8
Page 191
4
1. Introduction
In 2018, the Municipality of Clarington retained Urban Strategies Inc, Hemson Consulting and WSP to undertake
a review of the original vision and Secondary Plan for the Energy Park. The purpose of this review was to
understand why attraction of energy-related uses had been limited, and identify a renewed vision and updated
policy framework for the future, particularly in light of the limited supply of employment lands within Clarington
with access to municipal services.
In 2019, the study area was expanded to include the Courtice Waterfront. The Municipality’s Strategic Plan
fresh, comprehensive vision for the waterfront and updated land use designations, including a clearly delineated
Municipal Wide Park. The Municipality’s goal is to make the waterfront a destination with a mix of uses and
amenities that complement the Energy Park.
Page 192
5
Waterfront Planning Process
the study team shared background information and attendees had an opportunity to share their thoughts on the
issues and opportunities the study should address. Further analysis of the study area and its surroundings
prepared the team for the Visioning Workshop held on March 5, 2020, summarized in this report.
Based on input from the Visioning Workshop, the study team will explore open space and land use scenarios
in Phase 2 of the study. A preferred concept and policy directions for the area will be shared with the public for
feedback before the Secondary Plan is prepared in Phase 3. The study is expected to be completed early in 2021.
More information on the Energy Park Secondary Plan Update can be found at:
http://www.clarington.net/courticewaterfront
Page 193
6
2. Meeting Overview
Public Meeting #2 for the Courtice Waterfront and
Energy Park Secondary Plan was held at the Faith
United Church at 1778 Nash Road in Courtice on
March 5, 2020 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Invitations
were mailed out to all addresses within the project
area. Notices were advertised in both Clarington This
Week and Orono Weekly Times on February 19, 20, 26
and 27. Notices were also posted on the municipal
website and on the Municipality’s Facebook account.
Approximately 50 people attended the public meeting.
The public meeting was set up in a visioning
workshop format, beginning with a presentation,
followed by roundtable discussions facilitated by a
member of the consultant team or Municipal staff.
Park and the second on Land Use and Character.
Participants were given a set of postcards with
precedents to illustrate their vision for the types
of park activities and development they would like
a omment heet. Feedback provided through
comment sheets, emails and discussions are
summarized in this document.
The presentation included the following
information:
•Project Timeline
•Stakeholder and Public Input to Date
•Waterfront Area Context
•Energy Park Growth and Investment Context
•Opportunities for the Project Areas
•Existing Condition
•Movement Constraints and Solutions
•Existing and Planned Open Spaces
•Topography and Shoreline Conditions
•Existing and Planned Trails
•Emerging Framework
•Precedents for amenities, residential and park
programming
•Next Steps
Discussion 1 was guided by the following
questions:
What are your three big ideas for the waterfront park?
What would draw you to the waterfront in all four
seasons?
What activities do you envision in the Municipal-Wide
Park?
Discussion 2 was guided by the following
questions:
What are your three big ideas for development?
What types of commercial uses or amenities would
contribute to a destination on the waterfront?
What types would complement the Energy Park?
What type of residential development do you think is
appropriate adjacent to waterfront public spaces?
Page 194
7
3. Feedback Themes
The following themes emerged during discussions:
Participants expressed support for a mixed use waterfront with a range of housing types. Participants generally
felt that the waterfront should accommodate a range of uses and recreational activities that support a year-
potential issues for a denser and more mixed form of development.
Participants saw the Courtice Waterfront as an opportunity for a unique neighbourhood with a higher density
than typically found in Courtice. There was general support for townhomes and low-rise and mid-rise apartment
buildings, with some participants expressing concern about tall buildings.
Participants were enthusiastic about improvements in quality and completeness of the multi-use path and
trail network for recreation and particularly cycling. Some suggested that the existing Waterfront Trail and any
emphasis on maintaining and properly clearing these paths during the winter, to encourage year-round use.
Participants felt that commercial amenities, such as hotels, meeting facilities and restaurants, would help
make the waterfront a tourist destination and would complement employment uses in Energy Park. Participants
pointed out that easy access to such amenities would be critical to their success.
Participants expressed a desire to protect the environmental integrity of the area. There was a concern for
maintaining and protecting the cliffs, general topography and natural shoreline habitats. Some suggested that
the design of parks and trails should take a more naturalized approach.
Participants expressed concerns about the compatibility between sensitive land uses and a potential
anaerobic digestor. Given the high potential for a mix of sensitive uses (e.g. housing, open space, trails, tourist
could negatively impact surrounding uses.
