HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29-2020
Planning and Development Committee
Agenda
Date:June 29, 2020
Time:7:00 PM
Location:Microsoft Teams
Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for
accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Patenaude,
Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at lpatenaude@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
7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of June 8, 2020 6
7.2 Minutes of a Special Meeting of June 23, 2020
[To be distributed with the Revised Agenda]
8.Public Meetings
8.1 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 23
Applicant: Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.
Report: PSD-024-20
Location: 2910 & 2936 Hancock Road
Link to Public Meeting Presentation
9.Delegations
9.1 Mike Pettigrew, The Biglieri Group Ltd., Regarding Addendum to
Report PSD-019-20 415 Mill Street
10.Communications – Receive for Information
There are no Communication Items to be received for information.
Planning and Development Committee
June 29, 2020
Page 2
11.Communications – Direction
There are no Communication Items for Direction.
12.Presentations
No Presentations.
13.Planning Services Department Reports
13.1 PSD-024-20 Trolleybus Urban Development Inc. proposed Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Rezoning Applications Part Lot 27, Concession 2,
Former Township of Darlington - 2910 and 2936 Hancock Road,
Courtice
25
13.2 PSD-025-20 Addition of Properties to the Municipal Heritage Register 39
13.3 PSD-026-20 Proposed Alteration to a Designated Heritage Property; 5
Beech Avenue, Bowmanville
50
14.New Business – Consideration
15.Unfinished Business
15.1 Correspondence from Devon Daniell, Kaitlin Corp., Regarding Report
PSD-041-19 (Referred from the June 15, 2020 Council Meeting)
[Motion to Refer to the Consideration of Report PSD-041-19 Community
Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines
for former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War Camp
30 – Amendment No 121 to the Clarington Official Plan]
Link to Correspondence
15.2 Correspondence from Bernice Norton, President, ACO Clarington,
Regarding PSD-014-19 (Referred from the June 15, 2020 Council
Meeting)
[Motion to Refer to the Consideration of Report PSD-041-19 Community
Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines
for former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War Camp
30 – Amendment No 121 to the Clarington Official Plan]
Link to Correspondence
Planning and Development Committee
June 29, 2020
Page 3
15.3 Correspondence from Marilyn Morawetz, Jury Lands Foundation,
Regarding PSD-041-19 (Referred from the June 15, 2020 Council
Meeting)
[Motion to Refer to the Consideration of PSD-041-19 Community Vision
for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines for
former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War Camp 30
– Amendment No 121 to the Clarington Official Plan]
Link to Correspondence
15.4 Correspondence from Peter Van Loan, Aird and Berlis, Regarding
Report PSD-041-19 (Referred from the June 15, 2020 Council Meeting)
[Motion to Refer to the Consideration of Report PSD-041-19 Community
Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines
for former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War Camp
30 – Amendment No 121 to the Clarington Official Plan)
Link to Correspondence
15.5 Correspondence from Bob Schickedanz, Far Sight Homes, Regarding
Report PSD-041-19 (Referred from the June 15, 2020 Council Meeting)
[Motion to Refer to the Consideration of Report PSD-041-19 Community
Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines
for former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War Camp
30 – Amendment No 121 to the Clarington Official Plan]
Link to Correspondence
15.6 Report PSD-041-19 Community Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design
Master Plan + Design Guidelines for Former Ontario Boys Training
School and WWII Prison of War Camp 30 – Amendment No 121 to the
Clarington Official Plan
[Referred from the June 15, 2020 Council Meeting]
Link to Report PSD-041-19
15.7 Confidential Report LGL-005-20 Camp 30 Option Agreement (Referred
from the June 15, 2020 Council Meeting)
[To be Distributed Under Separate Cover]
Planning and Development Committee
June 29, 2020
Page 4
15.8 PSD-019-20 Applications by Kaleido Corporation (formerly Landmark-
Newcastle Limited) to Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to Permit a 15 Unit
Townhouse Development at the South-East Corner of Mill Street and
Robert Street in Newcastle
(Referred from the June 15, 2020 Council Meeting)
Link to Report PSD-019-20
15.9 Addendum to Report PSD-019-20 415 Mill Street 60
16.Confidential Reports
17.Adjournment
Planning and Development Committee
June 29, 2020
Page 5
1
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
June 8-9, 2020
7:00 PM
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
Present Were:
Staff Present by
Electronic Means:
Councillor J. Neal
Mayor A. Foster, Councillor G. Anderson, Councillor R. Hooper,
Councillor J. Jones, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor M. Zwart
Staff Present:
Staff Present by
Electronic Means:
J. Gallagher, L. Patenaude
A. Allison, F. Langmaid, C. Pellarin, K. Richardson, N. Zambri
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
Councillor Neal called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Land Acknowledgment Statement
Councillor Anderson led the meeting in the Land Acknowledgement Statement.
3. New Business – Introduction
Councillor Traill asked that a new business item, regarding Reopening of Hair
Salons, be added to the New Business - Consideration section of the agenda.
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # PD-068-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Section 5.3.2 of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to add an additional
item, outside the mandate of the Planning and Development Committee,
regarding Reopening of Hair Salons, to the New Business - Consideration
section of the agenda.
Carried
Page 6
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
2
4. Adopt the Agenda
Resolution # PD-069-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the Agenda for the Planning and Development Committee meeting of June
8, 2020, be adopted as presented.
Carried
5. Declaration of Interest
Councillor Zwart declared a direct interest in New Business Item 14.1, Regarding
Reopening of Hair Salons.
6. Announcements
Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of
community interest.
7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of May 19, 2020
Resolution # PD-070-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Development
Committee meeting held on May 19, 2020, be approved.
Carried
8. Public Meetings
8.1 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Applicant: LCJ Thomas Estates Inc. c/o Sakmet Developments
Report: PSD-016-20
Location: 1668 Nash Road, Courtice
Nicole Zambri, Planner II, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the
Committee regarding the application.
Clayton Self, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Self
requested that the 37 cedar and pine trees on east side of Richfield Square, on
the west side of the property, remain completely untouched, and that there be no
access point onto Richfield Square. He added that, the new proposal will add to
the existing safety concerns regarding traffic in the area school zones. Mr. Self
noted that the proposal will become the focal point for traffic issues and will make
it difficult for residents to get out of their driveways. He concluded by stating the
pine tree roots could potentially be damaged by re-grading of the land.
Page 7
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
3
Steven Crowther, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr.
Crowther stated his appreciation to Clayton Self for the work he has done in
objecting to the development. He added that the developer did not include the
Richfield Square access point on any correspondence received. Mr. Crowther
requested that the meeting be postponed until COVID-19 is resolved and can be
held in an equitable setting due to difficulties arising from this meeting.
Jaclyn McGowan, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms.
McGowan agreed with the concerns of the previous speakers. She noted that
she did not receive correspondence that mentioned the access point onto
Richfield Square. Ms. McGowan added that the traffic is only going to get worse
if the application is approved and stated her concerns on the difficulty of a virtual
meeting.
Libby Racansky, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms.
Racansky noted her concerns are for both Public Meeting applications. She
explained her concerns centred around diseases that are pestering our
generation. Ms. Racansky explained her concerns regarding the high water table
level, pooling/ponding after the removal of natural areas or streams and wildlife
not able to use their usual linkages. She added that the developers should
contribute financially to the creation of eco-passages on Nash Road so wildlife
can survive. Ms. Racansky explained the drivers that contribute to the
emergencies and transmission of diseases: land use, deforestation, and
fragmentation of habitat. She added that climate change disrupts the global
ecosystem and causes species to move and can result in increased rates of
disease transmission. Ms. Racansky concluded by asking Committee to
consider all items listed in her correspondence for both development
applications.
Sami Elhajjeh, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Elhajjeh
noted his concerns regarding increased traffic, potential accidents and the
decrease in pedestrian safety. He added that the virtual meetings are not as
beneficial as in-person meetings. Mr. Elhajjeh concluded by asking if the
Municipality of Clarington is considering COVID-19 in the design of future
developments and added that, when there is an increase of density, there is an
increase of transmission of COVD-19.
Rachel Crowther, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms.
Crowther agreed with the other concerns mentioned. She noted that there are a
lot of wildlife that live in the trees and will have to go somewhere once the trees
are removed. Ms. Crowther added that, in her backyard, she is able to see lots
of birds and other wildlife and believes it is a special part of the Courtice
community. She noted that residents choose to live in Courtice because of the
quality of life. Ms. Crowther stated that having a virtual public meeting is difficult
and distressing for someone who is hearing impaired.
Page 8
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
4
Patricia Allen, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms. Allen
stated that she has lived on Richfield Square for 18 years and agrees with the
resident's concerns mentioned thus far. She added that the proposed
development will add stress and strain on the services in the area, increased
traffic, and contribute to decrease the quality of life.
Recess
Resolution # PD-071-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Committee recess for 10 minutes.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 8:26 PM with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
Stuart McReynolds, local resident, expressed his concerns regarding virtual
meetings. Mr. Reynolds explained that equitable participation should be
considered to ensure every resident can participate. He acknowledged the
Diversity Advisory Committee's inclusion statement and added that residents
should be able to engage with Council through the lens of inclusion and equity.
Nathan Thomas, applicant, deferred his comments to Roger Miller, to speak on
his behalf.
