HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-015-20 - Addendum
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: Council
Date of Meeting: July 6, 2020 Report Number: Addendum to Report 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 Addendum Report PSD-015-20 be received;
3. That the Official Plan Amendment contained in Attachment 1 of Report PSD-015-20
be approved;
4. That the revised Zoning By-law Amendment that also repeals Interim Control By-law
2018-083 contained in either:
a) Attachment 2a of Addendum Report PSD-015-20, or
b) Attachment 2b of Addendum Report PSD-015-20 be approved;
5. 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 Addendum Report PSD-015-20, provided the application is
accompanied by a character analysis as determined by the Director of Planning;
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, Addendum Report PSD-
015-20 and Council’s decision; and
7. That all interested parties listed in Addendum Report PSD-015-20 and any
delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
1. Background
1.1 Staff report PSD-015-20 considered by Council on May 25, 2020, recommended
approval of an Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment to implement
the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study. Council passed the following
resolution:
Resolution #C-238-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Report PSD-015-20 – Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to
Implement the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study, be referred to the July 6,
2020 Council Meeting.
1.2 The referral was intended to accommodate discussions between Planning Services staff
and delegates representing properties at 62 and 64 Prospect Street and the Durham
Region Home Builders Association (DRHBA). At the May 19, 2020 Planning and
Development Committee meeting Andrew Rice and John McDermott requested
exemptions be added to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment for 62 and 64
Prospect Street. Concerns related to these properties were further discussed by Patty
Rice at the May 25, 2020 Council Meeting.
1.3 Staff met with representatives from the Rice family on June 8th and June 23rd. Staff met
with the Durham Region Home Builders Association (DRHBA) on June 9th. Their
concerns and how staff have considered them are detailed in Section 2.
Report Overview
This is an addendum report to PSD-015-20, responding to delegations from the meeting on
May 25 when this Report was referred to the July 6, 2020 Council Meeting. Based on
discussions, some revisions have been made to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment
contained in Attachments 2. There are two options for Council’s consideration, option 2a
and 2b.
Staff are recommending approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments
(option 2a) to implement the Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study (BNCS). The
Zoning By-law Amendments in both options have been revised to include a section that will
repeal the Interim Control By-law once the Zoning By-law Amendment comes into effect.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
2. Discussion
2.1 Through discussions with the representatives for the Rice family, it was stated that they
do not disagree with the intent of the study or zoning by-law, however they did restate
their belief that allowance for lot coverage of 35 percent for both 62 and 64 Prospect
Street and a building height of 9 metres at 64 Prospect Street was required to allow the
development of a 2-storey home in keeping with the neighbourhood. It was
acknowledged that an exception for height at 62 Prospect Street was not necessary.
For lot coverage it was suggested that staff consider regulating lot coverage based on
lot size, rather than basing it on the number of storeys a dwelling has.
2.2 There was also concern expressed with future potential negative impact should their
property become legal non-complying. They were concerned their current house at 62
Prospect Street would be non-compliant with the proposed regulation in terms of lot
coverage and garage size. They requested data as to how averages for existing
setbacks, heights and coverages were determined by the consultant (MHBC) for the
Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study. That information has been provided by
staff. Data collected by Mr. McDermott was also shared with staff.
Legal Non-complying
2.3 Zoning By-laws are required to recognize legal non-conforming buildings and structures
in accordance with Section 34(9) of the Planning Act. Zoning By-law 84-63 uses the
terms Legal Non-Conforming when referencing uses that legally existed prior to the to
the date of the passing of a by-law and Legal Non-Complying for building or structures
that do not meet the regulations set out for the zone in which such building or structure
is located but legally existed prior to the date of the passing of the by-law. For
example, a house was constructed in the 1860’s and a zoning by-law for the area came
into effect in the 1980’s. The house was built with a side yard setback of 0.75 metres
where the zoning by-law requires 1.2 metres. Although the house does not comply with
the regulations of the zone it is in, it is deemed to be legal.
2.4 A review of the data collected by both Mr. McDermott and MHBC indicates that although
existing properties may become legal non-complying with one or more regulations of the
proposed zoning, many are already in that position with the regulations contained in
Zoning By-law 84-63. Staff are unaware of issues related to the sale of properties that
have legal non-complying buildings and structures, zoning compliance letters are
typically issued by Planning Services advising of compliance/non-compliance to zoning
requirements.
Height
2.5 During discussions a desire to construct a two storey house with 9 foot ceilings and a
roof pitch of 8/12 was expressed for 64 Prospect Street. A cross section drawing was
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
provided by the Rice’s indicating an overall height of 8.8 metres. Flexibility was
requested to raise the basement because they have required a sump pump in the
basement at 62 Prospect starting in 2016 for a house built over 50 years ago and are
concerned that future construction at 64 Prospect would have similar water issues.