Page 195
8
Detailed Feedback
Big Ideas for the Waterfront Park:
Discussion 1 focused on listening to participants’ big
ideas for the Waterfront Park. Ideas for the park fell
into 5 broader categories:
1. Connections
2. Water’s Edge
3. Natural Areas / Activities
4. Entertainment / Amenity Uses
5. A Year Round Park
Participants saw the creation of better Connections
to the Waterfront as key to the success of the
area, including north-south connectivity over the
highway and rail, and east-west connectivity across
the regional waterfront. Discussions focused on
cycling trails and multi-use paths, pedestrian / cycling
bridges over the 401 and rail lines at Trulls Road,
and better integration with Darlington Provincial
Park. Improved connectivity was discussed as both
a means for better accessibility and an opportunity
for recreation. On trails, participants felt that better
pedestrians would improve their usability.
critical component to, and opportunity for, making
the Waterfront Park a special place. Participants
expressed that they would like to see the Waterfront
Park take advantage of its location on Lake Ontario, by
integrating a pier, a boardwalk, a beach, or a marina /
boat launch.
Participants also expressed that the future Waterfront
Park should take advantage of the Natural Areas,
particuarly those associated with the Tooley Creek
Valley. Suitable activities mentioned by participants
mentioned that this could be a good location for a
Nature Interpretation Centre, including pollinator
gardens, which could provide an educational
experience and a tourist attraction.
Participants supported the integration of
Entertainment / Amenity Uses at the Waterfront
Park. There was a desire to see the presence of
cultural event spaces including outdoor amenities
like a landscaped amphitheater, outdoor space for
events or festivals, or a bandstand, as well as indoor
amenity space particularly for events in the wintertime,
this could be an art gallery or theatre. There was
also a desire to include places to get snacks and
refreshments, covered shelters and shade structures,
benches, public washrooms, and public art.
There was enthusiasm for the creation of a year-
round park, including space for both cold weather
activities and warm weather activities. In the winter,
participants mentioned a desire for cross-country
ski trails, skating and snowshoeing trails, and an
outdoor skating rink. In milder and warm weather,
participants mentioned that they would like to see
the park facilities enable a mix of passive and active
recreational programming, including a splash pad,
kids’ playground, playground for adults with outdoor
and picnic space with tables.
Big Ideas for Development:
Discussion 2 focused on listening to participants’
big ideas for development in the Waterfront
Neighbourhood. Discussion about development
covered 5 main topics:
1. Mix of Uses
2. Commercial Uses
3. Community / Civic Uses
4. Residential Uses
5. Development intensity and form.
Paricipants largely supported ensuring a Mix of Uses
at the Waterfront, seeing this as an opportunity to
create a new complete community. Some voiced
concerns that the Watefront Neighbourhood would
be developed as a solely residential community.
Participants had a particularly positive response to
examples shown of mid-rise main streets with retail
at-grade and residential above.
There was enthusiasm among participants about
the potential for Commercial Uses at the Waterfront.
Many expressed that they see this as an opportunity
for restaurants & cafes that are “destinations,” not
Page 196
9
chains, and that are integrated with outdoor space
taking advant of the landscape. Some also
expressed this could be a location for specialty retail,
like a brewery or in particular a cidery, responding to
the history of the apple orchards in the area. With the
Waterfront already a place for cycle tourism and the
anticipated increase in jobs at the Energy Park, some
participants mentioned that this could be a good
location for a hotel and conference space.
Participants were supportive of the Waterfront
becoming home to new Community and Civic Uses, including a theatre, community and recreation centre,
or art centre.
Participants were supportive of there being a
Residential community at the Waterfront, particularly
to give the area more of a 24/7 atmosphere. Most participants saw this as an opportunity for a mix of
low, medium and high density residential development.
A few participants mentioned that Courtice is lacking
in long term care homes, and this could be a good
location for a new long term care facility, with the
access to the outdoors and nature ideal for the elderly.
Participants suggested a range of matters that should
be considered in relation to Development Intensity
and Form. Some participants expressed concerns
with the lack of access to the waterfront inhibiting
the potential for higher density development, stating
that the level of intensity should be determined by
the access improvements that can be implemented.
There were also concerns with the way in which
development could integrate with the natural
landscape and lake. Participants expressed that
development should take advantage of the natural
landscape, but the built form should be sensitive
to the context. There was also an emphasis on
maintaining the waterfront itself as a public amenity,
ensuring that all development have a substantial
setback from the lake. Participants expressed that
the Courtice Waterfront has the potential to be an
harmonious and integrate modern architecture.
Page 197
Page 198
Appendix 1: Written Feedback
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 1 of 2
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 9:04 PM
To: EnergyPark <energypark@clarington.net>
Subject: Energy Park ideas/sugges3ons
EXTERNAL
I aPended tonight's workshop but had to leave early but would like to write some ideas/sugges3ons I
have for the Energy Park in Cour3ce. I am a resident of Cour3ce and live on Blackcreek Trail and have
two daughters that aPend Cour3ce North Public School. I currently work at Darlington Nuclear Power
Plant and have worked at both the OPG Darlington Energy Complex (facility in the Energy Park) and the
GM Head Office at McLaughlin Bay in the past. I have also camped on numerous occasions at
Darlington Provincial Park.
I feel that the following should be incorporated:
Improve the trail con3nuity and connec3vity through the Energy Park
from Darlington Provincial Park from the west. This can be accomplished by either by
con3nuing the park interior trail from site 176, having a trail extend from the end of the
exis3ng road at site 185, or by connec3ng to the waterfront trail near the entrance from
the park.
hPps://www.ontarioparks.com/pdf/maps/darlington/park_map.pdf
from Darlington Nuclear Power Plant from the east. This can be accomplished by con3nuing the
trail at the north end of the soccer fields and/or the trail at the south end of the soccer fields.
These trails should connect the businesses in the area to the park.
from Cour3ce from the north. Access south into the energy park should be available from the
future GO transit train sta3on and the future downtown Cour3ce. A con3nua3on of the
Farewell Creek Trail from Tooley Mill Park down into Darlington Provincial Park should be made
available as a means to enter the Energy Park.
These trails should minimize the amount of 3me that you are required to travel down the side of
a road and should go along the waterfront as much as possible.
Maintain a natural environment adjacent to the Provincial park as much as possible but
implement a park like loca3on that aPracts families for recrea3on including:
A beach area
it should include items used mainly in the summer such as a vista, water park, splash pad,
playground, outdoor fitness equipment, or similar.
I don't think that winter recrea3onal ac3vi3es would be prac3cal in that loca3on as it can
get quite cold next to the waterfront.
Page 214
Page 2 of 2
This should have "Energy" as a theme and include sculptures and art that are consistent
with that theme.
Washrooms/changerooms
An off leash dog park (none currently exist in Cour3ce)
Have some sort of commercial des3na3on that could be used as follows:
Dining that is available for people who work at the Energy Park during the day (quick
lunch) and for locals/tourists looking to spend an evening dinner down by the lake or
campers in the Provincial Park. This should include a pa3o area that is liquor licensed.
Concession/coffee shop/diner that has ice cream, snack bar, and other small menu
items and may only need to be a 3 season establishment with plenty of outdoor sea3ng.
These should have a picturesque sehng and be easily accessible from the trails and from
vehicle with plenty of parking.
2 or 3 story residen3al such as townhomes or condos may be suitable just north of the planned
park area off of Down Rd but I don't feel detached residen3al or high rise apartments are
suitable.
I don't think a hotel would be best suited for the area unless it is east of Tooley Creek in the
industrial area.
I would appreciate if you let me know when the slides from the workshop are made available as I am
interested in staying informed. Let me know if you have any ques3ons or require addi3onal feedback
on anything.
Thanks,
Page 215
Presentations
and
Handouts
Port Darlington Community Response
Reports EGD-006-20 and PSD-012-20
April 27, 2020
Pauline Witzke, Chair
Port Darlington Community Association
subcommittee on Shoreline Protection.
EGD-006-20 –Cedar Crest Beach Road
and West Beach Road Flooding Review
According to the report, the plan is to build a berm from the West Side Creek
Bridge to Watson Crescent. It will be built north of the road and south of the
fence.
The height of the berm is to be set to 76.00 m. This is based on the flood
elevation that compromised Cedar Crest Beach Road (75.85 m) plus 0.15 m
(6”).
The report indicates the land is essentially flat along the length of the berm.
In reality, the land rises and falls in the range of about 30 cm (1 foot) or so. In
some places, it is level with the road, and in some places is up to a foot lower
than the road. This means that the berm will be up to 18” high in places, and
as low as 6 inches high in others, so that the top of it levels out at 76.00 m.
What the community will want to know:
How far away from the road will the berm be? Assuming it must be kept out of
range of the snow plow, it will likely start at least 1 metre (3 feet) north of
the road.
The report acknowledges that this will impact some gardens that have been
planted by residents on the north side of the road, and will require brushing
and the removal of trees along other parts of the road. Residents may want to
relocate their items before construction and will need some notice. After
construction, will the berms be seeded with grass? Will the residents be
allowed to plant in them?
Will the berm be built of low-permeability materials like clay and silt? Given
the typical angle of repose or most soil, the berm will have to be a bit wider
than it is tall, say about 2 feet wide for the tallest parts. This means that
about 5 feet of land north of the road will have to be cleared. Will the woody
material be chipped and left in place? Will you brush all the way to the fence?
In closing . . .
The community is really pleased to see this improvement.
We like the idea of culverts being used to breach the berm. Instead of putting
these at regular intervals, you will want to make sure they are installed in the
natural lows.
Now, to move on to the shoreline
erosion study . . .
The PDCA made a presentation to the General Government Committee on
January 27, 2020, exactly 4 months ago, reminding council and staff of their
motion of June of 2019:
The Municipality of Clarington, in concert with CLOCA, through the CAO’s
Office, the Mayor’s Office and the Engineering Department, shall enter into
urgent negotiations with Votorantim, other government agencies and the
Provincial and Federal Governments, to explore all funding options for
implementation of the Baird Report Option 3 or other effective engineering
solution to the starvation and erosion at Cedar Crest Beach Road;
Report PSD-012-20 indicates that Baird was not asked to quote on the
scope of work until April 15. Why did it take so long for municipal staff to
make this request? The pandemic was not a factor until mid-March.
Spring 2020 is looking like it will not be a
record high year because the peak of the
spring freshet has gone by for Ottawa River
outflows, and because the IJC has made
progress on maximizing outflows through
the Moses-Saunders dam. That said,
erosion is an issue every year, as it was
when residents petitioned Council in 2016.
We need significant progress on shoreline
erosion now!
Thank you for your consideration.
PROPOSED BERM ALONG CEDAR CREST BEACH RD.
THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT CEDAR CREST RESIDENCE IS TO ENSURE THE WEST SIDE MARSH LEVELS ARE AS CLOSE TO THE LAKE LEVEL AS POSSIBLE, JUST LIKE THE DARLINGTON
MARSH AND BY PROVIDING A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING OUTLET.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BERM WILL HELP TO PROTECT AGAINST ROAD FLOODING BUT ALSO INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF FLOODING OF BASEMENTS AND SEPTIC TILES IF THE
BARRIER BEACH IS NOT OPENED AS IT IS CURRENTLY. ( REFER TO NEXT SLIDE )
THE BERM MUST ADDRESS POTENTIAL MARSH LEVELS, NOT LAKE ONTARIO FLOOD LEVELS. WEST SIDE MARSH LEVELS ARE INDEPENDENT TO THE LAKE. SETTING THE BERM AT 76.0 M
IS NOT HIGH ENOUGH SINCE UNDER HIGH WATER CONDITIONS THE MARSH WILL QUITE OFTEN BE EVEN MUCH HIGHER THAN THE LAKE. DARLINGTON MARSH ON THE OTHER HAND
NATURALLY FOLLOWS AND IS VERY CLOSE TO THE LAKE LEVEL.
FOR THE BERM TO ACT LIKE A DYKE IT MUST BE EXTENDED FROM WATSON ROAD TO THE BRIDGE AND THEN EXTEND OUT TO THE LAKE.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BERM WILL ONLY TEMPORARILY PROTECT THE ROADWAY FROM FLOODING AND THE INABILITY TO ADEQUATELY BLOCK THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE
CULVERTS OR SWALES WHEN NEEDED, WILL ALLOW WATER TO SLOWLY PASS BY DURING HIGH WATER CONDITIONS. IN ADDITION, THE VERY PERVIOUS SAND THROUGHOUT THE
LOCAL AREA WILL ALLOW WATER TO EVENTUALLY BALANCE OUT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BERM.
EROSION STUDY:
THE ISSUE WHICH IS CONTINUALLY OVERLOOKED IS THAT THE ROCK WALLS WERE ONLY BUILT IN RESPONSE TO THE CHANGES CAUSED BY THE PIER.
ONCE THE WALLS WERE BUILT, THE PROGRESSION OF SHORELINE EROSION WAS STOPPED AND THAT ANY LACK OF EROSION AFTER THIS TIME SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS THE PIER HAD NO FURTHER EFFECT.
HAD THE ROCK WALLS NOT BEEN BUILT, EROSION WOULD HAVE CONTINUED AND PROBABLY ACCELERATED AS TIME WENT ON.
RESIDENCE MUST BE INVOLVED IN THE STUDY AS IT PROGRESSES TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE EXTREMELY VALUABLE ONGOING DAILY AND
HISTORICAL INFORMATION AND UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE MECHANICS OF THE LONG SHORE SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND EROSION.
Cedar Crest Beach Issues Tom Kara P. Eng.
Cedar Crest Beach Issues