Rodger Miller, Miller Planning Services, was present on behalf Nathan Thomas,
who is the owner 1668 Nash Road. Mr. Miller noted that Kevin Dwyer, Civil
Engineer, Candevcon Ltd. and David Lee, Transportation Engineer were present
should they need to answer questions. He stated that he was present to respond
to concerns raised in the Report, along with concerns from residents. Mr. Miller
provided a detailed overview of the app lication. Mr. Miller noted that the trees
cannot be saved due to conflicts with grading and stated that the street trees will
be replaced, and the north and east trees will be maintained entirely. He
addressed the concerns raised regarding increased traffic and explained that the
traffic study noted that there were six total peak morning trips and seven evening
peak trips. Mr. Miller added that each unit is provided with two parking spaces
and five visitor spaces that comply with the Municipal requirements. He
explained that the access point onto Richfield Square was included in the link
contained in the notice, which also provided access to all staff reports . Mr. Miller
noted the concerns regarding hydrogeological issues and stated that Section 7.7,
of the Staff Report, reviews and addressees the issues. He concluded by
answering questions from Members of Committee.
Page 9
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
5
David Lee, Transportation Engineer noted that the proposed development will
only generate six total peak morning trips and seven evening peak trips which
equals to less than one percent of new traffic generated. Mr. Lee added that he
understands the concerns from residents regarding traffic congestion and
explained that this issue can be mitigated if families used the parent drop off
location available on the South side of Nash Road, East of Fourth Street. He
concluded by stating that Municipal Law Enforcement can help alleviate the
existing parking issues today.
8.2 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Applicant: Lifelong Investment Corporation
Report: PSD-017-20
Location: 1640, 1644, 1648 Nash Road & 3010 Trulls Road, Courtice
Nicole Zambri, Planner II, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the
Committee regarding the application.
Jaclyn Lancaster, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms.
Lancaster noted she moved to Courtice 20 years ago. She explained that the
new development will be butting up directly beside and behind her property. Ms.
Lancaster noted her concerns regarding traffic, the increase in garbage and utility
trucks, public safety, noise, the decreased quality of life for the residents close to
the development, and the removal of the cedar hedges that provide privacy and
lighting in the proposed parking lot. She concluded by noting her concerns that
this matter is being rushed.
Alex Purdie, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Purdie
noted he agrees with Ms. Lancaster's concerns. He added that the traffic from
the stop light at Nash and Trulls Road is already lined up passed his house and
stated that it will be difficult for residents who need to leave their home in an
emergency. Mr. Purdie concluded by noting his concern for privacy and
questioned what kind of fence is going to be installed.
Colleen Griffin, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms. Griffin
noted that she shares the same concerns mentioned and will write a letter to her
local Councillor with more questions. She noted her concerns regarding privacy,
noise, and changes made to the current environment. She concluded by adding
her concern regarding the parking lot lights and questioned whether it is going to
be monitored for safety.
Mark Griffin, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Griffin
stated that the traffic concerns have already been noted and added that the
development will only make it worse.
Cortney Gilchrist, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms.
Gilchrist stated that, every spring, her backyard has standing water that floods
into her property. She added that they have added drainage to help control the
issue and questioned if additional drainage will be considered wit h the proposed
application.
Page 10
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
6
Catherine Bracken, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Ms.
Bracken asked if the proposed development is for seniors. She noted her
concerns for traffic flow and how it doesn't fit within the community. Ms. Bracken
questioned how the development will impact the value of the homes in the
area. She added her frustrations with the virtual meeting process as she was
disconnected multiple times.
Tim Fillier, local resident spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Fillier noted
his concerns regarding the setbacks to allow for traffic. He added that the
setbacks are important not only for vehicles, but also for cyclists. Mr. Fillier stated
that Nash Road is a prime east to west corridor for cyclists and the development
will change that for the worst. He mentioned his concern for the safety of cyclists
as Trulls and Nash road are already congested with traffic.
Sami Elhajjeh, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Elhajjeh
stated that the traffic study was conducted in August when school was out and
added that there is less traffic during that time versus in the fall. He explained his
concerns regarding increased traffic with all developments in the area around
Nash Road. Mr. Elhajjeh questioned if there are parking spaces available for
each unit and if COVID-19 is going to be considered with future developments.
Rodger Miller, Miller Planning Services was present on behalf of the
proponent. Mr. Miller mentioned he will address the matters in the Staff Report
and resident concerns. He provided a detailed overview of the application and
noted the recommendations are supported by the Province's Policy Statement
and Growth Plan. Mr. Miller explained that Section 7.3 of the Staff Report
reviews the details of parking and noted he will be providing a supplemental
submission that will address the parking concerns. He advised that the market
for the development is for a 50+ demographic. He addressed the traffic concerns
raised by residents and noted the parking requirements are 1.25 spaces per
unit. Mr. Miller added that a traffic analysis was completed that will be included
in the additional submission. He continued by stating that, based on the 95 units,
the total AM trip count is 34 trips (9 inbound and 25 outbound) and total PM trip
count is 42 (26 inbound and 16 outbound). He mentioned that a full privacy
fence will be installed which will cut off any lighting that would stray to adjacent
properties. Mr. Miller noted that the development intends to retain the wooded
area to the North of Abbeywood Crescent and any existing vegetation screen will
be maintained. He concluded by answering questions from Members of
Committee.
Page 11
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
7
9. Delegations
9.1 Lonny Gibson, Regarding PSD-019-20 Applications by Kaleido Corporation
(formerly Landmark-Newcastle Limited) to Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to
Permit a 15 Unit Townhouse Development at the South-East Corner of Mill
Street and Robert Street in Newcastle
Lonny Gibson was present via electronic means regarding PSD-019-20,
Applications by Kaleido Corporation (formerly) Landmark-Newcastle Limited) to
Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to Permit a 15 Unit Townhouse Development at the
South-East Corner of Mill Street and Robert Street in Newcastle. Mr. Gibson
noted he forwarded a letter to Members of Council on Friday, addressing his
concerns. He explained that he has lived on Robert Street since 1996 and
provided details regarding gateways and background regarding the application.
Mr. Gibson added that the proposed development is the gateway to Newcastle
and should meet the neighbourhood’s character. He expressed his concerns
regarding the large development on a small lot and stated he would like his
concerns to be accepted when reviewing the application:
The pine trees across his rear yard be kept and have the proposed parking
set far enough back so it doesn't affect the roots
The mature tree in his front yard be untouched
That a wood fence be installed on top of the retaining wall and have large
coniferous trees planted to maintain privacy in his backyard
That the access point onto Robert Street be denied because the roadway is
too tight to the proposed development causing a safety concern.
He stated that he is not against a development in the location but would rather
have a two-story development instead.
Page 12
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
8
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # PD-072-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the delega tion for 2
minutes.
Carried
Mr. Gibson concluded by stating the application should be tabled until a meeting
can be held in person so the older population in Newcastle who can't attend
virtually, can attend in person.
9.2 Jenny Gibson, Regarding PSD-019-20 Applications by Kaleido Corporation
(formerly Landmark-Newcastle Limited) to Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to
Permit a 15 Unit Townhouse Development at the South-East Corner of Mill
Street and Robert Street in Newcastle
Jenny Gibson was present via electronic means regarding PSD-019-20,
Applications by Kaleido Corporation (formerly) Landmark-Newcastle Limited) to
Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to Permit a 15 Unit Townhouse Development at the
South-East Corner of Mill Street and Robert Street in Newcastle. Ms. Gibson
noted her concerns regarding the proposed entrance way to the development
and requested the hydro and water meter be moved to a different location. She
added her concerns regarding overflow parking which will be on Mill Street,
Robert Street, and in front of her home. Ms. Gibson explained that the balconies
on the second floor will be looking directly into their backyard and is concerned
her privacy will be gone. She requested that a wood fence be installed on to p of
the retaining wall with large coniferous trees planted to maintain her privacy. Ms.
Gibson suggested that the landscaping and retaining wall be completed first to
help protect against dust and privacy. She concluded by stating that the
proposed development is not benefiting the residents in the area and the
developer’s profit should not be considered. Ms. Gibson added that the
application should be denied or tabled until a meeting can be held in person for
the senior population to attend and participate.
Page 13
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
9
9.3 Mike Pettigrew, The Biglieri Group Ltd., Regarding Report PSD-019-20
Mike Pettigrew, The Biglieri Group Ltd., was present via electronic means
regarding Report PSD-019-20 Applications by Kaleido Corporation (formerly
Landmark-Newcastle Limited) to Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to Permit a 15 Unit
Townhouse Development at the South-East Corner of Mill Street and Robert
Street in Newcastle. Mr. Pettigrew noted that the application has been ongoing
for several years and added that Municipal Staff have been included in the entire
process. Mr. Pettigrew noted that the draining and ponding issues have been
changed to direct the water toward the Ministry of Transportation’s right of
way. He explained that they were able to achieve the urban design goals for Mill
Street by bringing the units closer to the street and by not including driveways or
vehicle access. Mr. Pettigrew added that he agrees with the recommendations
to amend the Zoning By-law as it meets all Provincial requirements. He
mentioned that, since the 2018 Public Meeting, the concern regarding the density
has been reduced to 32%. Mr. Pettigrew added that they reduced the setbacks
to keep the units as far away from the residents as possible. He outlined the
revisions made in the revised plan including the reduced height of the 3-story
units, waste pick-up, and the parking spaces available for each unit. He stated
the biggest change on site is the reorientation of Block A, which has been turned
90 degrees to back onto Highway 401. Mr. Pettigrew concluded by stating that
the Staff Report explains all details and includes studies, reports, plans, and
correspondence with the MTO and Durham Region. He added that he supports
the recommendations in the report and kindly request the application be
approved.
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # PD-073-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for an
additional one hour to midnight.
Carried
Recess
Resolution # PD-074-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Committee recess for 10 minutes.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 11:08 PM with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
10. Communications – Receive for Information
There are no Communication Items to be received for information.
Page 14
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
10
11. Communications – Direction
11.1 Libby Racansky, Regarding Brookhill Subdivision, Climate Change, and
Protection of Natural Environment
Resolution # PD-075-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Communication Item 11.1 from Libby Racansky, be referred to staff for
inclusion in the Brookhill Secondary Plan.
Carried
11.2 Rob Burton, Mayor, Town of Oakville, Regarding Patio Expansion for
Restaurants
Resolution # PD-076-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the following resolution from Rob Burton, Mayor, Town of Oakville,
regarding Patio Expansion for Restaurants, be endorsed by the Municipality of
Clarington:
Whereas the economy of Oakville has been drastically impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic with provincially mandated business restrictions and
closures, resulting in limited operations, employee lay offs, and financial
hardships.
And whereas commercial areas in Oakville form a key component
necessary to ensure that Oakville is a complete, livable community.
And whereas in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mayor formed
an Economic Task Force, comprising representatives from the Oakville
Chamber of Commerce, BIAs, Visit Oakville, and Economic Development,
to provide immediate short-term relief measures to the business
community, as well as explore options to support Oakville’s long-term
economic recovery.
And whereas the Province has entered into Phase One of reopening
under the COVID-19 state of emergency and communities are preparing
for the restoration of services.
And whereas public health officials advise that two metre distancing is a
critical tool to slow the spread of COVID-19.
And whereas the reopening of commercial businesses will require interim
adjustments to methods of service delivery to maintain physical distancing
requirements related to COVID-19 and meet the needs of the community.
Page 15
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
11
And whereas the Economic Task Force has collaborated to develop
the Commercial Recovery Initiative to support the town-wide reopening of
commercial businesses in a practical manner that supports the safety of
the community, employees and members of the public.
Now Therefore Be It Resolved:
1. That staff, in cooperation with members of the Economic Task Force,
be authorized to implement the Commercial Recovery Initiative,
designed to re-invigorate economic activity within the Town while
simultaneously protecting public health and safety, which includes the
following:
Making town lands in and adjacent to commercial areas
available at nominal cost to enable the provision of temporary
commercial services outdoors, including patios or pop-up
facilities associated with existing restaurants and retail
businesses, or outdoor sale or display of merchandise meeting
the objectives of the program, subject to permitting
requirements;
Incorporating physical distancing measures in commercial areas
to address safety such as dedicated queueing or pedestrian
areas;
Providing assistance through the Economic Task force to the
BIA’s, Chamber of Commerce and Visit Oakville with the
development and implementation of a coordinated marketing
campaign that encourages residents and visitors to support
local businesses;
Expedited processing of permits which assist existing
businesses in adjusting to the delivery of their services through
alternate means;
Temporary exemptions from providing required parking under
section 40 of the Planning Act granted at nominal value to
accommodate outdoor patios, or outdoor display areas on
private property;
Any use of town land or other permits being subject to
compliance with physical distancing or other requirements
applicable as a result of the COVID-19 emergency, insurance
and indemnities, and any other restrictions necessary to protect
public safety, meet accessibility requirements and avoid undue
interference with the use of public lands by the general public or
impacts on adjacent residents.
2. That the application fees for requisite approvals associated with the
Commercial Recovery Initiative, be waived for 2020.
Page 16
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
12
3. That authority to implement the Commercial Recovery Initiative is
delegated jointly to the Commissioner of Community Development
and the Director of Economic Development.
Carried
11.3 Libby Racansky, Regarding Comments for Public Meetings 8.1 and 8.2
Resolution # PD-077-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Correspondence Item 11.3 from Libby Racansky, Regarding Comments for
Public Meetings 8.1 and 8.2 be referred to Staff to be considered as part of the
public comments on the respective public meetings.
Carried
12. Presentations
No Presentations.
13. Planning Services Department Reports
13.1 PSD-016-20 PM - Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block
of 17 Townhouse Units at 1668 Nash Road in Courtice
Resolution # PD-078-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Report PSD-016-20 be received;
That the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment
applications, submitted by LCJ Thomas Estates Inc. c/o Sakmet Developments,
continue to be processed and that a subsequent recommendation report be
prepared; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-016-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried as Amended
Page 17
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
13
Resolution # PD-079-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to
speak to the foregoing Resolution PD-078-20 for a second time.
Carried
Resolution # PD-080-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the foregoing Resolution #PD-78-20 be amended by adding the following
after the second paragraph:
That Staff be directed to report back at a future Planning and
Development Committee meeting on the current health status of the trees
on Richfield Square, on the west side of the development.
Yes (7): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor
Jones, Councillor Neal, Councillor Traill, and Councillor Zwart
Carried on a recorded vote (7 to 0)
The foregoing Resolution #PD-078-20 was then put to a vote and carried as
amended.
13.2 PSD-017-20 PM – Rezoning Application to Permit the Development of a
Three Storey Apartment Building Containing 95 Residential Units at 1640,
1644, 1648 Nash Road & 3010 Trulls Road, Courtice
Resolution # PD-081-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Report PSD-017-20 be received;
That the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application, submitted by Lifelong
Investment Corporation, continue to be processed and that a subsequent
recommendation report be prepared; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-017-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried
Page 18
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
14
13.3 PSD-018-20 Addition of Properties to the Municipal Heritage Register
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # PD-082-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for an
additional one hour.
Carried
Resolution # PD-083-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That Report PSD-018-20 be received;
That 2 Ontario Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
That 3 Ontario Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
That 8 Wellington Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
That 36 O’Dell Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipa l Register;
That 38 Centre Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
That 42 Centre Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
That 50 Centre Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
That 54 Centre Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-018-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried
Page 19
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
15
13.4 PSD-019-20 Applications by Kaleido Corporation (formerly Landmark-
Newcastle Limited) to Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to Permit a 15 Unit
Townhouse Development at the South-East Corner of Mill Street and
Robert Street in Newcastle
Resolution # PD-084-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Mayor Foster
That Report PSD-019-20 be received;
That the application to amend the Zoning By-law submitted by Kaleido
Corporation be approved and the Zoning By-law Amendment, contained in
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-019-20, be passed;
That, once requirements for removal of the (H) Holding Symbol, as outlined in the
policies of the Clarington Official Plan are satisfied, a By-law authorizing the
removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be forwarded to Council for approval;
That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department
and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report
PSD-019-20 and Council’s decision; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-019-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Carried
13.5 PSD-020-20 Electric Vehicle Funding Opportunities
Resolution # PD-085-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Report PSD-020-20 be received for information.
Carried
Page 20
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
16
14. New Business – Consideration
14.1 Reopening of Hair Salons
Councillor Zwart declared an indirect interest in Item 14.1 Regarding Reopening
of Hair Salons as it relates to a property she owns. Councillor Zwart muted her
audio and video and refrained from discussion and voting on this matter.
Resolution # PD-086-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Mayor Foster
Whereas several hairs salons in Clarington, Ontario have closed due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a devastating social and financial loss for the
small business owners and their employees and for the community as a whole;
Whereas the Ford government announced today, June 8, 2020, that hair salons
outside the GTA will be permitted to re-open on June 13, 2020;
Whereas the approximate 5,000 licensed hair stylists in Clarington, Ontario have
been extensively trained and have experience in ensuring safety and sanitation
as important aspects of their profession for decades;
Whereas those Clarington salon owners who can afford to do so are prepared to
re-open, having purchased Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for their staff
and having re-designed salons to observe social distancing and are prepared to
implement best practices regarding social distancing and other precautionary
procedures as set forth by the Government of Ontario;
Whereas Clarington is the easternmost Municipality in Durham Region where the
demographics are more analogous to communities to the east and north, with the
Municipality itself actually straddling two Provincial districts, Durham and
Northumberland-Peterborough South;
And Whereas the phased approach will result in confusion for residents about
whether or not hair salons will be opening, and resulting in a loss of business for
Clarington hair stylists as residents will likely patronize salons to the immediate
East in Port Hope or Cobourg, or to the North in Peterborough;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That:
The 5,000 thousand licensed hair stylists and barbers and salon owners in
Clarington who are on the brink of financial ruin want fairness and to be
treated with the same respect as colleagues in the same industry;
Hair stylists, barbers and salon owners are calling upon the Premier of
Ontario to allow Clarington to proceed to Phase 2, as the spread of COVID -
19 growth has decreased in Clarington more than any other Durham
Municipality per capita and it is not fair to treat Clarington as the same as
other Municipalities such as the City of Toronto, where growth of the
pandemic remains consistently increasing;
Page 21
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of June 8 -9, 2020
17
That Clarington hair salons be allowed to re-open immediately following
industry guidelines as set by the Province of Ontario; and
This Motion be forwarded to the office of Lindsey Park, Member of Provincial
Parliament for Durham, David Piccini, the Member of Provincial Parliament
for Northumberland-Peterborough South and to the Province of Ontario.
Carried
Councillor Zwart returned to the meeting.
15. Unfinished Business
No Reports for this Section of the Agenda.
16. Confidential Reports
No Reports for this Section of the Agenda.
17. Adjournment
Resolution # PD-087-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the meeting adjourn at 12:28 AM.
Carried
Chair Deputy Clerk
Page 22
Notice of Public Meeting
A land use change has been proposed, have your say!
The Municipality is seeking public comments before deciding on an application to amend Zoning By-
law 84-63 for a proposed Plan of Subdivision.
Proposal
Trolleybus Urban Development Inc. proposes to amend Zoning by-law 84-63 to facilitate a Draft
Plan of Subdivision. The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would permit a townhouse
condominium block with 78 townhouse units. 33 units with be dual frontage townhouses fronting
onto Nash Road and Hancock Road and 45 units will be standard townhouse units fronting onto
the private lane. The proposed development will include a portion of the extension of Moyse Drive,
a private lane way, visitor parking, water meter building and outdoor amenity space.
The application has been deemed complete
Property
2910 & 2936 Hancock Road
The properties are located on at the south-west corner of Nash Road and Hancock Road, east of
Courtice Road.
How to be Informed
The proposed zoning amendment and additional information and background studies are available
for review at the Planning Services Department and on our website at
clarington.net/developmentproposals Questions? Please contact Brandon Weiler 905-623-3379,
extension 2424, or by email at bweiler@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
electronically.
Date: Monday, June 29, 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 Brandon Weiler.
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.
Click on the Join Microsoft Teams Meeting link provided in the “How to Join the Electronic Public
Meeting” document next to the Agenda, or call the telephone number, +1 289-274-8255
Conference ID: 842 893 771.
File Number: S-C-2018-0004 & ZBA2018-0024 Page 23
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
\\netapp5\group\Planning\^Department\Application Files\SC-Subdivision\S-C-2018\S-C-2018-0004 Trolleybus (2910-2936 Hancock)\Public Meeting Notice\S-C2018-0004 Public Meeting Notice.docx
Page 24
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: June 29, 2020 Report Number: PSD-024-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: S-C-2018-0004 & ZBA2018-0024 By-law Number:
Report Subject: PM - Trolleybus Urban Development Inc. proposed Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Rezoning Applications Part Lot 27, Concession 2, Former
Township of Darlington - 2910 and 2936 Hancock Road, Courtice
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-024-20 be received;
2. That the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment
submitted by BV Courtice Partners LP (Trolleybus Urban Development) continue to
be processed including the preparation of a subsequent report; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-024-20, and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 25
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-024-20
1. Application Details
1.1 Owner/Applicant: BV Courtice Partners LP (Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.)
1.2 Proposal: Draft Plan of Subdivision
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision creates one block to
permit a townhouse condominium block with 78 townhouse
units. 33 units are dual frontage townhouses fronting onto
Nash Road or Hancock Road as well as the private internal
road, and 45 units will be standard townhouse units fronting
onto the private road.
Zoning By-law Amendment
To rezone the subject lands from “Holding – Urban Residential
Type One ((H)R1) Zone” to an appropriate zone that would
permit the proposed townhouse dwelling units.
1.3 Area: 2 Hectares
1.4 Location: 2910 and 2936 Hancock Road, Courtice
1.5 Roll Number: 181701005013700
181701005013600
1.6 Within Built Boundary: Yes
2. Background
2.1 The Hancock Neighbourhood Plan was originally approved by Council in September
1998. The neighbourhood plan was amended in April 2013 to the current plan. The
plan was amended in 2013 due to:
Report Overview
The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on applications for a proposed Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by BV Courtice Partners LP
(Trolleybus Urban Development) to permit a townhouse condominium block with 78
townhouse units. 33 units with be dual frontage townhouses fronting onto Nash Road or
Hancock Road as well as the private internal road, and 45 units will be standard townhouse
units fronting onto the private road. The proposed development includes a portion of the
extension of Moyse Drive, a private lane system, visitor parking, water meter building and
outdoor amenity space.
Page 26
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-024-20
• Identification of Provincially Significant Wetlands by the Ministry of Natural
Resources;
• Release of Provincial Growth Plans;
• Durham Official Plan Amendment 128; and
• Decision by the public school board to not pursue a Public Elementary school site
abutting Harry Gay Park.
2.2 The neighbourhood plan update in 2013 changed the street pattern, lot patterns and
included medium density development areas located adjacent to arterial roads (Figure
1). The neighbourhood plan is intended to guide development. The exact lot pattern
and street layouts are to be determined at the application stage once the required
studies, including Environmental Impact Study, Traffic Impact Study, etc., have been
submitted to support the application.
2.3 The neighbourhood plan includes a separate elementary school board block on the
south side of Nash Road, encroaching on the western edge of the subject lands.
Conversations with the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic
District School Board occurred in 2016 and again in the fall of 2018 in which the school
board indicated to staff that they no longer had plans to utilize the site for a future
school. The school boards have been circulated on the current application to confirm
the comments made previously.
2.4 The neighbourhood plan also identifies an anticipated road network for the community.
Modifications to the road network may be required once environmental impact studies or
traffic impact studies are submitted with applications and reviewe d. The proposal
eliminates a north-south public road that would have been adjacent to the school block
connecting the Moyse Drive extension to Nash Road.
2.5 As part of the application requirements staff requested the applicants provide a concept
plan for how the remainder of the neighbourhood could develop in conjunction with their
proposal. The applicants have submitted a concept plan that is discussed further in
Section 10 of this report.
2.6 In September 2018 BV Courtice Partners LP (Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.)
submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. Staff
identified several concerns with the application upon submission. During conversations
shortly after the applications were submitted the applicant advised that they would work
to address the concerns raised by staff prior to circulating the applications to
departments and agencies and prior to a public meeting. In April 2020 the applicants
submitted revised applications with the current proposal.
2.7 The current proposal would create a townhouse condominium block with 78 townhouse
units. 33 townhouse units with be dual frontage and 45 standard townhouse units. The
proposed development includes a portion of the extension of Moyse Drive, a private
lane way, visitor parking, water meter building and outdoor amenity space. The
extension of Moyse Drive in the proposed location allows for future single detached
dwellings (subject to applications) backing onto Black Creek as shown in Figure 6.
Page 27
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-024-20
2.8 Since the Hancock Neighbourhood Plan was updated in 2013 there have been three
developments approved and another application submitted in the Hancock
Neighbourhood (See Figure 3).
Figure 1: Hancock Neighbourhood Plan with subject lands highlighted.
Page 28
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-024-20
Figure 2: Site Plan Concept for 78 townhouse unit condominium block.
2.9 In April 2020, the applicants submitted revised applications with amended studies. The
applicants have submitted the following studies in support of the applications:
• Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report;
• Planning Rationale Report;
• Environmental Impact Study;
• Environmental Noise Assessment;
• Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessment;
• Urban Design Brief; and
• Traffic Impact Study
Page 29
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-024-20
2.10 The revised studies are being reviewed by staff and agencies and will be summarized in
a future report.
3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
3.1 The subject lands consist of two parcels at the south -west corner of Hancock Road and
Nash Road. Both parcels are currently occupied by single detached dwellings and
accessory buildings. Both properties include groupings of mature trees with the majority
of the properties being manicured lawns.
3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:
North Single detached dwellings. Some of the lands are subject to open Plan of
Subdivision and Zoning By-law amendment applications.
Page 30
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PSD-024-20
South Single detached dwelling and the Black Creek.
East Single detached dwellings, Highway 418, and agricultural uses on the north
side of Nash Road.
West Agricultural field and single detached dwellings.
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
housing types and development patterns, while making efficient use of land and
infrastructure.
4.2 Healthy and active communities should be promoted by planning public streets to be
safe, meet the needs of pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active
transportation and community connectivity. Compact and diverse developments
promote active modes of transportation such as walking and cycling.
Provincial Growth Plan
4.3 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing
population growth to settlement areas, such as the Courtice Urban Area. Municipalities
are encouraged to create complete communities by promoting a diverse mix of land
uses, a mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy
access to local stores and services.
4.4 The subject lands are within the defined Built Boundary and within the Urban Boundary
of Courtice. Growth is to be accommodated by directing a significant portion of new
growth to the built-up areas through intensification and efficient use of existing services
and infrastructure. A minimum of 40 percent of all residential development occurring
annually within each upper tier municipality will be within the built -up area.
5. Official Plans
Durham Regional Official Plan
5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Areas. Living
Areas 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. Living Areas shall provide a full range of housing
options at higher densities by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly
adjacent to arterial roads.
5.2 Nash Road is a Type B Arterial Road in the Region’s Official Plan.
Page 31
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-024-20
Clarington Official Plan
5.3 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands Urban Residential. The Urban
Residential designation is predominately intended for housing purposes. A variety of
densities, tenure and housing types are encouraged, generally up to 3 stories in height.
5.4 Nash Road is a Type B Arterial Road. Both Hancock Road and Moyse Drive are
collector roads within the Clarington Official Plan.
5.5 The minimum density for edge of neighbourhoods and adjacent to arterial roads is 19
units per hectare and the predominant built form is ground related units including
townhouses dwellings. Multi-unit residential developments are encouraged to have
multiple vehicular accesses from a public street, be compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood in terms of scale, massing, siting and townhouses sited on blocks shall
generally not exceed 50 units.
5.6 The Municipality will achieve a target of at least 32% of all new residential units within
the Built-up Area up to the year 2021.
5.7 The subject lands are within the Lake Iroquois Beach. In addition, there are natural
heritage features associated with the Black Creek to the south of the subject lands. The
natural heritage features are designated Environmental Protection Area. The natural
heritage system is to be protected and enhanced for the long term to promote
responsible stewardship and provide sustainable environmental, economic and social
benefits. While the natural heritage features are not located on the subject lands,
studies will identify the limits and setbacks of the features. This will determine
appropriate development limits of the subject lands and lands to the south, informing
potential impacts on the future extension of Moyse Drive and the de velopment potential
of the lands to the south should they be proposed for development in the future.
Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan
5.8 Within the Hancock Neighbourhood Design Plan the subject lands are identified mainly
as medium density with a portion of a school block, a new north-south public road, the
extension of Moyse Drive and some 10m single detached dwellings south of the school
block. The Black Creek is located south of the subject lands adjacent to the extension
of Moyse Drive (See Figure 1).
5.9 As discussed in Section 2 of this report the school board have advised staff that they do
not plan to use the identified lands for a future school. Staff will work with the applicant
to provide a concept plan for how the remainder of the school block can b e developed in
the future to integrate with the existing Hancock Neighbourhood Plan.
5.10 Environmentally sensitive areas have been identified south of the subject lands in the
Hancock Neighbourhood Plan (Figure 4). The areas were identified based on
information received from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority and preliminary work completed by Niblett
Environmental Associates. An Environmental Impact Study is required to assess the
Page 32
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PSD-024-20
features on each site, and in this case, associated with the Black Creek, to the south.
The Environmental Impact Study will determine the features, buffers and identify
development limits.
5.11 As the subject lands do not include all the lands between Nash Road and Black Creek it
is important to determine the area of land outside of the feature and buffers to ensure
that Moyse Road can be constructed and the lands in between are not rendered
undevelopable.
Figure 4: Approved Hancock Neighbourhood Plan Natural Heritage System with subject
lands identified.
Page 33
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PSD-024-20
6. Zoning By-law
6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands “Holding – Urban Residential Type One
((H)R1)”. The Urban Residential Type One zone does not permit townh ouse dwellings.
A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to permit the proposed townhouse
condominium on the lands.
7. Public Notice and Submissions
7.1 Public notice was mailed to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject lands on
May 28, 2020 and Public Meeting signs were installed fronting on Nash Road and
Hancock Road on June 2, 2020.
Figure 5: Public Notice Sign posted on the subject lands
Page 34
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PSD-024-20
7.2 Staff have received telephone inquiries from four area residents seeking clarification
with the applications and one resident identifying concerns. The concerns identified
include:
Integration of the development and increased density with the existing
development in the neighbourhood. Specifically, the interface with the east side of
Hancock Road which is not within the urban boundary and will remain rural
residential in nature for the foreseeable future;
Concerns with the future extension of Moyse Drive. Prefer it not connect to
Hancock Road which would increase traffic for the existing residents to the west;
Loss of greenspace and the over development of the Nash Road and Hancock
Road area; and
Increased traffic in the neighbourhood, especially along Nash Road. All the traffic
from the development will be entering and exiting onto Hancock Road. This will
make this portion of Hancock, which is a rural road today, much busier and less
safe to walk on.
8. Agency Comments
Regional Municipality of Durham
8.1 Comments from Durham Region Planning, Works and Transit Departments have not
been received at the time of finalizing this report. They will be included in a subsequent
report.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
8.2 Comments from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority have not been
received at the time of finalizing this report, they will be included in a subsequent report.
Peterborough Victoria Northumberland & Clarington Catholic District School Board
8.3 Correspondence was received in October 2018 from the school board indicat ing they no
longer have interest in the site identified in the Neighbourhood Design Plan for a future
school development. The applications have been circulated to the school board to
reconfirm they have no need for the site. No correspondence has been received since
the application was formally circulated recently.
Other
8.4 Durham Region Police Communications, Enbridge, Bell and The Conseil Scolaire
Viamonde have no objections to the application. The utilities request to be included in
the detailed design process for servicing should the applications be approved.
Page 35
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PSD-024-20
9. Departmental Comments
Engineering Services
9.1 The Engineering Services Department has identified concerns with the proposed
stormwater management system and proposed access to the townhouse block.
9.2 The subject lands and surrounding lands south of Nash Road in the Neighbou rhood
Design Plan were anticipated to require an additional stormwater management pond
adjacent to Moyse Park. The applicants are proposing to direct stormwater to the
existing stormwater management pond located at Courtice Road and Nash Road. The
applicants will need to provide additional information to demonstrate that the remainder
of the lands can be developed without the requirement of an additional stormwater
management pond. If the remainder of the lands require a pond it would place an
additional cost encumbrance on the future development of those lands as the subject
lands would not share the cost of the future pond.
9.3 The applicants concept plan indicated the future townhouse condominium block would
have two entrances onto the future extension of Moyse Drive. The Engineering
Services Department has indicated that they would like to see an entrance onto another
public road to increase the spacing between the entrances.
Emergency and Fire Services
9.4 The Emergency and Fire Services Department have no objections to the proposed
applications. Further comments will be provided during the required site plan approval
application should the applications be approved.
10. Discussion
10.1 When the Hancock Neighbourhood Plan was updated in 2013 it was assumed that a
portion of the lands would be used for a school block, a new north-south public road,
and a portion of the lands to the south would also be included in the medium density
block. This would also allow the extension of Moyse Drive to be constructed at that time.
10.2 To address the school board indication of not requiring the site for their needs, a
concept plan of how the neighbourhood could develop has been proposed by the
applicant (Figure 6). The proposed plan is important to inform residents of how the
lands could be developed and how the applicant’s proposal fits into the proposed
neighbourhood.
10.3 The proposed plan differs from the existing plan by eliminating the north -south public
road, shifting Moyse Drive extension north and proposing future residential lots backing
onto Black Creek.
Page 36
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PSD-024-20
Figure 6: Concept plan proposed by the applicant of the neighbourhood without a school
block.
10.4 Staff have some initial concerns with the concept plan the applicant has provided. The
elimination of the proposed north-south public road would limit the circulation options
within the neighbourhood. Trolleybus (the same developer) has applications on the
north side of Nash Road were a road connection to Nash Road was identified as a
concern. The applicant has shared concepts proposing to add a new connection to
Nash Road northerly to improve circulation. Staff believe having that proposed north-
south road continue on the south side of Nash would improve circulation across the
neighbourhood on both sides of Nash Road. Engineering has also identified that two
driveway entrances from Moyse Drive to the condominium is not preferred.
10.5 The extension of Moyse Drive was located adjacent to Black Creek in the
neighbourhood plan to connect the existing Moyse Park to the open space and prevent
private backyards from closing the creek off to the community. The applicant’s concept
would shift Moyse Drive north and have private dwellings backing onto Black Creek,
limiting community access to the future open space lands. The applicants have
submitted an Environmental Impact Study to identify the limits of the natural features
associated with Black Creek for the area south of their lands. The study was to
determine the limits of the features and the appropriate buffers to understand how much
developable land existed to the south for the extension of Moyse Drive and future
Page 37
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PSD-024-20
development. Municipal staff and conservation authority staff are currently reviewing
the study.
10.6 Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the concept plan as the application is
processed to ensure that the proposal can integrate within the existing neighbourhood
and provide residents with an understanding of how the remainder of the neighbour
could be developed.
10.7 The applicant is proposing a condominium block with 78 townhouse units. The Official
Plan generally limits condominium blocks at 50 units. The unit limit is to ensure that
sites provide a break in building form within neighbourhoods, to ensure developments
can integrate with existing neighbourhoods and limit traffic concerns as typically these
developments have only one or two entrances. The Official Plan identifies 50 as a
general amount to provide flexibility as the site characteristics are unique to each site.
Aspects of the applicant’s proposal and subdivision design will be reviewed in more
detail, as additional agency and department comments become available.
10.8 The applicant is proposing to drain the stormwater from the subject lands to an existing
stormwater pond rather than develop a new pond as the neighbourhood plan
envisioned. While staff can support the concept of not requiring an additional pond, the
Engineering Services Department has identified the need to confirm that the proposed
stormwater management plan can work not only for the subject lands but also the other
lands in the neighbourhood intended to be serviced by the second pond . If the
surrounding lands require an additional pond than future development would be
impacted by additional costs as the subject lands would no longer contribute to a future
pond. The applicant will need to provide additional information regarding the functional
servicing for all the lands south of Nash Road.
10.9 The purpose of the Public Meeting is to provide an opportunity for further public input.
These public comments will be compiled, discussed with the applicant and addressed in
a subsequent staff report.
11. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
12. Conclusion
12.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications submitted by BV Courtice
Partners LP (Trolleybus Urban Development) to permit a townhouse condominium block
with 78 townhouse units for the Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will
continue processing the application including the preparation of a subsequent report.
Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2424 or bweiler@clarington.net
Interested parties list is on file in Planning Services Department https://clarington.escribemeetings.com/Reports/PM-
Trolleybus ZBA application 2910, 2936 Hancock Rd, Courtice - PSD-024-20.docx
Page 38
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: June 29, 2020 Report Number: PSD-025-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: PLN 34 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Addition of Properties to the Municipal Heritage Register
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-025-20 be received;
2. That 58 Centre Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
3. That 64 Centre Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register;
4. That 72 Centre Street, Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register; and
5. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-025-20 and any delegations be advised of
Council’s decision.
Page 39
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-025-20
1. Background
Ontario Heritage Act
1.1 Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires every municipality to maintain a
Municipal Register that lists all heritage properties formally designated by by-law. In
2009, Council expanded Clarington’s Municipal Register to include “non-designated”
properties. Including a non-designated property on the Municipal Register is a formal
indication that a property has cultural heritage value or interest and warrants further
evaluation to determine appropriate conservation measures. The decision to include a
non-designated property on a Municipal Register rests with Council upon consultation
with the municipal heritage committee.
1.2 Listing a property on the Municipal Register does not provide any legal protection to the
property. Only formal designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act can do
so. The primary benefit of including a non-designated property on the Municipal
Register is to provide the Municipality with additional time (up to 60 days) to review a
request for a demolition permit, rather than the shorter timelines outlined in the Building
Code Act.
1.3 The protection afforded to non-designated properties on the Municipal Register allows
time for a more thorough evaluation of the property and time to provide Council with a
recommendation on demolition or moving forward with designation of the property.
More specifically, the 60 days allows sufficient time to evaluate the building condition,
protection options, mitigation measures, alternate development proposals, etc. and to
make a recommendation to Council on the cultural value of a property.
Report Overview
The Clarington Heritage Committee and staff are recommending the addition of three
Bowmanville properties to the Municipal Register:
58 Centre Street
64 Centre Street
72 Centre Street
The Municipal Register is a listing of the cultural heritage resources in Clarington that
warrant historical protection. The addition of these properties to the Municipal Register (i)
supports the promotion of Clarington’s local heritage, and (ii) protects the buildings from
being demolished without proper evaluation of their cultural heritage significance by a ffording
the Municipality additional time (up to 60 days) to review a demolition permit, should such an
application be received.
Page 40
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-025-20
1.4 Adding a property to the Municipal Register also allows the Municipality to request a
demolition permit applicant undertake a study or research to demonstrate that the
property does not have significant heritage value, or to determine appropriate mitigation
measures or alternative recognition options that can be implemented.
1.5 In June 2019 the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108) received Royal Assent.
Bill 108 amends the Ontario Heritage Act, among numerous other pieces of legislation.
Such changes are due to come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the
Lieutenant Governor, which is anticipated to be in early 2021. The upcoming
amendments will introduce a more formal process to add non-designated properties to
the Municipal Register, including prescribed notice requirements and an opportunity for
Council to consider input/objections. As outlined in Section 4 below, these changes
align with the Municipality’s current practices. Staff will continue to monitor the status of
the Ontario Heritage Act amendments and implement the changes as necessary.
Properties on Clarington’s Municipal Register
1.6 There are currently 108 properties on Clarington’s Municipal Register comprised of 77
designated properties, 31 non-designated properties, and 1 Heritage Conservation
District (Beech Avenue).
1.7 To date, many of non-designated properties added to the Municipal Register have been
under threat of demolition. Examples include the buildings at Camp 30 (now
designated), properties affected by the 407 extension (now demolished), and properties
that are within areas identified for intensification and/or redevelopment.
Clarington’s Cultural Heritage Resources List
1.8 In accordance with the Clarington Official Plan, the Planning Services Department
maintains a Cultural Heritage Resources List (CHRL) with advice and assistance from
the Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC). The CHRL is an inventory of properties that
the Municipality has identified as having cultural heritage value or interest. Properties on
the list are categorized as Primary, Secondary and Heritage Merit. The properties
identified on the CHRL are subject to the policies of Section 8 (Celebrating our Cultural
Heritage) of the Official Plan. However, the properties are not formally recognized under
the Ontario Heritage Act unless they are added to the Municipal Register either as a
non-designated property or as a property designated by by-law.
1.9 The Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC) has established building evaluation criteria
with the intention of reviewing properties on the CHRL to determine properties that
should be formally recognized under the Ontario Heritage Act. A sub-committee of the
CHC reviews properties from the public right-of-way using the evaluation criteria and
presents their recommendations for each property to the CHC.
Page 41
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-025-20
1.10 In May 2020, the CHC reviewed the following three properties, currently identified on the
CHRL as noted below, and has recommended adding each property to the Municipal
Register:
58 Centre Street (Heritage Merit);
64 Centre Street (Secondary); and
72 Centre Street (Secondary).
1.11 The location of each of the properties is identified in Figure 1. A description of each
property based upon the CHC’s evaluation can be found in Attachments 1 through 3 of
this report.
2. Provincial and Regional Policy
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
2.1 The PPS 2020 provides that economic prosperity should be supported by encouraging a
sense of place fostered by well-designed built form, cultural planning and conserving
features that help define character. More specifically, the PPS 2020 directs that
significant built heritage resources shall be conserved.
Provincial Growth Plan, 2019
2.2 The Growth Plan, 2019 directs that cultural heritage resources will be conserved and
promoted in order to foster a sense of place for the social, cultural, and economic
benefit of communities.
Durham Regional Official Plan
2.3 The Regional Official Plan encourages the conservation, protection and/or
enhancement of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources.
Page 42
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-025-20
Figure 1: Properties Recommended to be Added to the Municipal Register
Page 43
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-025-20
3. Clarington Policy and Regulations
3.1 The Clarington Official Plan provides that when a cultural heritage resource is
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or is recognized on the CHRL, the
Municipality shall discourage the demolition or the inappropriate alteration of a cultural
heritage resource. Whenever possible, built heritage resources should be retained for
the original use and in their original location. Where the original uses cannot be
maintained, the adaptive reuse of built heritage resources will be supported. If no other
alternative exists for maintaining structures in their original location, consideration may
be given to the relocation of the structure. Should a heritage resource be demolished,
the dismantling, salvage and reuse of materials is encouraged.
3.2 All three properties are designated Urban Residential by the Clarington Official Plan,
2018. The primary use of land in the Urban Residential designation shall be for housing
purposes, however the designation also provides for other small-scale uses that are
supportive of and compatible with residential uses.
3.3 The subject properties are all located within the area that is subject to Interim Control
By-law (ICBL) 2018-083. The by-law enabled the Municipality to complete the
Bowmanville Neighbourhood Character Study to address concerns regarding
redevelopment in established residential areas. The Study resulted in recommendations
for amendments to the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 84-63 to provide for
policies and regulations in the subject areas that better reflect neighbourhood character.
The proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are scheduled for Council’s
consideration on July 6, 2020.
3.4 The three properties were included in the Heritage Conservation District Background
Study in 2005. This Study resulted in the Old Bowmanville (North Ward) Heritage
Guidelines, which provide guidance to owners of properties in the study area when
considering plans for construction and/or alteration of buildings, structures, and
landscaping.
4. Public Notice
4.1 Currently, under the Ontario Heritage Act there is no notification requirement before
Council adds a property to the Municipal Register as a non-designated property.
However, it has been the Municipality’s practice to notify property owners. As noted
above, this practice aligns with the upcoming amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act.
4.2 On June 15, 2020, Planning staff sent a letter to the owners of the three properties
proposed to be added to the Municipal Register. The letter notified property owners that
the CHC identified their home as notable for its architectural and historical attributes. A
Resident Information Sheet explaining the Municipal Register, and what having a home
on the Registry means was provided (Attachment 4). The letter also advised that a staff
Page 44
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PSD-025-20
report would be presented to the Planning & Development Committee recommending
the addition of the subject properties to the Municipal Register. Owners were invited to
contact Planning Services staff to discuss the CHC’s evaluation and recommendation.
4.3 As of the time of writing this report, no correspondence relating to the proposed addition
of the subject properties to the Municipal Register has been received.
5. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Cultural heritage resources contribute significantly to Clarington’s community fabric.
Proactively adding properties to the Municipal Register (i) allows the Municipality 60
days to evaluate the property in more detail and explore conservation options prior to
the issuance of a demolition permit (ii) recognizes the property’s cultural value or
interest, and (iii) illustrates the community’s appreciation for its local culture and
heritage.
6.2 Staff and the Clarington Heritage Committee respectfully recommend that the following
three properties in Bowmanville be added to the Municipal Register: 58 Centre Street,
64 Centre Street, and 72 Centre Street.
Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Planner II, 905-623-3379 or sallin@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Cultural Heritage Description: 58 Centre Street
Attachment 2 – Cultural Heritage Description: 64 Centre Street
Attachment 3 – Cultural Heritage Description: 72 Centre Street
Attachment 4 – Municipal Register Information Sheet
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 45
Attachment 1 to
Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-025-20
58 Centre Street
58 Centre Street is a two-storey home
constructed entirely of red brick in
approximately 1923 and is among the
earliest homes in Bowmanville built in
the Four Square Transitional style.
The design of this home features the
square, boxy style that would have
provided for a floor plan that
maximized interior space, as many
such homes were constructed on
smaller urban lots. The dwelling
features a hipped roof, a covered
porch supported by brick pillars that
shelter the off-centre front entrance,
and double second-storey windows
with arched brick lentils. Also of note
on this property is the detached brick
garage, circa 1929, located towards
the rear of the property, and the
striking tree in the front yard.
This dwelling was home to two notable
Bowmanville residents, including W.
Len Elliott an active community
member and owner of a local plumbing
business, and R.L. Mitchell, a well-
known, friendly bank manager who
spent over 40 years with the Canadian
Bank of Commerce in Bowmanville,
and purchased the home after Mr.
Elliott’s passing in 1950.
Page 46
Attachment 2 to
Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-025-20
64 Centre Street
This two-storey dwelling was
constructed in approximately
1870 in a vernacular of the
Second Empire style. The
dwelling features an all brick
façade, stone foundation, and
the signature mansard roof of the
Second Empire style, punctuated
with dormers and decorative
surrounds. Architectural
detailing incudes the high,
arched first-storey windows, and
paired cornice brackets. The
front door is tucked along the
side of the projecting bay,
accessing a one-storey porch.
Although the porch is not
original, and the brick façade has
been painted, this home
represents one of the few homes
in Bowmanville with the Second
Empire style mansard roof.
The dwelling was once home to
Dave and Roberta Higgon. Mr.
Higgon held the position of
superintendent of the Ontario
Boys Training School in the
1950s.
Page 47
Attachment 3 to
Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-025-20
72 Centre Street
The two-storey, red brick
dwelling was built in
approximately 1883 in a
vernacular of the Italianate
style and designed with a
practical rectangular floor
plan. The dwelling features a
mild hipped roof, overhanging
eaves, and single elaborate
cornice brackets characteristic
of the Italianate style. The
home is set on a stone
foundation with brick skirt
effect. The second storey
windows are embellished with
basket arch surrounds
decorated with a unique scroll
design, below simple brick
lintels. The dwelling has
undergone alterations
including the replacement of
the original windows, and a
substantial rear addition, the
location of which is not visible
from the Centre Street
frontage. The home
contributes to Centre Street’s
streetscape and the fabric of
the Old Bowmanville
Neighbourhood.
Page 48
Municipal Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest: Resident Info Sheet
What is the Municipal Register?
The Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) requires the municipality to maintain a formal register of properties that have cultural heritage
value or interest. It is a list of properties that Council considers to be important to the community for any of the followin g reasons:
•Due to the property’s distinctive architectural or design value
•Because the property is associated with an important person, event or activity that is significant to the community’s heritage
•The property is historically linked to its surroundings or is a landmark
What types of properties are included on the register?
The register includes a variety of properties with heritage value, including:
• Properties that are designated by by-law under the OHA (either individually or as part of a Conservation District)
•Properties that are not designated by by-law under the OHA but Council deems to have cultural heritage value or interest
What does it mean if my property
is on the Register?
Non-designated properties on the
register cannot be demolished
unless the owners give Council at
least 60 days’ notice in writing
Listing a property on the register
does not provide any legal
protection to the properties on it (it
must also be designated by by-law
in order to have legal protection)
Can alterations or additions
be done to properties on the
register?
Yes, for non-designated
properties. Any alterations or
additions would follow the
same process as for any
property
Can I sell my property without
notifying the municipality if
it’s listed in the register?
Yes
How does a property get to be listed on the
register?
The Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC)
researches, evaluates and scores the suitability of
a property for inclusion on the register using a
standardized assessment template
Planning staff, in consultation with the CHC, will
forward a recommendation to Council to add
suitable properties to the register
Council will make decision at a public meeting
The property owner will be notified of the meeting
and can choose to address Council if desiredPage 49
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: June 29, 2020 Report Number: PSD-026-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: PLN 34.18; HPA2020-003 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Proposed Alteration to a Designated Heritage Property; 5 Beech Avenue,
Bowmanville
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-026-20 be received;
2. That the Heritage Permit Application (File No. HPA2020-003) to facilitate a rear
addition, replacement of the detached garage, and replacement fencing at 5 Beech
Avenue, Bowmanville be approved as per the elevation drawings in Attachment 2, and
in accordance with the applicable Designation By-laws 96-073 and 2006-102, and
Sections 33(4) and (42(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 0.18; and
3. That the Ontario Heritage Trust, the Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District
Advisory Committee, the Clarington Heritage Committee, the property owners, and all
interested parties listed in Report PSD-026-20 be advised of Council's decision.
Page 50
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-026-20
1. Background
1.1 The owner of the subject property applied for a Heritage Permit to construct a rear
addition, replace an existing detached garage, and replace fencing along the Beech
Avenue frontage.
1.2 The property at 5 Beech Avenue was designated by By-law 96-073 under Part IV of the
Ontario Heritage Act for its historical significance and numerous exterior and interior
features, including the original brick facade. The proposed works are not considered to
affect the reasons for the Part IV individual designation of the property.
1.3 In May 2006, Council adopted the Beech Avenue HCD Plan. The HCD Plan came into
effect in June 2006 and implemented a heritage permit system for works proposed
within HCD study area. In accordance with the HCD Plan, works requiring a heritage
permit under Part V of the OHA include: construction of new buildings, additions to
buildings, demolition of all or portions of buildings, relocation of buildings, and
streetscape improvements. As such, a heritage permit is required under Part V for the
proposed works at 5 Beech Avenue.
1.4 An HCD Advisory Committee was established to advise on major heritage permit
applications within the Beech Avenue HCD. The HCD Advisory Committee composition
is outlined by the HCD Plan, and includes a representative from the CHC, a Beech
Avenue resident, the Executive Director of the Bowmanville Older Adult Association ,
and a Clarington resident who is a member of the building industry or a design
professional.
1.5 The HCD Advisory Committee reviews the heritage permit applications and provides its
comments to staff and Council for consideration. Proposals involving demolition
proposals are also reviewed by the CHC in accordance with the OHA. The
recommendations of the HCD Advisory Committee and the CHC are presented to
Council as the approval authority for major Heritage Permit applications. The heritage
Report Overview
The owners of the designated heritage property at 5 Beech Avenue, Bowmanville have
applied for a Heritage Permit to undertake work on their property. The subject property is
individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) by By-law 96-073,
and forms part of the Beech Avenue Heritage Conservation District (HCD) designated under
Part V of the OHA by By-law 2006-102.
Heritage permits are required to authorize proposed works that may affect an identified
heritage attribute in the case of the individual Part IV designation, and for works specified in
the Beech Avenue HCD Plan in the case of the Part V HCD designation.
Page 51
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-026-20
permit application can be approved as submitted, approved with modifications, or
denied. The property owner has the right to appeal the decision of Council to the Local
Planning Appeal Tribunal in accordance with Part V of the OHA.
2. Heritage Permit Application for 5 Beech Avenue
2.1 The owners have applied for a Heritage Permit to facilitate a rear addition, demolition
and replacement of the detached garage, and replacement of fencing along the Beech
Avenue frontage, as illustrated in Attachment 1.
Figure 1 – 5 Beech Avenue; Lowe Street Frontage
2.2 The dwelling at 5 Beech Avenue was built in two phases. The arched windows and
Italianate details date from the original construction in the late 1870s. In the late 1880s
William C. King radically changed the residence, transforming it into one of the finest
examples of the late Victorian Queen Anne style in Bowmanville.
Page 52
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-026-20
Figure 2 – Front of House – 5 Beech Avenue, Bowmanville
2.3 A second, one-storey rear addition was constructed in approximately 1980. The
proposed rear entrance addition and covered walkway from the dwelling to the garage
will be connected to the 1980s portion of the home.
2.4 Detailed elevation drawings submitted in support of the application form Attachment 2
and illustrate the design of the proposed replacement garage situated on the existing
garage footprint, the small one-storey rear addition to the home to accommodate a new
entranceway, and a covered walkway connecting the addition to the replacement
garage. Also proposed is the replacement of the existing wood fencing along the Beech
Avenue frontage with wrought iron fencing that is sympathetic to the architectur al style
of the dwelling.
2.5 The location and scale of the replacement one-storey garage on the existing footprint at
the rear of the property, and that of the one-storey addition to the rear of the dwelling
aligns with the HCD Plan Guidelines for alterations, additions, and new construction.
Wrought iron or similar fencing material is encouraged by the Guidelines.
Page 53
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-026-20
2.6 The subject application was reviewed at the June 16, 2020 CHC meeting. The CHC
meeting was attended by members of the HCD Advisory Committee as well as the
applicant who provided an overview of the proposed works.
2.7 Comments from the CHC addressed the roof design of the replacement garage, the
covered breezeway, location and style of fencing, and types of vegetation proposed
along the fence lines. The CHC passed a motion supporting the Heritage Permit
application as presented, contingent upon a recommendation for approval from the HCD
Advisory Committee.
2.8 Comments from the HCD Advisory Committee related to fencing, and the landscaping
proposed along the Beech Avenue frontage. The HCD Advisory Committee indicated its
support for the subject Heritage Permit application provided the landscaping (fencing
and vegetation) is undertaken in accordance with the HCD Plan Guidelines. The HCD
Advisory Committee and the CHC will work with the applicant to identity vegetation
along Beech Avenue that has regard for the HCD Plan planting types and guidelines.
Other Considerations
2.9 5 Beech Avenue is located within the area that is subject to Interim Control By-law
(ICBL) 2018-083. The By-law enabled the Municipality to complete the Bowmanville
Neighbourhood Character Study to address concerns regarding redevelopment in
established residential areas. The Study resulted in recommendations for amendments
to the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 84-63 to provide for policies and
regulations in the subject areas that better reflect neighbourhood character. The
proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are scheduled for Council’s
consideration on July 6, 2020.
2.10 This report addresses the requirements of the OHA. The proposed works are subject to
the requirements of Zoning By-law 84-63 and the ICBL. The works would also be
subject to the new policies and regulations implemented as a result of the
Neighbourhood Character Study recommendations.
3. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
4. Conclusion
4.1 Staff, the HCD Advisory Committee and the CHC support the approval of the proposed
alterations to 5 Beech Avenue, substantially as presented.
Page 54
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-026-20
4.2 It is respectfully recommended that Heritage Permit Application (File No. HPA2020-003)
to facilitate a rear addition, replacement detached garage, and replacement fencing at 5
Beech Avenue, Bowmanville be approved substantially in accordance with the elevation
drawings in Attachment 2.
Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Planner 905-623-3379 ext. 2419 or sallin@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – 5 Beech Avenue; Aerial Photo
Attachment 2 – 5 Beech Avenue; Detailed Elevations for the Purposes of the Heritage Permit
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 55
drawn byscale20-016-DESIGN-V1filenameproject no.projecttitlewww.mackitecture.casheet no.date1/8" = 1'-0"JMRenovation at 5 Beech Avenue20-016A1Conceptual Site Plan2020-06-16Conceptual Site Plannot to scaleNorthSEWProject NorthWESNew foyer additionNew covered porchExisting garage demolished tofoundation for new garageFront Yar
d Exterior Side YardRear Yar
d
Interior Side YardGoogle Maps SatellitePage 56
4.0m max. to mid roofSouth (Right) ElevationLowe Street, Exterior Side YardNew addition, covered porch and garageNew columns to match existingBeech Street porch columnsLowest graNew brick veneer to match existingContinuous solid limestone bandingaround the new addition, porch and thegarage. Match existing porch banding.Match the new brackets with theexisting porch bracketsNew heritage style wood garage doorExisting garage demolishedto foundationNew brick veneer below theexisting porch slabMatch the new brackets with theexisting porch bracketsMatch the new solid limestonebanding with the existinglimestone banding18'-4" [5.59m]gaaragee. drawn byscale20-016-DESIGN-V1filenameproject no.projecttitlewww.mackitecture.casheet no.date1/8" = 1'-0"JMRenovation at 5 Beech Avenue20-016A2South (Right) Elevation2020-06-16Page 57
East (Rear) ElevationRaised soffit to maximize theinterior ceiling heightnew foyer additionReclaimed 1877 fencing forpool securityNew flat roof to comply with maximumzoning height for detached garagesExisting elevationNew covered porchNew garage on existing foundationWindows to remaindrawn by scale20-016-DESIGN-V1filenameproject no.projecttitlewww.mackitecture.casheet no.date1/8" = 1'-0"JMRenovation at 5 Beech Avenue20-016A3East (Rear) Elevation2020-06-16Page 58
West (Front) ElevationBeech Avenueproperty lineExisting grade in rear yardExisting deckExisting detached garageExisting grade at the existing armourstone retaining wall +/18" highNew brick and wrought iron fenceNew detached garage andcovered porchExisting armour stone retainingwall reaplce with new brickand wrought iron fence.e ande andeandeandeandeande e andeeeertrtrtyyy ylininnneeeeeoperertSection A - Newretaining wall and fenceExisting 6' high woodprivacy fenceExisting armour stoneretaining wallSection A - Existingretaining wall and fenceAA4drawn by scale20-016-DESIGN-V1filenameproject no.projecttitlewww.mackitecture.casheet no.date1/8" = 1'-0"JMRenovation at 5 Beech Avenue20-016A4West (Front) Elevation2020-06-16Page 59
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: June 29, 2020 Report Number: Addendum to PSD-019-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: ZBA2017-0037 By-law Number:
Report Subject: 415 Mill Street, Addendum to Report PSD-019-20
Recommendations:
1. That Report Addendum to PSD-019-20 be received;
2. That the application to amend the Zoning By-law submitted by Kaleido Corporation be
approved and that the Zoning By-law contained in Attachment 1 to Addendum Report to
PSD-019-20 be passed;
3. That once all conditions contained in the 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;
4. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-019-20 and Council’s
decision; and
5. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-019-20 and any delegations be advised of
Council’s decision
Page 60
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report Addendum to PSD-019-20
1. Background
1.1 At its meeting of June 15, 2020, Council considered staff report PSD-019-20 on a
rezoning application by Kaleido Corporation and resolved:
“That Report PSD-019-20, Applications by Kaleido Corporation (formerly Landmark-
Newcastle Limited) to Amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to Permit a 15 Unit Townhouse
Development at the South-East Corner of Mill Street and Robert Street in Newcastle, be
referred to the June 29, 2020 Planning and Development Comm ittee Meeting to allow
further discussions with the developer to consider lowering the height of the homes and
fewer units.”
1.2 On June 16, 2020 staff met with the applicant and their agent to discuss the unit count
and the height of the proposed units as directed by Council.
2. Discussion
2.1 Over the past two and half years the applicants have engaged in several conversations
with staff and external agencies to present a proposal that would address a wide range
of provincial, regional and local policies and standards as well as resident’s concerns.
The applicant believes the 15-unit proposal is the best cumulative proposal that was
derived from those conversations. The applicant specifically highlighted the following
regarding the proposed plan:
The proposed units have been located to provide as much separation from the
existing neighbours, while respecting the Ministry of Transportations setback
requirements, and attempting to create a strong streetscape.
The units have been designed to create flexible family units by having 3 bedrooms
and approximately 1,800 square feet. The eastern most unit on the south block
was designed as two and a half storeys to reduce the visual impact and is the only
unit with 2 bedrooms.
Report Overview
This report is an addendum to PSD-019-20. At the June 15, 2020 Council meeting, staff
were directed to meet with the applicant to discuss a reduction to the number of units and
building height of the proposed units, and report back at the June 29, 202 0 Planning and
Development Committee meeting. This report provides additional information for Council
from the meeting with the developer. A revised Zoning By-law Amendment with a reduced
maximum height of 10 metres is attached to this addendum report and replaces Attachment
1 to PSD-019-20.
Page 61
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report Addendum to PSD-019-20
The buildings have been designed with traditional design elements and materials,
brick and stone, to best fit with existing building styles and create a compatible and
pleasing gateway when entering the community from Highway 401.
Number of Units
2.2 The applicant indicated that they previously reduced the unit count from 22 to 15 in
response to department, agency and resident concerns. The applicant believes the
proposal for 15 townhouse units meets provincial policy and the policies of the Durham
Region and Clarington Official Plans while integrating with the existing neighbourhood.
2.3 The applicant also indicated that a further reduction in the number of units would have a
negative impact on the cost of the units and would impact the design. A reduction in
units would increase the fixed costs, i.e. servicing, new sidewalks, landscaping and
fencing, etc., of the development for each unit which would impact the total cost for each
unit. The increased fixed cost per unit could also negatively impact the design and
quality of building materials for the units, which currently consists of stone and brick
exteriors, in order to ensure they remain marketable.
2.4 The applicant has considered and discussed larger units; however, they believe that a
larger square footage and the increased fixed cost per unit may require a price point per
unit that would be difficult to market.
2.5 Staff does not specifically review or consider development costs when reviewing
applications. Despite this it is understood that there are hard and soft costs to all
developments and a market threshold when selling a specific housing product. There is
also the issue of providing more affordable housing and mix of units.
2.6 After further discussing these issues with staff the applicant believes that the number of
units and the size of the units is required to ensure that the project is feasible to develop
and market to future end users.
Building Height
2.7 Zoning By-law 84-63 defines height from the lowest point of grade to the mid-point of
the roofline and not by number of storeys of a building. The height is defined in this
manner as floor to ceiling heights, roof pitches and the surrounding grade can differ
significantly. If buildings were defined by storey the difference in height, despite bein g
the same number of storeys, could differ greatly.
2.8 The applicant identified that reducing the units to two and a half storeys would limit the
ability to have a third bedroom in the units, making them less desirable to families. As
discussed in Section 7.7 of PSD-019-20 and above the applicants have proposed one
unit, the eastern most unit on the south block, at two and a half storeys. That unit has
Page 62
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report Addendum to PSD-019-20
two bedrooms due to the reduction in floor area associated with the requirement to have
some of the living space within the roofline of the design.
Figure 1: Proposed south townhouse block elevation with two and a half storey easterly unit.
2.9 While reducing the buildings to two and a half storeys wasn’t desirable to the applicant
the overall height of the proposed units was reviewed. The applicant has indicated they
can construct the units with a maximum building height of 10.0 metres to the midpoint of
the roof instead of the 10.5 metres previously sought. This is a reduction of 0.5 metres
from the proposal that was contained in PSD-019-20.
2.10 The proposed 10 metre maximum height is consistent with the Residential Type Three
(R3) Zone for linked townhouses. The 10 metre height would be lower than the
permitted 10.5 metre height allowed in the surrounding Urban Residential Type One
(R1) Zone the neighbourhood could build to as of right if a building permit were
submitted for a new dwelling or an addition to an existing dwelling. Staff recognizes that
the majority of the existing development in the surrounding area does not approach the
maximum of 10.5 metres in height.
2.11 The applicant and staff discussed the possibility of introducing a f lat roof design to the
units to further limit the overall height. Staff believes that a flat roof would be less
compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood than the traditional pitched roof design
element, the applicant has proposed with a further reduced height.
2.12 As discussed in Section 7.6 of PSD-019-20 the subject lands are much lower than Mill
Street and the Highway 401 off-ramp. The site is required to be regraded for several
reasons including servicing of water, sanitary sewer and stormwater, to allow for a new
sidewalk on Mill Street and to create a stronger streetscape. Raising the site grading
would be required for any development, regardless of unit type, that was not located
directly adjacent to Robert Street. The proposed earth works will bring the grading of
the site to the same elevation as Mill Street and Robert Street.
Page 63
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report Addendum to PSD-019-20
3. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
4. Conclusion
4.1 At the direction of Council staff met with the applicant to discuss a reduction to the
number of units and the height of the buildings. After discussions the applicant
indicated that they would be willing to reduce the height of the development to a
maximum of 10 metres, as identified in the Urban Residential Type Three (R3 Zone) in
Zoning By-law 84-63, but do not propose a reduction to the 15 units proposed. Staff’s
recommendation from PSD-019-20 is unchanged; however, an updated Zoning By-law
Amendment is attached reflecting the maximum height of 10 metres. This replaces
Attachment 1 of PSD-019-20.
Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Planner, 905-623-3379 x 2424 or bweiler@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Revised Zoning By-law Amendment
Page 64
\\netapp5\group\Planning\^Department\Application Files\ZBA-Zoning\2017\ZBA2017-0037 415 Mill Street\Staff Report\Attachment 2 to Addemdum Report.docx
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 ZBA2017-0037;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1.Section 14.6 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone” is
hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone
14.6.60 as follows:
“14.6.60 Urban Residential Exception (R3-60) Zone
Notwithstanding Sections 3.1.g. iv., 14.1. a., b., 14.4 a., c., g., h., those lands
zoned R3-60 on the schedules to this By-law shall only be used for Linked
Townhouse Dwellings.
a.Dwelling Units (maximum)15
b.Yard Requirements (minimum)
i.Front Yard 3.0 metres
ii.Exterior Side Yard 2.5 metres
iii.Interior Side Yard 3.0 metres
iv.Rear Yard 18.0 metres
c.Building Height 10.0 metres
Page 65
d. Special Yard Regulations
i Steps may project into the required exterior side yard, but in no
instance shall the exterior side yard be reduced below 1.2 metres.
e. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished
grade (maximum) 1.0 metres
f. No parking space shall be located in any front or exterior side yard.
g. The maximum number of attached link townhouse units shall be six (6).
Link townhouse blocks must be separated by a minimum of 1.2 metres
between walls.
2. Schedule ‘5’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing
the zone designation from "Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone" and “Holding
– Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1) Zone” to "Holding - Urban Residential
Exception ((H)R3-60) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
3. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this _____ day of ____________, 2020
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk
Page 66
Page 67
Presentations
and
Handouts
Application By: BV Courtice Partners LP
(Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.)
BV Courtice Partners LP (Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.) has submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a townhouse condominium block with 78 townhouse dwelling units.
Public Meeting: June 29, 2020
Clarington Planning Services Department
CONCERNS
•Integration of the site with surrounding area
•Increased Traffic
•Extension of Moyse Drive
•Loss of open/green space
•Density and pandemics