2.6 Staff have tested the desire to have a two storey home with 9 foot ceilings and an 8/12
roof pitch and found this could be achieved with an 8.3 metre height provided the
basement is not elevated (see Figure 1). Based on the desire to elevate the basement,
design changes could be made such as reducing the height of the second floor to 8 ft or
incorporating different roof pitches. Figures 2 and 3 depict how the height can change
when incorporating a 7/12 (8.1 metres) or 6/12 roof pitch (7.9 metres). Based on this
analysis and the example of 2 storey dwellings that exist in the study area discussed in
Section 2.21, staff are not supportive of the request for a 9 metre height. However, if
Council determines the request for the height exemption is appropriate , approval of the
Zoning By-law Amendment contained in Attachment 2b could be granted.
Figure 1 Two Storey House with an 8/12 Roof Pitch
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
Figure 2 Two Storey House with an 7/12 Roof Pitch
Figure 3 Two Storey House with an 6/12 Roof Pitch
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
Lot Coverage
2.7 In terms of lot coverage, it was specifically suggested that lots with less than 650 m 2 be
permitted to have a lot coverage of 35% and that a lesser lot coverage be attributed to
larger lots. Staff has conducted further analysis to determine the number of lots within
the study area regarding average lot size and coverage.
Number of Lots
Within Study Area
Zoned R1
Percentage of the
Total Number of Lots
Average Lot
Coverage
Lots over 800 m2 339 36 % 18.2%
Lots between 650 m2
and 799 m2
165 17.5% 23.0%
Lots less than 650
m2
438 46.5% 27.6 %
Table 1: Lots within the BNCS area based on lot area and average lot coverage
2.8 The analysis revealed that the larger lots have less coverage, and smaller lots have
over 25% recommended by MHBC. As a result, staff have made modifications to the
Zoning By-law Amendment contained in Attachment 2 to permit single detached
dwellings with lots less than 650 m2 to have a lot coverage of 35%. Lot coverages of
30% are proposed for lots between 650 m 2 and 799 m2 and 25% for lots over 800 m2.
The proposed lot coverage remains unchanged for semi-detached dwellings as a lot
would need to accommodate two units as opposed to one.
2.9 The exemption language for porches when calculating lot coverage was clarified. The
exemption is up to a maximum area. An area of up to 12.0 m2 is exempt from lot
coverage on interior lots and an area of up to 20 m2 is exempt on exterior lots.
2.10 An additional 5% lot coverage was previously added for accessory buildings and
structures (e.g. decks and sheds). Permission has also been added to include rear yard
unenclosed porches in the additional 5% lot coverage. This will help to reduce the need
for homeowners to apply for a minor variance where a builder constructs a new home to
the maximum allowable lot coverage. To date, this has been more of an issue in new
subdivisions where houses are designed to maximum lot coverage and setbacks.
However, it is considered an appropriate approach here as well.
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
Garages
2.11 Modifications to the proposed zoning by-law have been made to allow a two-car
attached garage for 15m lot frontage. The regulation for the combined width of a
garage door(s) is now 6 metres for lots with 15 metres of frontage or more. 62 Prospect
has a double car garage door, so by removing the limitation of 3 metres per garage
door, the garage is now in compliance with the proposed regulations. Allowing two car
garages on less than 18 m lot frontage was also an issue raised by the DRHBA.
2.12 The Rice family questioned why specific properties were granted exceptions in the
proposed by-law and why one is not considered for their property. The exceptions
included were a direct result of previous Council decisions related to specific
development proposals. If Council wishes to provide an exception to 64 Prospect Street
for height they can choose to do so. An alternative Zoning By-law Amendment is found
in Attachment 2b.
2.13 It should be noted that an exception for 79 Division Street previously proposed has
been removed. There is an approved minor variance on the property which makes the
need for an exception redundant.
DRHBA
2.14 After discussions with the Durham Region Home Builders Association a revision to the
proposed zoning by-law amendment was provided and reviewed. DRHBA provided a
response on June 18, 2020 identif ying concern with the established building line, lot
coverage, landscape open space and building height.
2.15 DRHBA requested that the front yard setback be a minimum of 6 metres or less rather
than using the Established Building Line. The established building line was chosen so
that the front yard setback would be more consistent with what is existing in the
immediate vicinity of a dwelling. A maximum setback of 2 metres from the established
building line is proposed to add flexibility where existing setbacks are close to the street.
2.16 DRHBA requested that one storey dwellings be permitted at 45%, 1.5 storey dwellings
be permitted at 40% and greater than 1.5 storey be 35% lot coverages, respectively.
They referred to the mandate of intensification to support this request.
