HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2020
Planning and Development Committee
Revised Agenda
Date:May 19, 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
General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General
Government Committee meeting, 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/archive
*Late Item added after the Agenda was published.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Land Acknowledgment 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
There are no minutes of previous meetings to be adopted, as the previous
meeting was the Joint General Government and Planning and Development
Committee meeting of April 27-28, 2020 and the minutes have been approved.
8.Public Meetings
8.1 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, for a Redlined
Revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
4
Applicant: Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd.
Report: PSD-014-20
Location: 675 & 755 Regional Road 17
Link to Public Meeting Presentation
9.Delegations
9.1 Hugh Allin, Regarding Agricultural Land Use Adjacent to the Urban
Boundary in North Newcastle
*9.2 Steve Hennessey, Regarding PSD-015-20 Proposed Official Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to Implement the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study
Page 2
*9.3 Andrew Rice, Regarding PSD-015-20 Proposed Official Plan Amendment
and Rezoning to Implement the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character
Study
10.Communications – Receive for Information
There are no Communication Items to be received for information.
11.Communications – Direction
11.1 James Rilett, Vice President, Central Canada, Restaurants Canada,
Regarding Patio Capacity
6
(Motion for Direction)
*11.2 Stacey Hawkins, Executive Director, Durham Region Home Builders'
Association, Regarding Report PSD-015-20 Proposed Official Plan
Amendment and Rezoning to Implement the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study
7
(Motion to Refer to the consideration of Report PSD-015-20)
12.Presentations
12.1 Tracey Webster, Senior Planner, Planning Services, Regarding Report
PSD-015-20 Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to
Implement the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study
13.Planning Services Department Reports
13.1 PSD-014-20 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
9
13.2 PSD-015-20 Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to
Implement the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study
24
14.New Business – Consideration
15.Unfinished Business
No Reports.
16.Confidential Reports
No Reports.
17.Adjournment
Page 3
Notice of Second Public Meeting
A land use change has been proposed, have your say!
The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application to amend
the Zoning By-law, for a Redlined Revision to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision.
Proposal
Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd. proposes to change the road pattern by creating “window
streets” adjacent to Regional Road 17 which changes the lot sizes and lot pattern of some but not
all lots in the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision. The proposed changes reduce the overall
number of residential units from 270 to 268.
Property
Address: 675 & 755 Regional Road 17, being the east side of Regional Road 17, north of Canadian
Pacific Railway and south of Concession Road 3, Newcastle
How to be Informed
The proposed amendments and additional information are available for review at the Planning
Services Department and on our website at clarington.net/developmentproposals Questions?
Please contact Cynthia Strike, 905-623-3379, extension 2410, or by email at
cstrike@clarington.net.
How to Provide Comments
Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As
mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place in an
electronic format using teleconferencing.
Date: Tuesday May 19, 2020
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone
If you wish to provide comments on this application, please submit them to Cynthia Strike.
Written comments can be mailed or dropped off at 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON
L1C 3A6. A drop box is located at the Church Street entrance.
The Meeting will start at 7:00 PM. If you wish to participate, anytime after 6:45 PM, you may join
the meeting by visiting the Municipal website at www.clarington.net/calendar and clicking on the Join Microsoft Teams Meeting link, or by calling the telephone number, +1 289-274-8255
Conference ID: 577 019 240#. This will be included on the “How to Join the Electronic Public
Meeting” document next to the Agenda.
File Number: S-C 2005-0004, ZBA 2020-0002 Page 4
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the
public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk’s Department at 905-
623-3379, extension 2102.
Accessibility
If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other
accommodations please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Appeal Requirements
If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of
Clarington before the by-law is passed: a) you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Local
Planning Appeal Tribunal; and b) you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before
the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to
do so.
Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, RPP
Acting Director of Planning Services
I:\^Department\Application Files\SC-Subdivision\S-C 2005\S-C-2005-0004 Brookfield\Redline Revision to Draft Approval Feb 2020\Second Public Notice\Second Public Meeting Notice_S-C-2005-
0004.docx
Page 5
From:Keyzers, Heather
To:Patenaude, Lindsey
Subject:FW: Reopening of Restaurant Industry re Patio Capacity
Date:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:33:51 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: info@clarington.net <info@clarington.net> On Behalf Of James Rilett
Sent: May 13, 2020 10:45 AM
To: Mayor Shared Mailbox <mayor@clarington.net>
Subject: Reopening of Restaurant Industry re Patio Capacity
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Foster:
As you are aware, the foodservice industry has been hit particularly hard by the COVID-19 crisis. In a recent
Restaurants Canada survey, 70% of operators are worried that they wouldn’t have access to enough working capital
to reopen. This lack of capital will have an impact on reopening plans.
The province is looking to reopening soon and we expect that the requirements will be to have reduced capacity and
spacing between tables inside and on patios. It is in regard to patio capacity that I am reaching out today.
Patio capacity is typically easier to expand than indoor seating, but is not without its complexity. Permitting,
pedestrian access, accessibility and safety all have to be considered. We would like to start a conversation with the
appropriate people on your team about the potential opportunities for expansion.
This is a great opportunity to explore ideas like parklets, sidewalk café, alley and plaza seating even if it is on a
temporary basis. This would give restaurants much needed access to additional seating and could provide a new
model for open air dining and socializing.
I look forward to talking to your team about ways that we can work together to help restaurants and to help our
economy through this difficult time. Feel free to contact me at your convenience at jrilett@restaurantscanada.org or
at 416-738-9546.
All the best,
Jamie
James Rilett
Vice President, Central Canada
Restaurants Canada
www.restaurantscanada.org
-------------------------------------
Origin: https://www.clarington.net/en/town-hall/Mayor.asp
-------------------------------------
This email was sent to you by James Rilett<jrilett@restaurantscanada.org> through https://www.clarington.net/.
Page 6
Durham Region Home Builders' Association
1-1255 Terwillegar Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario L1J 7A4
Tel. (905) 579-8080
May 14, 2020
Tracey Webster
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6
Re: Bowmanville Character Study/Bylaw to amend Bylaw 84-63
The Durham Region Home Builders’ Association (DRHBA) proudly represents over 170 member
companies and is the voice of the residential construction industry in Durham Region.
Members of and representatives from the Durham Region Home Builders' Association have reviewed
the Bowmanville Character Study and the proposed bylaw designed to replace bylaw 84-63, and have
several concerns that we would like to bring to your attention.
While we understand that the bylaw amendment is designed to retain the existing character of this
section of Bowmanville, we feel that it is too restrictive and will ultimately have a negative impact, not
only on the redevelopment projects to take place in the future, but also for the municipality itself.
For the purposes of clarity, we will focus on the proposed bylaw.
Section 1. a) ii)
Establishing a building line2 means the average yard setback from the street 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.
DRHBA feels that this should include a minimum of 6m or lesser as allowed in an exception.
Section 1. b) ii) Yard Requirements
DRHBA believes that a two story dwelling should be permitted with a 1.2m setback.
Section 1. c) Lot Coverage (maximum)
DRHBA believes that bungalows should be permitted at 45%, dwellings 1.5 storeys or less including
"bungalofts" should be 40%, and dwellings greater than 1.5 storeys should be 35%. With a mandate
for more intensification, the lot coverage percentages need to be lower to allow for this.
Page 7
Section 1. d) Landscaped Open Space (minimum)
DRHBA feels strongly that the front yard landscaped open space should be reduced to 40%, which
must be softscape. Reducing this by 10% will allow a 11.0m lot to have two car driveway. This not
only increases the value of the home, but will help lessen street parking.
Section 1. e) Building Height (maximum)
DRHBA is concerned that the current proposed building height is only suitable for tiny houses, and the
maximum should be increased to 10.0 metres for both Overlay 1 and 2.
Section 1. f) Special Regulations
These regulations appear to be in place to prevent a dwelling from having a three car garage or
oversized garage doors. DHRBA feels that these regulations should be changed to say that "an
attached garage shall not exceed 7.5m and..." and that section c) should be changed to 40% of the
front lot line. We also believe that clause ii) should be removed altogether, and have concerns that
clause iii) does not take into account walkout basements and walkout deck lots.
Overall, the Durham Region Home Builders' Association is concerned that it is unfair to levy these
restrictions on a specific area of Bowmanville, which may reduce the value of these properties and
hinder designs on new redevelopment projects. While we respect that the planning department would
like to maintain a certain look and style of the area, we believe that it is possible to design homes that
complement the existing area without many of these restrictions.
We appreciate you taking the time to consider our concerns and we are available to answer any
questions you may have and look forward to further communications with you on this matter.
Sincerely,
Stacey Hawkins
Executive Officer
Durham Region Home Builders' Association
cc:
Clarington Planning and Development Committee
Johnathan Schickedanz, president, DRHBA
Tiago Do Couto, vice-president, DRHBA
Page 8
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: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: May 19, 2020 Report Number: PSD-014-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: S-C 2005-0004, ZBA 2020-0002 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Public Meeting - 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
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-014-20 be received;
2. That provided there are no major concerns from the public at the Public Meeting, the
application for redline revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision submitted by
Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Limited for lot adjustments be supported subject to
conditions as contained in Attachment 2 of Report PSD-014-20;
3. That the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by Brookfield Residential
(Ontario) Limited be approved and that the Zoning By-law as contained in Attachment 3
of Report PSD-014-20 be passed;
4. That once all conditions contained in the Clarington Official Plan with respect to the
removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the
(H) Holding Symbol be approved;
5. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-014-20 and
Council’s decision; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-014-20 and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Page 9
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-014-20
1. Application Details
Owner: Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd.
Applicant: Candevcon East Limited
Proposal: Redline Revision to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
to introduce “window streets” along the Regional Road 17
frontage, and eliminate two walkway connections from an
internal street to Regional Road 17;
to replace the 6.6 metre dual frontage townhouse dwellings
with 7.6 metre street townhouses units and other minor lot
line adjustment; and
to replace the road widening along Regional Road 17 with a
grading buffer to address the grade differences.
Zoning By-law Amendment
To rezone the lands “Holding-Urban Residential Exception
((H) R1-86), and “Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)
R3-46) to permit the proposed redline revision.
Number of units: Draft Approved 270 unit - Proposed 268 units
Area: 35 hectares
Location: 675 and 755 Regional Road 17, Newcastle (see Figure 1)
Roll Number: 18-17-030-030-04105
Within Built Boundary: No
Report Overview
The Municipality is seeking the public’s input to an application for a Redline Revision to a
Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by
Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd. for minor lot line adjustments. The subdivision was
previously approved and permits 268 single detached dwellings on the east side of Regional
Road 17, Newcastle. Should no major concerns from the public be raised at the Public
Meeting it is recommended the red-line revisions to Draft Approval be supported and the
zoning by-law amendment be approved.
Page 10
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-014-20
Figure 1- Area subject to applications outlined in red
Page 11
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-014-20
2. Background
2.1 Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd. (Brookfield) and the abutting subdivision by Smooth
Run Developments (Smooth Run) received Draft Approval in 2012. The subject draft
plan was approved for 270 residential units consisting of 62 semi-detached dwellings,
139 single detached units, 34 street townhouse units, and 35 dual frontage townhouse
units which front onto Regional Road 17.
2.2 The proposed redline revision to the draft approved plan only affects a portion of the draft
approved plan abutting Regional Road 17 shown in red on Figure 1. The changes are
required to address significant grading differences between Regional Road 17 and the
residential development. The proposed draft plan revisions include:
the introduction of 15 metre wide “window streets” along the Regional Road
frontage, which eliminates two walkway connections from the internal streets to
Regional Road 17;
the replacement of the 6.6 metre dual frontage townhouse dwellings with 7. 6
metre street townhouses units and other minor lotting a nd lot line revisions;
the road widening along Regional Road 17 has been replaced with a landscape
buffer to address the grade differences; and
the zoning by-law amendment is required to reflect the change to the draft
approved plan.
2.3 These changes affect only 54 lots and results in an overall reduction in residential units in
this draft plan from 270 to 268 units. A “window street” runs parallel to an arterial road,
allowing pedestrian connections to the main road, but not vehicular connections. See
Figure 2
Page 12
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-014-20
Figure 2 – Draft Approved Plan (left) Proposed Redlined Revisions (right)
3. Land Use Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
3.1 The subject lands are currently vacant and are being cultivated. The lands rise to the
north-east from Regional Road 17.
3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:
North - Cultivated lands, single detached dwellings and accessory buildings, which
received draft approval for 25 lots in 2019.
South - Cultivated lands, Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision by Smooth Run
Developments.
Page 13
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-014-20
East -Cultivated lands, Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision by Smooth Run
Developments.
West - Existing rural residential development.
4. Provincial Policy
Provincial Policy Statement
4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy, livable
and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential,
employment, recreational and open space uses to meet long term needs. New
development shall occur adjacent to built-up areas, shall have compact form and a mix of
uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public
services.
Provincial Growth Plan
4.2 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages Municipalities to manage growth by directing
population growth to settlement areas, such as the Newcastle Urban Area. Municipalities
are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land uses,
employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores and
services.
4.3 The development allows for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services
and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan. The Growth
Plan requires municipalities to achieve a minimum density target that is not less than 60
residents and jobs combined per hectare in the designated greenfield area and is
measured across the Region of Durham. The proposed development is part of a
neighbourhood where various housing types will be accommodated as development
proceeds. Municipal water and sanitary sewers and transit will be made available to the
site in the future.
5. Official Plans
Durham Regional Official Plan
5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the lands as Living Areas. Lands
designated as Living Area permit the development of communities incorporating the
widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living
accommodations that address various socio-economic factors. The proposed
development conforms with the Living Area designation.
Page 14
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PSD-014-20
Clarington Official Plan
5.2 The lands are designated Urban Residential. The Urban Residential designation is
predominately intended for housing purposes. Other uses may be permitted which by the
nature of their activity, scale, design and location are supportive of and compatible with
residential uses.
5.3 An approved Neighbourhood Design Plan will continue to provide guidance for the
development of neighbourhoods unless superseded by a Secondary Plan. Only the north
portion of the North Newcastle Neighbourhood requ ires a Secondary Plan, currently
under way, prior to considering any applications for development.
5.4 The policies require new residential development and emerging neighbourhoods to be
designed to provide for a variety of housing types and supportive land us es, including
commercial and community facilities and encourage accessible, walkable
neighbourhoods that prioritize pedestrians over cars and provide for a variety of uses. Mill
Street, Regional Road 17 is designated as a Type B Arterial.
Neighbourhood Design Plan
5.5 The proposed changes are a minor deviation from the approved Neighbourhood Design
Plan (NDP) with the introduction for window streets and minor changes to the lotting
pattern. The location of major road, stormwater facilities, schools, parks and parkettes are
not affected. The changes are considered minor and an amendment to Neighbourhood
Design Plan is not deemed to be warranted. See Figure 3.
Page 15
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-014-20
Figure 3 - Lands owned by Brookfield in the North Village Neighbourhood Design Plan
Page 16
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PSD-014-20
6. Zoning By-law
6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands “Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)
R1-86)”, and “Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R3-46)”.
6.2 A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to support the proposed changes to the Draft
Approved Plan.
7. Public Notice and Submissions
7.1 The Statutory Public Meeting was initially scheduled for April 6, 2020. Notice was mailed
on March 12, 2020, prior to the declaration of the Provincial Emergency, and the
restrictions for public gathering. The report was heard via teleconferencing however did
not meet the requirements of the Planning Act for holding a Statutory Public Meeting.
Subsequently, the Province did amend the Emergency Declaration to permit virtual public
meetings hence this Second Public Meeting.
7.2 Public Meeting notice was mailed to area residents, the Public Notice sign was displayed
on the subject property. The details of the application were included in the Planning
Services Department E-update.
7.3 At the time of writing the report. one inquiry was received. The individual requested
clarification on the term window street, only.
8. Agency Comments
Engineering Services
8.1 The Engineering Services Department does not have concerns with the proposed
changes to the draft plan. Staff has been in discussions with the applicant and have
agreed to review the changes in conjunction with the revised engineering submission .
Engineering Services has advised that the Brookfield and Smooth Run have jointly
applied for a site alteration permit. Both developers intend to begin earth works in the
summer of 2020.
Emergency and Fire Services
8.2 The Emergency and Fire Services Department offer no objections.
Operations Department
8.3 The Operations Department offer no objections.
Page 17
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PSD-014-20
Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
8.4 The Public School Board offered no objection to the changes to the draft approved plan
or the proposed zoning by-law amendment, subject to the inclusion of warning clauses in
Agreements of Purchase and Sale for homeowners regarding school bus pick up points
and despite a school site being reserved in adjoining draft plan (Smooth Run), a school
may not be built for some time, if at all, in which case students from this area may have to
attend existing schools.
8.5 Durham Region provided comments advising that additional road widening was not
required. However, a ‘buffer’ block along Regional Road 17 with a proposed 3:1 slope
(i.e. in accordance to Municipal standards) would be needed as provided on the red-line
revised plan. The conditions of Draft Approval previously imposed remain applicable
8.6 Comments have not been received from the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
and the separate school board.
9. Discussion
9.1 There is a significant grade difference between Regional Road 17 and the subject site.
Based on the engineering details available at the time of the original application the draft
approved plan showed townhouses with dual frontages on Regional Road 17 and a n
internal public road. See Figure 2. To make up the grade, the townhomes proposed to
have garages facing the internal road, and front doors facing Regional Road 17 at a lower
level. The townhouse blocks would be quite high relative to Regional Road 17 and the
proposed sidewalk. This created a less desirable streetscape and pedestrian relationship
between the street and townhouse blocks. In addition, the original draft approved plan
had two walkways from the internal road to Regional Road 17. Given the grades the
walkway would be steep and not accessible and difficult to maintain.
9.2 The developer and consultant are now undertaking detailed engineering design work and
have been able to better address the design of the streets abutting Regional Road 17.
The proposed changes allow for the townhouse blocks to face the window street, which is
more open, and the grade change would be less significant and taken up through a
landscape strip, allowing for overall better urban design, pedestrian access and
townhouse models.
9.3 Development of this draft plan cannot proceed in isolation of the abutting Smooth Run
Draft Approved and a second Brookfield Draft Approved plan. Its development is
dependent on the servicing, stormwater management, grading and road patterns on
these abutting lands as shown in the neighbourhood Design Plan contained in Figure 3.
9.4 The lands to the north, which currently supports the existing single detached dwelling and
accessory buildings are outside of the Neighbourhood Design Plan. They will be subject
Page 18
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PSD-014-20
to a Secondary Plan in keeping with the Clarington Official Plan, which is currently under
way.
9.5 Although comments are outstanding from the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority,
there are no significant changes proposed to how stormwater is addressed and the site
does not have any natural heritage features. Staff do not anticipate comments that would
require changes to the conditions or proposal. The proposed changes are minor in nature
and represent an improvement over the original draft plan. These changes are supported
by staff. The applicants are working on the engineering approvals and are anxious to
enter into the appropriate development agreements with the Municipality and the Region
to facilitate development in 2021. Staff are recommending that the zoning by-law be
passed, provided there are no significant concerns from the public are raised. Should
there be comments from the outstanding agencies that require changes to the proposed
amendment to Draft Approval, the Director of Planning Services can make those changes
under the delegated authority empowered by By-law 2001-072.
10. Conclusion
In consideration of the departmental comments and based on review of the proposal,
staff recommend approval of the proposed redlined revision to the draft approved plan of
subdivision (Attachment 1), the amended draft conditions (Attachment 2) and Zoning By-
law amendment (Attachment 3).
Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2410 or
cstrike@clarington.net
Attachment 1: Proposed Amendment to the Draft Plan of Subdivision
Attachment 2: Proposed Amending Conditions of Draft Approval
Attachment 3: Zoning By-law
The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council’s decision:
Scott Waterhouse, Candevcon East Limited
Jennifer Haslett, Brookfield Homes
Page 19
N
Street 'A'Street 'B'Street 'L'
Street 'H'
Street 'H'
Street 'A'
Street 'K'
Street 'J'
Street 'J'Street 'D'Street 'D'Street 'B'Street 'G'Street 'L'Street 'A'
Street 'Q'
Street 'F'Str.'R'Str.'S'Street 'C'Street 'M'Street 'P'Street 'E'Street 'N'Street 'O'Street 'N'SS S S S
SSS
S S S
SSS
S S S
S S
S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSStr.'T'Street 'O'SS
Street 'G'
Street 'F'
Street 'F'
Street 'D'Street 'E'
Street 'D'Street 'H'Street 'C'Street 'I'Street 'A'Street 'B'STREET A
OTHER LANDS OWNED
BY APPLICANT
Street 'D'
CONCESSION ROAD 3
HIGHWAY 35/115REGIONAL ROAD 17 (NORTH STREET)CANDEVCON EAST LIMITED
KEY PLAN
E19044
DP-7
PROPOSED
OF SUBDIVISION SC-2005-004
PART OF LOT 28, CONCESSION 2
(GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE,
FORMERLY VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE)
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REDLINE REVISIONS TO
DRAFT APPROVED PLAN
SCHEDULE OF LAND USES:
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEOWNER'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES
THIS PLAN .
ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN ON
RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT LANDS ARE
OF THE LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND THEIR
ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS(ONTARIO) LIMITED
DATE
SIGNEDSIGNED
DATE
BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL J.D. BARNES LTD.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE PLANNING ACT
Under section 51(17) of The Planning Act
information required by clauses A,B,C,D,E
F,G, & J shown on Draft and Key plans.K) All municipal services required
I) Sandy , Clay
H) Piped municipal water supply
L) As shown
WE , THE REGISTERED OWNERS OF THE
SUBJECT LANDS, HEREBY AUTHORIZE
CANDEVCON EAST LTD. TO PREPARE AND
SUBMIT A REVISED DRAFT PLAN OF
SUBDIVISION FOR APPROVAL.
NORTH VILLAGE
BROOKFIELD
SCOTT COONS, O.L.S.
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-014-20
Page 20
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-014-20
AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-C 2005-004 (Brookfield Homes)
Issued for Review: March 24, 2020
Notice of Decision:_____________
Amendment Approved: ________________
1. The Conditions of Draft Approval dated October 19, 2012 and as amended on May 7,
2018, are hereby amended as set out below.
“1. Plan Identification shall be removed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan of
subdivision S-C 2005-0004, prepared by Candevcon East Limited, identified as Project
Number E19044, original submission dated March 2011 by Sernas and Associates
identified as Project Number 04320 and draft approved by the Ontario Municipal Board
on October 19, 2013, now illustrates 268 residential units consisting of 150 single
detached units, 62 semi-detached units, 56 street townhouse units, parkette, 0.3 metre
reserves, grading buffer strip.
2. Deleted the following bullet:
“proposed walkway (Block 194) is required for overland flow”
3. Delete Conditions 41 and 42 in their entirety.
Page 21
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-014-20
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2020-______
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 2020-0002;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Schedule ‘5’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing
the zone designation from “Urban Residential Type One (R1)” to "Holding - Urban
Residential Type Exception (H)(R1-86) Zone", “Urban Residential Type One (R1)”
to "Holding - Urban Residential Type Exception (H)(R3-44) Zone", "Holding -
Urban Residential Type Exception (H)(R1-86) Zone" to "Holding - Urban
Residential Type Exception (H)(R3-44) Zone" , "Holding-Urban Residential Type
Exception (H)(R3-46) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Type Exception
(H)(R3-44) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
2. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this _____ day of ____________, 20___
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk
Page 22
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-014-20
Page 23
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: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: May 19, 2020 Report Number: PSD-015-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: PLN 8.6.7, COPA2019-0002 & ZBA2019-0019 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Implement the
Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-015-20 be received;
2. That the Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment 1 of Report PSD-015-20
be approved;
3. That the Zoning By-law Amendment contained in Attachment 2 of
Report PSD-015-20, be approved;
4. That in accordance with Section 45(1.4) of the Planning Act, Council permit minor
variance applications to be submitted for the lands subject to the Zoning By-law
Amendment contained in Attachment 2, provided the application is accompanied by
a character analysis;
5. That a By-law to repeal Interim Control By-law 2018-083 be forwarded to Council for
adoption once the Zoning By-Law Amendment contained in Attachment 2 is in full
force and effect;
6. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department , the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-015-20; and
7. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-015-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 24
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-015-20
1. Introduction
1.1 Over the past few years, Council and Clarington Planning staff have received several
complaints from the public regarding new and replacement housing development and
additions to existing housing that are viewed as being incompatible with the
neighbourhood character. Through PSD-078-18, staff identified a Residential
Neighbourhood Character Study (the “study”) would help identify and evaluate the
physical character of the established neighbourhoods experiencing the most change.
Three of the established neighbourhoods identified were parts of the Elgin, Central and
Memorial neighbourhoods in Bowmanville (see Figure 1).
1.2 MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited (MHBC) were retained in
February 2019 to assist staff in undertaking the study. To prevent incompatible
development from occurring during the study, Clarington Council adopted Interim
Control By-law 2018-083 to restrict the use of land within the BNCS area on September
17, 2018. An update and one-year extension to the Interim Control By-law was
approved through PSD-038-19 on September 9, 2019.
1.3 The general work plan and timeline for the study is shown in Figure 2. The BNCS
Options/Analysis and Recommendation Report by MHBC was released in December
2019. In order to implement recommendations of the study and complete the project,
the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments found in Attachments 1 and 2 are
recommended. The recommended amendments consider input received through
department and agency comments, public submissions and feedback from delegations
at the January 13, 2020 Public Meeting.
Report Overview
The Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study (BNCS) began in February 2019 as a
result of Council adopting Interim Control By-law 2018-083 to restrict the use of land within
the study areas. Report PSD-038-19 provided an update of the Bowmanville Neighbourhood
Character Study (BNCS) and requested a one-year extension to Interim Control By-law
2018-083, to September 2020.
The final study recommendations inform the recommended changes to the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law 84-63 with the objective of providing direction for future development to better
reflect neighbourhood character within these established residential areas.
The Interim Control By-law will be repealed subsequent to the Zoning By-law Amendment
and Official Plan Amendment being approved and coming into effect.
Page 25
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-015-20
Figure 1: Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study Area
Page 26
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-015-20
Figure 2: Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study Work Plan & Timeline
2. Public Submissions
Public Meeting Delegations
2.1 During the September 2019 public meeting, in response to the draft official plan
amendment and zoning by-law amendment, the following comments were noted:
A developer expressed that he cannot sell homes on 60-foot lots with a one and
a half car garage. People want 3 car garages. He stated that there are no
families that have only a single car.
A property owner on Queen Street wanted lands in front of the former Goodyear
lands to be excluded because it is unknown how those lands will develop. He felt
the reduction in lot coverage would affect property value. This property owner
also made a written submission reiterating the same concerns and asking that his
property not be considered as part of the proposal.
A resident felt developers should be able to replace small houses on large lots
with bigger houses because that’s what people want.
Page 27
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-015-20
A resident was concerned the proposal does not account for climate change.
She is concerned that increased coverage of land and taking down trees will
cause increased flooding and contribute to temperature increases.
A resident pointed out that neighbourhoods have been developed around the car
and we have the opportunity to rethink this focus. She asked if it is possible to
have multiple homes on lots in Study Area 2 if stringent planning measurements
are met.
A resident appreciated the work and local feedback on the study. He wanted to
know how best practices were used. He does not want to see development
directed away from the downtown and be allowed around the 407.
A resident who wants to sever her lot to gain funds to renovate her existing
house expressed concern that developers will not want her severed lot because
of the restrictions. She wondered if variances would be able to go ahead.
A resident was concerned that the lot coverage regulations would restrict his
ability to build a garage.
The past president of Durham Home Builders Association indicated that the
association was not invited to participate and were just made aware of the
proposal by a member.
A resident was concerned he may need a variance to attach his garage to his
house. He indicated that he supports the concept of the proposal and indicated
that the work was not done in isolation. He believes the proposal would conserve
the character of the neighbourhood.
A resident spoke in favour of the proposed height restrictions. He feels his
privacy has been impacted by a newer house that was built behind his.
Summary of Written Submissions
2.2 A resident submitted comments indicating they lived in a neighbourhood in Toronto
where smaller bungalows on larger lots were replaced with “monster homes”. Trees
were removed and houses were built to take advantage of the space inside instead of
outside. They now live within the study area and enjoy the green space and “village
feel” of the neighbourhood.
2.3 Many residents are not opposed to redevelopment provided it is done with sensibility
and sensitivity. They indicated the participants and leaders of the study worked very
hard to come up with a serious proposal and that those living in the neighbourhood are
best at determining what they are comfortable with.
Page 28
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-015-20
2.4 Some residents fully support the proposal brought forward at the Public Meeting and
hope developers will respect the decision. They do not want to see a lot of applications
for variances. Support for a tree inventory was indicated and they were surprised that
there are not rules/by-laws already in place addressing tree removal.
2.5 A resident submitted comments indicating that the process and fin al recommendation
report from the consultant were very good.
2.6 It was indicated Clarington has set aside enough areas for residential intensification,
allowing neighborhoods in central Bowmanville to be intensified with large, and in many
cases, multi-family residential infill development is a poor policy choice.
2.7 A resident commented on rising housing and rental prices which have made large lots
with there current coverage making them economically viable targets for re-
development. While supporting growth, the resident believes the proposed regulations
are of long-term value in maintaining the charm, character and value. These areas are
important to our cultural fabric.
2.8 A resident who participated in the study process noted the majority of people who spoke
at the Public Meeting, had not participated in previous meetings/walks organized as part
of the BNCS. They noted that the information about the proposal was available on the
Clarington website and could have been found by these delegates.
2.9 A resident suggested the Municipality could consider passing bylaws to permit "Tiny
Homes" as Hamilton has. This building style could be placed on small parcels that are
not suitable for regular building lots. Since younger couples find it hard to get into the
home buying market this could be one way of getting into the real estate market. This
could help builders when confronted with unique parcels that are not suitable for large,
expensive builds.
2.10 A resident indicated they were in favour of creating more rental units in Clarington.
They expressed we should be putting the creation of new units above aesthetics or
character. This resident is opposed to the addition of the proposed policy in the Official
Plan that relates to only one main entrance being visible from the street for a secondary
apartment.
2.11 A developer indicated concerns with the proposed lot coverage as new dwe llings
typically include a garage. The developer feels two storey homes would be impossible
to build on a small lot frontage with the proposed side yard requirements. To construct a
popular bungalow with an attached double car garage, 40% lot coverage would be
needed. The maximum height needs to consider walkout conditions. The developer felt
landscape open space of 35% rather than 40% would be more acceptable. They
requested that newly severed lots be grandfathered to allow the existing zoning
regulations to apply.
Page 29
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PSD-015-20
2.12 A resident suggested architectural control guidelines may be an important factor to
consider, such as the Interim Control By-law regulation of roof pitches. The resident
noted, proposed zoning regulations would not be able to control all aspects of
architectural design. Further it was not intended to discourage redevelopment.
2.13 After the release of the revised proposed zoning by-law amendment on April 22nd, a
developer requested we consider a 1.5 metre rather than 1.8 metre interior sid e yard
setback for dwellings greater than 1.5 storeys.
2.14 The developer noted there are residential zones that allows for lot coverage of 40% for
single detached dwellings and 45% for semi-detached dwellings. He requested an
explanation as to why the proposed zoning does not consider semi-detached dwellings
which fall directly in line with the Provincial Affordable housing guidelines. From his
perspective some of the lots in the neighbourhoods have potential for semi-detached
dwellings and he would like us to consider increasing the lot coverage.
2.15 A resident expressed that the protection of heritage properties should be a critical role
for the Municipality.
2.16 A property owner indicated that regulations for additional side yard setbacks for 2 storey
dwellings, 50% landscape open space and limiting the garage width based on the
frontage will restrict development, particularly for semi-detached dwellings. If projects
are required to increase driveway size to limit car overhang and at the same time restrict
the size of the driveway or hardscape area, this limits the portion of the lot a garage can
cover. They believe the new zoning will restrict projects to single car garages with a
single driveway. If limited to a single driveway, they expressed concern that they will no
longer be able to meet the requirements for an apartment-in-house. Also, the property
owner felt this was in direct opposition to the intensification initiatives. In addition, it
limits the ability to increase rental stock and redevelopment feasibility. In their opinion
the restrictions will encourage development of unaffordable luxury bungalows and lower
the property value of the existing housing stock.
2.17 A resident submitted concerns that the discussion on “intensification or “compact
development” as it relates to the Growth Plan requirements for intensification in existing
urban areas was lacking. If protecting neighbourhoods means zero intensification, it
should have been discussed. In their opinion, stable neighbourhoods need
rejuvenation. The resident also expressed concern the proposal will mean some
properties will become legal non-conforming.
2.18 A number of residents identified how important trees are to the characteristics of
neighbour streetscapes. They believe tree protection should be more aggressively
addressed than the recommendation for a pilot project.
Page 30
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-015-20
2.19 A resident and member of the Heritage Committee reiterated his desire that the
Municipality conduct a street tree inventory and implement a bylaw for individual tree
protection. He noted it was his impression from the walking tours that people enjoyed
the streetscape (roadways, sidewalks, boulevards). He suggested the municipality
place restrictions on changing streetscapes and that some streetscapes be designated
heritage landscapes.
3. Provincial Policy
Provincial Policy Statement
3.1 The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy
livable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of
residential dwelling types while being sensitive to the characteristics of the
neighbourhood.
Growth Plan
3.2 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing
population growth to settlement areas, such as the Bowmanville Urban Area.
3.3 Municipalities are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land
uses, employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores
and services. The Growth Plan includes policies to direct development to settlement
areas and provides direction for intensif ication targets within Built-up Areas. The three
neighbourhoods are all within the Built-up area as defined by the Growth Plan.
4. Official Plans
Durham Regional Official Plan
4.1 The Durham Region Official Plan supports the development of people-oriented Urban.
4.2 Areas that create a sense of community, promote social interaction and are esthetically
pleasing.
Clarington Official Plan
4.3 The Clarington Official Plan envisions Clarington as “a place where each community
can build on its individual character, share a common economic base and a distinct
collective image”. The physical character of established residential neighbourhoods is to
be enhanced while accommodating intensification that celebrates the history and
character of its communities.
4.4 New development and redevelopment in existing neighbourhoods shall be designed to:
Page 31
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PSD-015-20
a. Respect and reinforce the physical character of the established neighbourhood
having regard to the pattern of lots, streets and blocks, the size and configuration of
lots, building types of nearby properties, the height and scale of buildings and the
setback of buildings from the street, rear and side yards;
b. In neighbourhoods of historical character, be consistent with the built form pattern of
the area;
c. Adhere to all relevant Urban Design Guidelines and expectation for high-quality
architectural design and sustainable building materials; and
d. Maximize opportunities to improve accessibility and pedestrian and cycling systems,
enhance neighbourhood and transit connections, and reduce energy, water and
resource use.
4.5 Existing neighbourhoods are stable but not static. The Municipality encourages limited
intensification in accordance with the criteria noted above to ensure intensification
projects are compatible with the adjacent and surrounding neighbourh ood.
4.6 Lot creation should keep the character of the surrounding area.
4.7 Lands along Liberty Street are designated as a Local Corridor. The Official Plan
requires corridors to be comprehensively developed to provide for residential and/or
mixed-use developments with a wide array of uses in order to achieve higher densities,
and transit-oriented development while being sensitive to the existing neighbourhoods.
Residential development is permitted to six storeys with a minimum density of 40 units
per hectare. The built form shall incorporate existing local character and scale to create
a compatible and attractive built form with a distinctive community image.
5. Agency Comments
Regional Municipality of Durham
5.1 The Region does not have any objections to the proposed Clarington initiated Official
Plan and Zoning By-law amendments. The proposed amendments address
characteristics of built form in the transition of defined Bowmanville neighbourhoods and
the Liberty Street Local Corridor. The Official Plan Amendment application is exempt
from Regional approval.
6. Department Comments
Engineering Services
Page 32
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PSD-015-20
6.1 The Engineering Services Department is supportive of the recommendations provided in
the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and the study reports
prepared by MHBC.
6.2 Engineering Services is primarily concerned with additional drainage, proposed grading,
parking requirements and impacts to the road network with respect to newly developed
infill lots. Decreased lot coverage and increased landscape area requirem ents will assist
in mitigating increased stormwater surface flow from newly developed lots. Side yard
setbacks will provide an adequate offset from property lines to install a lot swale
providing positive drainage and will minimize adverse effects to existing adjacent
properties. These lot swales also have potential to provide low impact development
measures by including an infiltration trench to promote groundwater infiltration.
6.3 The setback of 6 metres to the front of the garage will provide for one on -site parking
spot. Older neighbourhoods typically do not meet our current design standards and on -
street parking is limited. It is important to take this into consideration when developing
an infill lot.
6.4 With respect to the recommendation that a street tree inventory to be completed in each
of the three study areas, the Municipality completed a Street Tree Inventory in 2012.
This Report should be used as a basis and updated accordingly.
6.5 As per the Clarington Urban Forest Strategy, the current Tree By-law 97-35 regulates
woodlands between 0.2 ha and 1 ha in size; it does not regulate individual trees. A by-
law regulating individual trees would require significant resources to create and enforce.
Building Services
6.6 The Building Services Division did not identify any concerns with the proposal.
Heritage Committee
6.7 Committee members provided the following comments on the BNCS for staff’s
consideration:
The Committee supports the recommendation to continue evaluating properties
for inclusion on the Municipal Register. The Committee appreciates the support
Council has provided to carry out this study.
Committee members believed the names of the three neighbourhoods used in
the study do not adequately reflect each Area’s history and provided alternate
name suggestions.
The tree protection element is key. There needs to be some methodology in
place to protect trees that contribute to neighbourhood character. Currently,
Page 33
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PSD-015-20
Clarington does not appear to have any mature tree replacement/succession
plan.
Area 1: Veterans Avenue is a key area of interest for Committee members. The
Committee has been undertaking research into the significance of this street.
Committee members believe a streetscape evaluation should be conducted for
Veterans Avenue to identify and preserve the historical character of the
properties, including trees and the narrow street design in order to protect the
character through designation as a cultural heritage landscape under the Ontario
Heritage Act.
Area 2: The previous Heritage Conservation District Study was based upon an
area that was too large. Committee members discussed considering smaller
areas that could ensure any guidelines reflect the character of individual streets,
for example, Lowe Street and Centre Street.
Area 3: The Committee supports the recommendation as it applies to Area 3 to
continue to evaluate individual properties that have potential heritage value.
7. Discussion
7.1 Section 1 of this report outlines the reasons for the study being undertaken because of
complaints Council and staff received from the public regarding new, additions to and
replacement of housing development considered incompatible with the neighbourhood
character.
7.2 Through public submissions, staff heard from property owners/developers who have
developed lots in the area and have a desire to continue to build larger homes with
garages for multiple vehicles. Developers are concerned with the recommended lot
coverages, landscape open space and setbacks proposed, believing the new
regulations will hamper their ability to redevelop the lots. One developer would like
consideration for semi-detached dwellings. There was a suggestion we consider a 1.5
metre, rather than a 1.8 metre interior side yard setback for dwellings greater than 1.5
stories.
7.3 Through the study, we heard residents felt current lot coverage permissions of 40
percent for singe detached dwellings and 45 percent for semi-detached dwellings were
too high. The residents wanted lot coverage to be related to building height. They also
felt that new builds were being constructed too close to neighbouring homes and side
yards should be examined in relation to building height. Through analysis of actual lot
coverages in the study areas, MHBC determined that existing lots have less than 25
percent lot coverage.
Page 34
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PSD-015-20
7.4 Residents participating in the study were concerned about newer developments
resulting in front yard conditions dominated by driveways and garages, with little open
space. Residents emphasized this could be balanced by providing space without
substantially hindering the ability to accommodate parking. MHBC found the total
landscape open space in the study area averaged 62 percent in Study Area 1 and 65
percent in Study Areas 2 and 3.
7.5 Many of the homes in these areas do not have attached garages. The study found just
under 30% of the homes have attached garages in Study Areas 1 and 2 and only 14%
have them in Study Area 3. Garages can be accommodated indifferent ways, attaching
them to the front of a house is just one option. The proposed zoning does not restrict
one’s ability to accommodate a one or two car attached garage where there is ample lot
frontage. As noted in one of the written submissions and often heard at the workshops,
people moved to this neighbourhood because they enjoy the green space and “village
feel” of the neighbourhood.
7.6 If additional parking spaces are required, the proposed zoning by-law amendments
accommodates a driveway along the length of a lot. The proposed zoning also permits
a detached garage located in the rear of the yard. Both of these scenarios are
consistent with what is found in the neighbourhoods.
7.7 It is not the intention of the proposed amendments to eliminate infilling. However, as
noted in sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the report, the Official Plan encourages limited
intensification (also known as infilling) in existing neighbourhoods and encourages
development to fit with the character of those existing neighbourhoods.
7.8 One property owner/developer questioned why we had not considered architectural
control to regulate architectural design since zoning regulations would not be able to
control this aspect of character. In order to implement architectural control,
development would have to be subject to Site Plan Control, adding an extra layer of
approvals and cost to redevelopment within the study areas. If issues regarding
incompatibility in architectural design persist following approval of the attached
amendments, Council could direct staff to amend the Site Plan Control By-law and
establish architectural control design guidelines for the areas.
7.9 The study areas are not laid out, designed or serviced in the same manner as newer
subdivisions. One resident pointed to the fact that the Municipality has done a good job
at setting aside areas where intensification is appropriate. Intensification should not be
confused with gentrification. Demolishing a smaller home and replacing it with a much
larger home with multiple garages does not contribute to providing additional housing
units in the community.
7.10 In 2015, the Planning Act was amended to restrict minor variance applications for a two -
year period after a Zoning By-law is amended. Section 45(1.4) permits Council to
Page 35
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PSD-015-20
declare, by resolution, to allow applications. Such a resolution is recommended to allow
minor variance applications for the area of the proposed zoning by-law amendment,
7.11 While the proposed amendment reflects the character of the area, not all properties are
the same, individual lots are different. The proposed regulations are more permissive
than the actual averages for height, lot coverage and landscape open space noted in
Section 7.2; however, some properties may become legal non-conforming as a result of
the new regulations. If a development proposal cannot meet the regulations, a minor
variance may be possible.
7.12 Review of a proposed Minor Variance application considers four tests spelled out by the
Planning Act, which includes conformity with the policies of the Official Plan and the
intent of the Zoning By-law regulations. The Official Plan requires development to
respect and reinforce the physical character of an established neighbourhood. The
proposed zoning by-law regulations have been crafted to reflect neighbourhood
character. Where the zoning regulations cannot be complied with, a minor variance
application could be applied for. A character analysis demonstrating how the proposed
development will be compatible with the existing neighbourhood character would be
required. Planning staff developed a character analysis form, used for Minor Variances
and exemption requests to the Interim Control By-law 2018-083.
7.13 The study and the recommendations of this report reflect input of approximately 100
neighbourhood residents over the course of the stud y. A summary of the public
engagement and consultation was provided in Report PSD-001-20. The study was
geared towards resident input rather than the development industry. Some participants
in opposition at the public meeting had recently moved into the area.
7.14 While the study was not geared towards developers, staff included developers with
recent projects in the area at the outset of the study. Local developers were aware of all
opportunities to participate, some were interviewed by the MHBC. Planning Services
staff have communicated with the Executive for the Durham Region Home Builders
Association (DRHBA) as to how they can stay informed on projects within Clarington by
subscribing to the Planning E-Update or by registering as an interested party for specific
projects. The Planning Services Department has not received any formal comments
from DRHBA. When Clarington revised its Architectural Control Design Guidelines in
2011 both the DRHBA and BILD were part of the steering committee.
7.15 One property owner on Queen Street requested that his property be removed from the
proposal as it is in front of the former Goodyear site. His concern is that redevelopment
potential would be limited. The Queen Street properties are within the limits of the
Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan study area and could see changes to
the zoning regulations based on the outcome of that project. The property owner is an
interested party for the Secondary Plan and is encouraged to participate to understand
the opportunities which may be available in the future.
Page 36
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PSD-015-20
7.16 Climate change is an important issue. The proposed modifications to the regulations
will create benefits. As noted by Engineering Services, reduced lot coverage and
increased landscape area and setbacks will assist in mitigating increased stormwater
runoff. Maintaining existing setbacks for bungalows and increased setbacks for two
storey homes will provide area for swale installation and provide opportunity to look at
low impact development solutions. If someone wants to reduce setbacks or exceed lot
coverage, through Committee of Adjustment, in addition to the typical review related to
the four tests for a minor variance, there is ability to look at stormwater capacity and
what additional measures are needed to be incorporated into the proposal to
accommodate stormwater.
7.17 Through their comments, the Clarington Heritage Committee reiterated the priority of
heritage conservation for the Municipality. Part of their mandate is to evaluate properties
for the inclusion on the Municipal Register, this goes beyond individual buildings and
includes their setting, including streetscapes.
7.18 Engineering Services noted that the regulation of individual trees would be cumbersome
and would require significant resources to implement. Staff recommend this informatio n
be forwarded to the Operations Department so that it can be considered in the urban
forestry service review. Once it is determined how urban forestry is to be addressed
within the organizational review appropriate direction and consideration of this
recommendation can occur.
8. Modifications to Proposed Amendments
8.1 The proposed Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment 1 has been modified
since it was presented at the Public Meeting. In addition, the modified amendment was
released for additional comments on April 22, 2020. Policies regarding the Liberty
Street Local Corridor are proposed to be included as exceptions rather than amending
the parent Local Corridor policies. The language of the amendment has been improved,
while the intention remains largely the same.
8.2 The Official Plan policies will assist in the assessment of development proposals to
intensify the Liberty Street Local Corridor while balancing competing policies. Clarity as
to the limits of the Liberty Street Local Corridor is provided.
8.3 Regarding apartments-in-house policies, the OPA speaks to including performance
standards in the Zoning By-law for entrances to ensure development is compatible with
the physical character of the established neighbourhoods.
8.4 A proposed policy introduces criteria for entrances to an apartment-in-house. Residents,
while supportive of apartment-in-house units, identified concern with the location of
second entrances. In some cases, dwellings with an apartment-in-house have the
appearance of having two or more primary entrances.
Page 37
Municipality of Clarington Page 15
Report PSD-015-20
8.5 The study did not recommend a regulation for entrances because of a concern of
potential conflict with the Ontario Building Code (O.B.C). Staff conducted additional
research to determine how other municipalities have regulated entrances. Further
discussion with Building Services staff has occurred. Based on the additional research
staff propose regulating entrances for apartment-in-house regardless of the submission
concerning placing aesthetics over rental units. The proposed regulation will not
hamper one’s ability to create an apartment -in-house.
8.6 Based on further review and feedback received from departments and the public, the
following adjustments have been made to the Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
contained in Attachment 2, from the one presented at the January 2020 public meeting:
Simplified the language.
Added definitions of fixed grade and height of a dwelling. These definitions allow
height to be measured from the midpoint of the lot at the street line, rather than from
the lowest point of grade around the dwelling. This should help to control the
heights from the street, where character has the biggest impact, while considering
walk out conditions in the rear yard.
Provide a revised definition for Established Building Line. The current definition
considers lots within a block. Throughout the study area the number of lots within a
block varies. This additional definition sets the number of lots to consider when
calculating the average setback.
Added a definition for Soft Landscaping, which is referenced in the regulations for
landscape open space. It has been created to ensure half of a front yard will be
vegetated.
A minimum front yard setback for the dwelling is proposed for clarity as to where a
projection (e.g. porches, steps) is to be measured from. The maximum is proposed
to be within 2 metres of the established building line to address areas with shallow
front yards.
Exclude covered and unenclosed porches from lot coverage for up to 12 square
metres for an interior lot and 20 square metres for a corner lot . This has been added
to address comments regarding insufficient lot coverage and to encourage
construction of porches. Similar to the approach in newer residential zones this will
encourage front porches. Porches are a common feature to the study areas.
Reduce building heights to 8 metres (Study Area 1) and 8.5 metres (Study Areas 2
and 3) consistent with actual average heights in the neighbourhoods.
Rather than restrict the hardscaping as part of the landscape open space in the front
yard, the regulation now references soft landscaping which is a term used by other
municipalities and is clearly defined.
Page 38
Municipality of Clarington Page 16
Report PSD-015-20
Rather than regulate the outside width of the garage, the regulation has been
modified to regulate the width of the garage doors. This will provide flexibility on the
inside garage dimensions and framing of the garage. The size is proposed to be
capped at 3 metres maximum for a garage door and a combined width of all garage
doors at 6 metres. The regulation also proposed to limit garage doors based on lot
frontage. It is not common for properties in the study area to have multiple garages,
and that the residents who participated in the study stressed the importance of
limiting the prominence of garages.
Added a regulation for the height of the floor deck for an unenclosed porch
consistent with regulations used in newer residential zones. This regulation helps to
ensure front porches do not tower over the street but are built at a height that
provides a comfortable relationship to the sidewalk and street consistent with
existing homes in the neighbourhood.
Added a regulation for entrances for apartment-in-house to be located with a
common entrance with the principal dwelling in the front yard. If a separate entrance
is provided it must be in the side or rear yard. MHBC final recommendation report
indicated other municipalities have not regulated two front doors. However, staff
conducted additional research and determined that the location of apartment-in-
house entrances have been regulated by several municipalities.
Site-specific exception zones were added for two properties located at 112 Duke
Street and 10 Victoria Street as Council provided exemptions to Interim Control By-
law 2018-083.
9. Conclusion
9.1 In consideration of all agency, staff and public comments, it is respectfully
recommended that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to
implement the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study be approved. Further, it is
recommended that when the amendments are final and binding, staff be authorized to
bring forward a by-law to repeal Interim Control By-law 2018-083.
Staff Contact: Tracey Webster, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 x 2415 or
twebster@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Attachment 2 – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from the Department.
Page 39
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-015-20
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
Neighbourhood Character Overlays 1 and 2 identified on Schedule ‘3’:
a. For the purpose of Section 12.2.1, the term:
i) Height of Dwelling means the vertical distance, measured between the
lowest fixed grade, and
a) In the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface,
b) In the case of a mansard roof, the deck roof line, and
c) In the case of a gable, hip or gambrel roof, the average height
between the eaves and the ridge.
ii) Established building line means the average yard setback from the street
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.
iii) Fixed grade means the elevation of the ground at the street line measured
at the midpoint of a lot.
iv) Soft landscaping means the portion of a lot comprised of any combination
of flowers, grass, shrubs, sod, trees or other horticultural elements that is
not covered with impervious surfaces. It does not include any buildings or
structures, any hard surface areas such as, but not limited to, driveways,
parking areas, decorative stonework, walkways, patios, screening or othe r
landscape architectural elements. Page 40
b. Yard Requirements
i) Front Yard and Exterior Side Yard
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
ii) Interior Side Yard (minimum)
a) 3.0 metres on one side where there is no attached garage;
b) 1.2 metres for dwellings 1.5 storeys or less; and
c) 1.8 metres for dwellings greater than 1.5 storeys
c. Lot Coverage (maximum)
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
floor space above it is excluded from the maximum lot coverage subject to
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.
d. Landscaped Open Space (minimum)
i) Overall 40 percent
ii) Front yard 50 percent, which must be
soft landscaping
e. Building Height (maximum) 8.0 metres in Overlay 1
8.5 metres in Overlay 2
f. Special Regulations
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
front lot line
c) Where facing the front lot line for
semi-detached dwellings 35 percent of the
front lot line Page 41
ii) A garage or carport doors or openings shall be setback a minimum of 1.0
metres from the front or exterior side wall of the dwelling.
iii) Height of floor deck of an unenclosed porch above finished grade must not
exceed 1.0 metres.
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
is provided it must be in the side or rear yard.
g. Exceptions
i) Minimum front yard setback for a garage at 73 and 74 Lambs Lane is 9.8
metres.
ii) Maximum lot coverage for a single detached dwelling at 79 Division Street
is 43 percent.
iii) Notwithstanding 12.2.1 b. i) c., c.i), d. ii), and f. ii), 10 Victoria Street shall
be subject to the following zone regulations:
a. Front yard setback (maximum) 6.5 metres
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
zone regulations. In the event of conflict, the more restrictive regulation applies
except in the case of a special exception. The Overlay Zones are shown on the
Schedules to this By-law.”
3. Schedule ‘3’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding
the “Neighbourhood Character Overlay” as illustrated on the attached Schedule
‘A’ hereto.
4. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to
the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this _____ day of ____________, 20___
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk Page 42
Page 43
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-015-20
Amendment Number ______
To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan
Purpose: To amend the Clarington Official Plan to add policies that address
the transition between established neighbourhoods and the Liberty
Street Corridor and to address entrances for accessory
apartments.
Basis: This amendment is based on application COPA2019-0002 initiated
by the Municipality of Clarington and recommendations in the
Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study prepared by
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited
(MHBC).
Actual
Amendment: The Clarington Official Plan is amended as follows:
1. By adding a new Section 23.19.2 iii. as follows:
“The lands on the west side of Liberty Street, identified as part of
the Liberty Street Local Corridor shall function as a transitional area
to the established neighbourhoods to the west of Liberty Street.
Development on the west side of Liberty Street within the Local
Corridor will, address the following urban design policies in addition
to conforming to other policies of this document:
a) Development within the Liberty Street Local Corridor shall
not extend beyond the first established blocks west of Liberty
Street, formed by the existing street network.
b) Building heights shall not exceed a 45 degree angular plane
from any adjacent lot line to the west. This will minimize the
overlook of buildings over existing neighbourhoods;
c) Provide appropriate separation between development on the
west side of Liberty Street and existing neighbourhoods with
buffering through landscaping and tree planting; and
d) Provide below grade parking or screen surface parking
areas from direct view from the adjacent neighbourhood to
the west.”
Page 44
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16501679755\16501679755,,,Attachment 1 to Report PSD-015-20.docx
2. By adding a new subsection to Section 6.3.5 as follows:
“f) Where possible, the entrances to accessory apartments are
to be shared with the entrance to the principal
dwelling. Alternatively, the entrances to apartments shall be
accessed via the side yard or rear yard so as not to have two
building entrances visible from the street.
Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official
Plan, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in
regard to this Amendment.
Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official
Plan, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard
to this Amendment.
Page 45
Presentations
and
Handouts
Municipally-Initiated Zoning By-law &
Official Plan Amendments for parts of
the Elgin, Central and Memorial
neighbourhoods in Bowmanville
COPA2019-0002 & ZBA2019-0019
Planning and Development Committee: May 19th 2020
Planning Services Department
Subject Lands
•Parts of established
neighbourhoods in
Bowmanville
•Elgin
•Central
•Memorial
•Lands on the west side
of Liberty Street
Background
•Resident concerns regarding incompatible development
•Interim Control By-law
•Direction to study neighbourhoods’ character
•Retained MHBC to conduct the Study
•Public consultation process to form the final study
recommendations
Illustration of Current
Zoning Provisions
Illustration of Proposed
Zoning Provisions
Proposed Amendments
Zoning By-law –Proposed Regulations
•Proposed “Character Overlay” on the subject lands
•Character Overlay regulation changes:
Height of Dwelling
Established Building Line
Front and Exterior Side Yard Setbacks
Front Yard Landscape Open Space
Porches
Garage
Doors
Entrances -Apartment In-House
2nd front door to apartment-in-house 1 front door –
shared entrance to basement apartment
Entrances for an apartment-in-house can be in the front yard through a
common entrance with the principal dwelling. Where a separate entrance
is provided it must be in the side or rear yard.
Thank You!
Planning Services Department www.Clarington.net/ncs
Application By:Brookfield Homes
Residential (Ontario) Limited
Public Meeting: May 19, 2020
Clarington Planning Services Department
Window Street
Comments
•No issues have been raised by
the public
•No concerns have been raised
by the agency comments
received
•Development of the draft plan
cannot proceed in isolation of
the abutting draft approved
plans