2.17 Staff acknowledge that the proposed lot coverages are less than what is permitted in
greenfield (new) subdivisions, while being greater than the averages found within the
study area. Section 4 of PSD-015-20 outlines that the Official Plan does not focus
intensification on existing neighbourhoods rather there are policies requiring new
developments respect and reinforce the physical character of these neighbourhoods
including height and scale of buildings and their setbacks. The proposed Zoning By-law
is the implementation tool to realize the intent of these policies. The lot coverages that
exist in the three subject areas are much lower than what is found in greenfield
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
subdivisions. However, the modification discussed in Section 2.7 would allow smaller
lots to have greater lot coverages and larger lots to have lesser lot coverages.
2.18 Intensification does not equate with replacing a modest home with a grand one and
multiple garages. Intensification is adding more units than what is currently provided.
2.19 DRHBA also requested that 2 car garages be allowed on 11 metre lots. They stated
that this could help solve on street parking issues. To accommodate a two car driveway
on an 11 metre lot DRHBA requested the front yard landscape open space be reduced
to 40%. The aim of the 10% reduction is to permit a two car driveway on an 11 metre
lot and thus, increasing the marketability value of a new the home in this established
neighbourhood.
2.20 The Urban Residential Type One (R1) zone requires a minimum lot frontage of 15
metres for a single detached dwelling, therefore an 11 metre lot is not permitted. A
semi-detached dwelling requires 18 metres frontage for two units and could not
accommodate a double car garage with 40% landscape open space. If someone
proposes an 11 metre lot for a single detached dwelling, a rezoning application would
be required and they could request other exceptions at that time.
2.21 DRHBA claims that the proposed building height is only suitable for tiny homes, and the
maximum should be increased to 10 metres. Staff have examined plans of new two
storey homes within the area while the Interim Control By-law has been in effect.
2.22 For the first example, Council granted an exemption to Interim Control By-law 2018-083
to permit a height of 8.6 metres as opposed to 8.0 metres. Based on the building permit
information, this home only exceeds the proposed maximum height of 8.5 metre by 0.1
metre (3.93 inches). The second example is under the required 8.5 metres maximum
height. As seen in Figures 4 and 5, these houses are both two stories with a number of
steps to the front door. These figures show the regulations were written with the intent
to allow 2 storey homes.
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
Figure 4: New two storey house measuring 8.6 metres in height.
Figure 5: New two storey houses on Concession Street measuring under 8.0
metres in height.
2.23 A height of 10 metres would enable the construction of a three storey house which is
not in keeping with the heights of most of the houses in these established
neighbourhoods.
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
2.24 Addendum report PSD-019-20 on the agenda for the June 29, 2020 Planning and
Development Committee provides an example of proposed three storey townhouse
dwellings that are designed at a height of 10 metres.
2.25 In discussions with the representatives for the Rice family, it was suggested that a lower
height for houses with flat roofs be considered. The proposed 8.5 metre height could
have the ability to accommodate a three storey d welling with a flat roof. The Zoning By-
law Amendment in Attachments 2a and 2b has been revised to include a maximum
height of 7.5 metres for a flat roof dwelling.
2.26 Through discussions with the DRHBA, it was suggested that architectural control be
considered as an alternative to the regulations that are being proposed. The proposed
zoning regulations are intended to set a building envelope that is more in keeping with
the character of the area. It has not been written in a strict sense as to replicate the
exact character but to provide more sensitivity in terms of heights, lot coverage,
landscape open space, setbacks and garages.
2.27 As noted in section 7.8 of PSD-015-20, architectural control could be implemented but
would also requiring a site plan process. This would add cost for the control Architect’s
fee as well as the site plan application process itself. It would also take additional time
to process the approvals. Architectural control is used together with zone regulations in
greenfield areas, it is not used to address matters of setback, lot coverage, building
height, as spelled out by the provisions of the zoning by-law
2.28 Staff recognize that not all lots within the study area are the same. As a result, where a
project cannot meet the proposed regulations, an applicant would have the opportunity
to make an application for a minor variance. Provided the application meets the four
tests required by the Planning Act and is accompanied by a supportive character
analysis as discussed in section 7.12 of PSD-015-20, an applicant would most likely
receive a positive recommendation from staff, providing all other requirement are met.
The overall time to process an application is typically 50 days, including the appeal
period with an application fee of $750, currently.
2.29 Eight minor variance applications have been processed in the study areas since the
establishment of the Interim Control By-law. All applications received a supportive
recommendation from staff. In two cases, variances were also needed for relief from
existing regulations in Zoning By-law 84-63.
2.30 Council has also granted exemptions from the Interim Control By-law to allow new
construction to proceed on 4 properties. In three of those cases, staff were supportive
of the requests while the fourth case proceeded directly to Council without staff
involvement.
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Addendum to Report PSD-015-20
2.31 Staff developed a character analysis form that applicants used to support a minor
variance or exemption to the Interim Control By-law where necessary. This form can
continue to be used going forward to support a request for a minor variance. Where an
applicant has difficulty navigating the form, staff will assist in completing the form.
3. Conclusion
3.1 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 Interim Control By-law 2018-083 be repealed.
Staff Contact: Tracey Webster, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 x 2415 or
twebster@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Report PSD-015-20
Attachment 2a – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (Preferred Option)
Attachment 2b – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (Option B)
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from the Department.
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#: PD-065-20, C-238-20
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.
Attachment 1 to Addendum to
Report PSD-015-20
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.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-015-20
Figure 1: Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study Area
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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
Attachment 2a to Addendum 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 and to repeal Interim Control By-
law 2018-083
Whereas on September 17, 2018, Council directed staff to undertake the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study for the areas identified in Attachment 1 of Report PSD-
078-18, and report back to Council on the results of the study;
Whereas on September 17, 2018 the Municipality passed Interim Control By-law 2018-
083 pursuant to section 38 of the Planning Act;
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 to implement the findings of the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study;
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 Overlay
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 Overlay 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 front lot 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 other
landscape architectural elements.
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) Single detached dwelling
a) With a lot area less than 650 square metres 35 percent
b) With a lot area between 650 square metres 30 percent
and 799 square metres
c) With a lot area over 800 square metres 25 percent
ii) Semi-detached and duplex dwelling
a) For dwellings 1.5 storeys or less 35 percent
b) For dwellings greater than 1.5 storeys 30 percent
iii) Unenclosed porch/balcony and accessory additional 5 percent
buildings and structures
iv) An area of 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, up to a maximum total area of 12.0
square metres is permitted within the front yard.
b) In the case of an exterior lot, up to a 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. Height of a dwelling (maximum)
i) Flat roof 7.5 metres
ii) All other roof types 8.5 metres
g. Special Regulations
i) The combined maximum permitted width of garage door(s)on an attached
garage:
a) Where facing the exterior side lot line
for all dwellings 6 metres
b) Where facing the front lot line that is
less than 15 metres 3 metres
c) Where facing the front lot line that is
15 metres or greater 6 metres
ii) A garage door(s) or carport opening(s) 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 found in the front building
facade through a common entrance with the principal dwelling. Where a
separate entrance is provided it must be in the side or rear yard.
h. Exceptions
i) Minimum front yard setback for a garage at 73 and 74 Lambs Lane is 9.8
metres.
ii) 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(s) 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. Interim Control By-law 2018-083 is repealed on the date this By-law is deemed to
come into force pursuant to the Planning Act.
6. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to
the provisions of Sections 34 and 38 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this _____ day of ____________, 20___
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk
Attachment 2b to Addendum 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 and to repeal Interim Control By-
law 2018-083
Whereas on September 17, 2018, Council directed staff to undertake the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study for the areas identified in Attachment 1 of Report PSD-
078-18, and report back to Council on the results of the study;
Whereas on September 17, 2018 the Municipality passed Interim Control By-law 2018-
083 pursuant to section 38 of the Planning Act;
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 to implement the findings of the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study;
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 Overlay
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 Overlay 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 front lot 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 other
landscape architectural elements.
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) Single detached dwelling
a) With a lot area less than 650 square metres 35 percent
b) With a lot area between 650 square metres 30 percent
and 799 square metres
c) With a lot area over 800 square metres 25 percent
ii) Semi-detached and duplex dwelling
a) For dwellings 1.5 storeys or less 35 percent
b) For dwellings greater than 1.5 storeys 30 percent
iii) Unenclosed porch/balcony and accessory additional 5 percent
buildings and structures
iv) An area of 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, up to a maximum total area of 12.0
square metres is permitted within the front yard.
b) In the case of an exterior lot, up to a 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. Height of a dwelling (maximum)
i) Flat roof 7.5 metres
ii) All other roof types 8.5 metres
g. Special Regulations
i) The combined maximum permitted width of garage door(s) on an attached
garage:
a) Where facing the exterior side lot line
for all dwellings 6 metres
b) Where facing the front lot line that is
less than 15 metres 3 metres
c) Where facing the front lot line that is
15 metres or greater 6 metres
ii) A garage door(s) or carport opening(s) 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 found in the front building
facade through a common entrance with the principal dwelling. Where a
separate entrance is provided it must be in the side or rear yard.
h. Exceptions
i) Minimum front yard setback for a garage at 73 and 74 Lambs Lane is 9.8
metres.
ii) 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.
iii) Notwithstanding 12.2.1 e. ii) the maximum height of a dwelling at 64 Prospect
Street that does not have a flat roof is 9 metres.
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. Interim Control By-law 2018-083 is repealed on the date this By-law is deemed to
come into force pursuant to the Planning Act.
6. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to
the provisions of Sections 34 and 38 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this _____ day of ____________, 20___
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk