Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/30/2011(Pneralzin •g Ontario GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: May 30, 2011 TIME: 9:30 A.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) (a) Minutes of a Regular Meeting of May 9, 2011 4 -1 (b) Minutes of a Special Meeting of May 25, 2011 4 -27 5. PRESENTATIONS (a) Abby Salb and Dr. Harriet Phillips, from Senes Consultants Limited, Regarding Report PSD- 052 -11, Durham -York Energy From Waste Project Clarington Comments On Certificate Of Approval Application (Air) 6. DELEGATIONS (Draft List at Time of Publication — To be Replaced with Final 6 -1 List) (a) Glenn Genge and Patricia Stephenson, Regarding Report PSD- 048 -11, Request for Extension of Draft Approval West Side of Rudell Road, Newcastle (b) Ted Watson, Regarding Report PSD- 051 -11, Amendments to Sign By -law 2009 -123 (c) Kelvin Whalen, Vice - President, Kaitlin Group Ltd., Regarding Report PSD- 049 -11, Former Boys Training School and Prisoner of War Camp 2020 Lambs Road, Bowmanville 7. PUBLIC MEETINGS No Public Meetings CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 G.P. & A. Agenda - 2 - May 30, 2011 8. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) PSD- 048 -11 Request-for Extension of Draft Approval 8 -1 West Side of Rudell Road, Newcastle (b) PSD- 049 -11 Former Boys Training School and Prisoner of War Camp 8 -7 2020 Lambs Road, Bowmanville (c) PSD- 050 -11 Monitoring of the Decisions of the Committee of 8 -34 Adjustment for the Meeting of April 28, 2011 and May 12, 2011 (d) PSD- 051 -11 Amendments to Sign By -law 2009 -123 8-49 (e) PSD- 052 -11 Durham -York Energy From Waste Project Clarington 8 -55 Comments On Certificate Of Approval Application (Air) 9. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) EGD -021 A 1 Joseph Atkinson Park 9-1 (b) EGD- 022 -11 Provision of Consulting Engineering Services 9 -12 North Scugog Court, West Scugog Lane to Concession Rd. 3, Bowmanville (c) EGD- 023 -11 Hampton Skateboard Park 9-20 10. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT No Reports 11. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT No Reports 12. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) CSD- 009 -11 June is Recreation and Parks Month 12 -1 (b) CSD- 010 -11 Clarington Young Songwriters' Circle 12 -5 13. MUNICIPAL CLERK'S DEPARTMENT (a) CLD- 013 -11 1s' Quarter Parking Report 13 -1 (b) CLD- 014 -11 Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory . 13-4 Committee G.P. & A. Agenda - 3 - May 30, 2011 14. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 19. (a) COD - 019 -11 CL2011 -07 Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection 14 -1 15. FINANCE DEPARTMENT CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 22. (a) FND- 013 -11 Complaint by Rizwan Dean Wancho of NFP Group 15 -1 Consultants Under Section 20 of the Development Charges Act 16. SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT (a) LGL- 006 -11 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle 16 -1 GRCA Permit No. 1089 dated June 30, 2010 17. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE No Reports 18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (a) PSD- 041 -11 Courtice Community Improvement — 2011 Capital Funds 18 -1 (Tabled from May 9, 2011 General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting) 19. OTHER BUSINESS 20. COMMUNICATIONS 21. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 22. ADJOURNMENT Clarington Leafing the Nay General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Minutes of a meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present Were: Mayor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak Councillor J. Neal Councillor W. Partner (attended until 2:48 p.m Councillor C. Traill Councillor W. Woo Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu Municipal Solicitor, A. Allison (attended until 4:48 p.m.) Director of Engineering Services, T. Cannella Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Director of Planning Services, D. Crome Director of Operations, F. Horvath Director of Corporate Services & Human Resources, M. Marano Director of Finance/Treasurer, N. Taylor Director of Emergency & Fire Services, G. Weir Deputy Clerk, A. Greentree Clerk II, J. Gallagher Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest stated at this meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councillor Novak announced that she, Councillor Hooper and Mayor Foster attended the Guest Reader program at St. Elizabeth School on Wednesday, May 4, 2011. She also announced that she had attended the grand re- opening of the Grand Hilltop and Banquet Hall /Courtice Pub on Thursday, May 5, 2011. Councillor Novak reminded everyone that the Courtice Secondary School 50th Reunion will take place on May 27 and May 28, 2011. She noted that the Special Council Meeting, held on Friday, - 1 - 4 -1 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 May 6, 2011, to discuss Economic Development, was a good and informative meeting. Councillor Novak spoke at the Courtice Rotary Club meeting on Friday, May 6, 2011. Councillor Hooper announced that the Eagles Hockey Team has been reconstituted as the Clarington Eagles Junior'C' Hockey Team, thanks to the hard work by Terry Lynch and Elite Hockey Consultants Group. He thanked Mr. Caruana and the staff of Community Services for assisting in the Eagles' return. He also attended the Fire House Youth Centre Battle of the Bands on Friday, May 6, 2011. Councillor Hooper thanked the Fire House Youth Centre members for hosting the event. Councillor Hooper noted that Maple Fest, held this past weekend, was well attended. He thanked the Emergency Services Department and Operations Department for their assistance in the event. Councillor Woo announced that he and Councillor Partner attended the Pines Senior Public School on Thursday, May 5, 2011 to watch the students successfully break the world record for the most students (783 students) exercising to a video game. He announced that,'this past weekend, there was an art demonstration and display of art, the opening of "Gift of Art", across from Newcastle Library, which was part of the Spring Tour. Councillor Partner announced that the Newcastle Horticultural Society held an annual plant sale this past weekend to raise funds for their new gardens. She reminded everyone that the Society will be holding a yard sale on May 28, 2011. Councillor Partner attended Maple Fest this past weekend. She announced that the Durham Environmental Advisory Committee (DEAC) award ceremony will be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011. This year DEAC will be honouring John Slater, Chair of the Orono Crown Lands Trust, with the Evylin Stroud Lifetime Achievement Award for playing a leading role in enhancing the environmental health and attributes of the provincially owned 633 acre parcel in Orono. Mayor Foster thanked the owners of Hilltop for the invitation to their grand re- opening. He thanked Councillor Woo for inviting representatives from the Chinese Consulate to attend Friday's Special Council meeting on Economic Development. Mayor Foster apologized to staff and Council for raising his voice during the May 2, 2011 Council meeting and indicted he will use his gavel in the future, if necessary. ALTER THE AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 331 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the Rules of Procedure be suspended. CARRIED -2- 4 -2 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 332 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Neal That the delegation time limit of 10 minutes be extended to 15 minutes for Christine Fahey. CARRIED MINUTES Resolution #GPA- 333 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the minutes of the regular meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on April 18, 2011, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS Gord Weir, Diredtor of Emergency Services, introduced the speakers from the Office of of the Fire Marshal (OFM). Peter Guiry, Fire Protection Advisor, Brent Stirling, Program Specialist, and Mariano Perini, Fire Protection Advisor, OFM, were present regarding the Public Fire Services Guidelines (PFSG). Mr. Guiry made a verbal presentation to accompany a .pdf presentation. He informed the Committee of the municipal responsibilities as outlined in Part II of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, which includes establishing a program of public education, creation of a minimum acceptable model and provision of other fire protection services. Mr. Guiry also provided the Committee with information regarding the powers and duties of the OFM. He explained the purpose of the PFSG, which is a tool to implement a risk management program. Mr. Guiry informed the Committee that the guidelines include the following five steps: assessing fire risks within the Community, collecting call data, identify gaps in fire suppression capabilities, developing options and recommendations to address the identified gaps, and preparing a report to Council. In summary, Mr. Guiry noted that the next steps by the OFM are to develop a Fire Prevention Guidebook, Greater Integration of Fire Prevention /Education and Suppression and reviewing and updating all the OFM's risk management programs. Bill Reid, Clarington Fire Prevention Inspector, was present to speak further to Peter Guiry's presentation. Specifically, Mr. Reid was addressing steps two and three of the PFSG. He made a verbal presentation to accompany a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Reid informed the Committee of the following challenges in trying develop a building stock profile: waiting for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), OFM -3- 4 -3 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 working with MPAC, obtaining accurate building stock profile, and evaluation of risk. He noted that, once he has obtained the information, he will be compiling the information for a report to Council. Mr. Reid reviewed the 2010 structure fire responses and examined four structure fire occurrences, for the purposes of this presentation and his explanation of the work involved in completing OFM forms. Mr. Reid summarized with a project status update, including the expectation that the report to Council should be completed in the next 4 -6 months. ALTER THE AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 334 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the Rules of Procedure be suspended. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 335 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the agenda be altered to consider Section 11, Emergency and Fire Services, immediately following the delegations. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 336 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the agenda be altered to hear the delegation of Sheryl Zuly first. CARRIED RECESS Resolution #GPA- 337 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the Committee recess for 10 minutes. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 11:11 a.m. 4 -4 -4- General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 DELEGATIONS Sheryl Zuly was present to request the use of an unopened road allowance as a vegetable garden. Ms. Zuly read a letter from her husband requesting to either lease or be given permission to use the unopened road allowance, adjacent to their property, for a vegetable garden. She acknowledged that the initial request was denied, but she noted that other municipalities allow residents to use unopened road allowances for garden plots. She confirmed there will not be any building erected and it would be for their exclusive use. Resolution #GPA- 338 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Partner THAT the request of Stan and Sheryl Zuly, to use the unopened road allowance adjacent to their property in Newcastle, be approved in principle, subject to any conditions set out and reported by staff for the Council meeting of May 16, 2011. CARRIED Christine Fahey, Director of the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office (PHAIMO), was present to provide the Committee with an update on the PHAIMO Port Granby project. Ms. Fahey introduced Mark Giles, the new Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Communications. She made a verbal presentation to accompany a PowerPoint presentation. She provided the Committee with an overview of the Port Granby Project, a project to remediate low -level radioactive waste and place it in a safe long -term monitored storage. Ms. Fahey noted the recent accomplishments, which include the preparation of an above ground mound, pilot -scale water treatment study, environmental monitoring and mitigation. She informed the Committee of the upcoming activities, which include completion of the transition phase objectives, the ongoing communications and outreach, and major implementation steps. Ms. Fahey stressed that it is important that interested local businesses register to do business with the federal government. She noted that there will be upcoming information session regarding the registration process with the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises as part of Public Works Government Services Canada on June 23, 2011. In conclusion, she acknowledged the hard work of the Municipality of Clarington's staff as well as the Peer Review Team. Ms. Fahey invited members of Council to attend the Port Granby Project site. -5- r3V General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 339 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the delegation of Christine Fahey, Director of the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office (PHAIMO), regarding the Port Granby Project, be received with thanks. CARRIED Theresa Vanhaverbeke was present regarding Report PSD- 042 -11, Potential Addition to Municipal Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; in particular 37 North Street. She informed the Committee that she is in agreement with the staff recommendations contained in Report PSD- 042 -11, which does not support the recommendation of the Clarington Heritage Committee to designate 37 North Street. Dan Worrall, President, Clarington Fire Fighters Association, Local 3139, was present regarding Report ESD- 006 -11, Minimum Staffing Report — Response to Questions. Mr. Worrall thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on this matter. In answer to a previous question asked of the OFM, he informed the Committee that there are 164 composite fire services in Ontario. Mr. Worrall stated that he is concerned with several items in the report regarding reducing staff levels, in particular, with respect to the need for four men per vehicle. He questioned several of the responses to specific questions within Report ESD- 006 -11. Mr. Worrall stated that the Fire Fighters Association is concerned with the information which is being used to make decisions. He stated their concerns are all about safety and that change is necessary. He added that the Association is interested in using the N.I.S.T. report in order to determine minimum staffing levels. Mayor Foster left the meeting at 12:35 p.m. and Councillor Novak assumed the Chair. Janice Robinson, Vice President, Planning and Development, Preston Group, had registered as a delegation, but informed staff during the recess that she had to leave the meeting. Councillor Hooper chaired this portion of the meeting. General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MONTHLY RESPONSE REPORT — JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH 2011 Resolution #GPA- 340 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report ESD- 005 -11 be received for information. CARRIED Mayor Foster returned to the meeting at 12:37 p.m. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MONTHLY RESPONSE REPORT Resolution #GPA- 341 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT the Emergency and Fire Services Department's regular Response Report be presented monthly and further that it include the information contained in the Office of the Fire Marshal's Form 200, starting the following month. CARRIED MINIMUM STAFFING REPORT — RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS Resolution #GPA- 342 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report ESD- 006 -11 be received for information. CARRIED Councillor Novak chaired this portion of the meeting. ALTER THE AGENDA Resolution #GPA- 343 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the Rules of Procedure be suspended. CARRIED -7- 4 -7 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 344 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the agenda be altered to consider Public Meeting agenda item 7(b), regarding the application by Newcastle (King) Developments Inc. first. CARRIED PUBLIC MEETING (a) Subject: Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By -law 84 -63 Applicant: Newcastle (King) Developments Inc. Report: PSD- 039 -11 Ruth Porras, Senior Planner, made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation to the Committee regarding the application. John Oates, local resident, spoke in support of the application, but with concerns. Mr. Oates stated that his family's choice is to shop at a discount supermarket in the Newcastle area. He stated that his main concern is that there is a need for good design. Mr. Oates compared the Newcastle Library and the Shoppers Drug Mart to the current proposal. He noted that the Library has a difficult traffic access and design flaws. He added that the Shoppers Drug Mart has the access at the opposite end of the building to the parking lot. Mr. Oates noted that Shoppers Drug Mart has 29 parking spots and five lanes. He stated the grocery store proposal has 110 spots with only two lanes and therefore he considers this proposal to be "shoe horned" into the space. In addition, Mr. Oates is concerned that this parking lot will be difficult to navigate as it has two lanes with two right angle bends. Mr. Oates informed the Committee that he is also concerned about snow plowing due to the difficult corners. He suggested that, in order to solve the parking and snow plow problem, the parking area of the grocery store be combined with the CIBC bank parking area. Mr. Oates concluded by stating that he would like to see this development elsewhere in Newcastle. Allan Kirby, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Kirby stated that North Street is a narrow street and he is concerned about the increase traffic. He stated that there are no sidewalks on Wilmot Street, but yet there will be a large amount of pedestrian traffic, which will be a safety concern with the increased vehicle traffic. Mr. Kirby noted that this issue was not addressed in the traffic study. He stated that he is concerned that the traffic study does not take into consideration the new residential development in other parts of Newcastle. Mr. Kirby is concerned that the developer will not pay for sidewalks and curbs, which he believes will eventually be required. He stated that he is also concerned about where the snow will be placed, especially since the subject site has a higher elevation than the surrounding properties. Mr. Kirby is 4 -8 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 concerned about the drainage of salt and snow from the grocery store lot onto the surrounding residents' properties. He stated that he was in favour of development in town, but he is concerned about this proposal for a grocery store and how it will affect the current residents. Perry Mucci, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Mucci stated that he had previously submitted a letter, which outlines his concerns regarding lighting, snow removal, and drainage. He stated that he is deeply concerned about this rezoning proposal. Mr. Mucci stated that he understands the need for a grocery store in Newcastle, but that this proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area. He quoted specific sections 'of the relevant planning documents which supports his view that this proposal is not acceptable in this neighbourhood. Derek Hannan, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he is concerned about the tractor trailer traffic not being able to navigate the turn into the parking lot, resulting in it crossing the centre line. Mr. Hannan noted that there is a school bus stop in front of the truck entrance, which will pose a safety issue. He added that the Newcastle Town Hall already has parking problems, and that this proposal will add to it. Mr. Hannan stated that the report did not include any comments regarding the existing business uses on the corner, specifically the dental office and the traffic issues currently caused by the office. Mr. Hannan is in support of development, but not a grocery store. He expressed concerns with traffic at King and North streets. Steve Coupland, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that he echoes the concerns of the previous speakers. Mr. Coupland stated that he is concerned about the increased traffic on North Street. He noted that many area residents are not aware of this proposal. Mr. Coupland stated that he had gathered 43 signatures in opposition to the application and will present the completed petition to Council at a later date. Gail McKenzie, on behalf of her mother, a local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Her concerns are regarding the traffic congestion on North Street, as well as the intersection of King and North Streets. Ms. McKenzie suggested that a stop light will be required. She added that the size of the building does not fit the area and that there is a lack of access from sidewalks. Ms. McKenzie stated that she agrees with the concerns expressed by the previous speakers. Myno Van Dyke, Chair of the Newcastle Community Improvement Program (CIP) Liaison Group, spoke in support of the application, with concerns. Mr. Van Dyke noted that the CIP's goal is to keep the Newcastle downtown in keeping with the historic look of the existing downtown. Mr. Van Dyke added that he has the following recommendations: street friendly, pedestrian access in the southeast corner (at least with pedestrian access on the east side of the building), and covered pedestrian access on the east side. He stated that the CIP is in favour with the proposed brick design. Wele =1 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Wendy Couch spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that she is concerned about the entrance being on North Street and impacting traffic, including the school bus stops on North Street and King Street/North Street. Ms. Couch stated that North Street is very narrow and even more so in the winter with the snow banks encroaching on the road. This will become even more of an issue with the anticipated increase in traffic. She is concerned about the impact on the use of the parkette for events, with the placement of the proposed parking lot. Ms. Couch stated she is in agreement with the previous speakers. Sue Green stated at this time she is ambivalent about the proposal, but does have concerns, specifically about parking. She stated that the GO Bus stop is currently not respected as a "no parking" area and the traffic will exacerbate the problem. Ms. Green added that the existing traffic is a concern already. She stated that she is concerned about putting a store entrance on King Street, which may also cause a parking issue on King Street. Nancy Mallette, local business owner, spoke in support of the application. Ms. Mallette stated that she believes that any new businesses to the downtown core will benefit the existing businesses and residents. She believes that it will improve the appearance of the downtown core and will provide more choices for the Newcastle residents. David Falletta, consultant for the applicant, made a verbal presentation to accompany a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Falletta outlined the main aspects of the proposal, which includes a strong building mass along King Avenue with parking in the rear, a generous pedestrian connection, screening of the loading area, and a landscape buffer along the northerly boundary. He noted that the design for the building has gone through several iterations to arrive at the current brick proposal. Mr. Falletta reviewed the incentives of the proposal, as they relate to the relevant planning and economic development policies. Mr. Falletta stated that the following concerns have been identified by residents and have been addressed in the recent design: building design, traffic, and noise. He added that there will be a follow up Public Open House, on May 18, 2011, to review the latest design with the residents. Mr. Falletta confirmed that the application includes designated area parking spots for snow storage. He stated that the franchisee will be addressing the delivery issues, which are currently planned for the early morning and later in the evening. Carmine Nigro, one of the principles of Craft Development, stated that there will be deliveries approximately twice a week planned for between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m, depending on the local by -laws. With regard to the snow clearing, Mr. Nigro agreed to include the issue of snow clearing in the site plan agreement, including snow removal from the site if required. Councillor Partner left the meeting at 2:48 p.m. -10- 4 -10 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 RECESS Resolution #GPA- 345 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the Committee recess for one hour. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 4:00 p.m. PUBLIC MEETING (Continued) (b) Subject: Application to Amend the Zoning By -law Applicant: Zlatko and Starleane Jazic Report: PSD- 038 -11 Tracey Webster, Planner, made a verbal and PowerPoint presentation to the Committee regarding the application. No one spoke in opposition to or in support of the application. Zlatko Jazic, the applicant, was present to state that he was in agreement with the recommendations contained in Report PSD- 038 -11. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REZONING APPLICATION TO FACILITATE THE SEVERANCE OF TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS APPLICANT: ZLATKO AND STARLEANE JAZIC Resolution #GPA- 346 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD- 038 -11 be received; THAT the rezoning application submitted by Zlatko and Starleane Jazic continue to be processed by staff and that a further report be prepared following the receipt of all outstanding department and agency comments; THAT a copy of this Report and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham Planning Department and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC); and - 11 - 4 -11 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 038 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ONE - STOREY, 2,503M2 (26,942 W) GROCERY STORE APPLICANT: NEWCASTLE (KING) DEVELOPMENTS INC. Resolution #GPA -347 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD- 039 -11 be received; THAT the application by Newcastle (King) Developments Inc. continue to be processed; THAT a further report be prepared following the receipt of all outstanding agency comments; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 039 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED REQUEST FOR,EXTENSION OF DRAFT APPROVAL APPLICANT: PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LIMITED Resolution #GPA- 348 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD- 040 -11 be received; THAT the request to extend the lapsing date for draft approved Plan of Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0007 until October, 2014 be approved; THAT a copy of Report PSD- 040 -11 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham Planning Department and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC); and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 040 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED -12- 4 -12 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 COURTICE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT — 2011 CAPITAL FUNDS Resolution #GPA- 349 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD- 041 -11 be tabled until the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of May 30, 2011. CARRIED POTENTIAL ADDITION TO MUNICIPAL REGISTER OF PROPERTIES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST; 37 NORTH STREET AND 51 NORTH STREET Resolution #GPA- 350 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT Report PSD- 042 -11 be received; THAT the Clarington Heritage Committee be requested to carry out further investigation and research on 151 North Street, Newcastle Village; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 042 -11 and any delegation be advised of Council's direction. CARRIED SOPER CREEK VALLEY LAND ACQUISITION 1220 HAINES ROAD, PARTS 1 — 5, PLAN 40R -21674 Resolution #GPA- 351 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT Report PSD- 043 -11 be received; THAT the property identified as 1220 Haines Road, Bowmanville, Ontario and being more particularly, described as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on Plan 40R- 21674, Part Lots 8 and 9, Concession 1, former Town of Bowmanville and later the Town of Newcastle, now the Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased for the price of Fifty =Five Thousand dollars ($55,000.00), subject to adjustments; -13- 4 -13 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 THAT the funds for the purchase, and any associated costs, be funded from the Land Acquisition Account (110 -50- 130 - 850002 - 7401); THAT the Mayor and the Clerk, on behalf of the Municipality, be authorized to execute an Agreement to acquire the property; THAT Staff and the Municipal Solicitor be directed to take all necessary actions to complete the transaction; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 043 -11 be notified of Council's decision. CARRIED WABBOKISH COURT LAND ACQUISITION BLOCK 43 AND BLOCK 44, PLAN 40M -1742 Resolution #GPA- 352 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD- 044 -11 be received; THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized, on behalf of the Municipality, to execute an Agreement to accept the lands identified as Block 43 and Block 44 on plan of subdivision 40M -1742, Part Lot 35, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington from 290572 Ontario Limited; THAT the municipal portion of the outstanding property taxes, and the outstanding Regional and education portion of the property taxes be paid from the Unclassified Administration Tax Write -off Account; THAT the municipal portion of any fees and costs related to the transfer be funded from the Land Acquisition Account (110 -50- 130 - 850002 - 7401); THAT Staff and the Municipal Solicitor be directed to take all necessary actions to complete the transaction and remove the liens from the property; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 044 -11 be notified of Council's decision. CARRIED -14- 4 -14 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 14, 2011 Resolution #GPA -353 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report PSD- 045 -11 be received; and THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on April 14, 2011 for applications A2011 -0003 to A2011 -0008 inclusive; and THAT staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. CARRIED PORT GRANBY PROJECT — LICENSING HEARING BEFORE THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION Resolution #GPA- 354 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report PSD- 046 -11 be received; THAT the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission be advised that the Municipality of Clarington prefers that a One Day Hearing be held for the licensing of the Port Granby Project; and THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Natural Resources Canada, the Port Hope Area Initiative Management Office, the Municipality of Port Hope, the South East Clarington Residents Association, and all delegations. CARRIED APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF HOLDING -1428 AND 1430 DURHAM HIGHWAY 2, AND 8 VARCOE ROAD, COURTICE APPLICANT: 2156601 ONTARIO INC. (SHOPPERS REALTY INC.) Resolution #GPA- 355 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report PSD- 047 -11 be received; -15- 4 -15 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 THAT the application submitted on behalf of 2156601 Ontario Inc. (Shoppers Realty Inc.) to remove the Holding (H) symbol be approved; THAT the By -law attached to Report PSD- 047 -11 to remove the Holding (H) Symbol be passed and a copy forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Durham; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 047 -11, any delegations and the Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED Councillor Traill chaired this portion of the meeting. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CLARINGTON LEASH FREE PARK Resolution #GPA- 356 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the Port Darlington Boat Launch site be approved as the location for the Leash Free Park; THAT the Rules -of Use as set out in Attachment 2 to Report EGD- 019 -11 be approved; and THAT the by -law amending By -law 2006 -227 (Attachment 3 to Report EGD- 019 -11) be approved. CARRIED MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR APRIL, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 357 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report EGD- 020 -11 be received for information. CARRIED OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda -16- 4 -16 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Councillor Neal chaired this portion of the meeting. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT NEWCASTLE &:, DISTRICT RECREATION COMPLEX — CONCESSION OPERATION Resolution #GPA- 358 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report CSD- 007 -11 be received; THAT the requirement for formal competitive bidding in accordance with By -law 2010 -112, Part 2 be waived for this initiative; THAT Staff, in conjunction with the Purchasing Division, be authorized to advertise for Expressions of Interest exclusively from Clarington based community organizations to operate the concession at the Newcastle & District Recreation Complex; THAT staff through the Purchasing Manager be authorized to negotiate an agreement satisfactory to all parties; and THAT a report to Council be provided summarizing the results of the request for the Expression of Interest and providing a recommendation for the award of the contract. CARRIED COMMUNITY GRANT REQUESTS - SUPPLEMENTARY Resolution #GPA- 359 -11 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report CSD- 008 -11 be received; THAT the grant applications for the Enniskillen Public School Parent Council and the Newcastle Business Improvement Area be approved in the amount of $1500 each; and THAT the Enniskillen Public School Parent Council and the Newcastle Business Improvement Area be advised of Council's decision. WITHDRAWN -17- 4 -17 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 3610 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the grant application for the Enniskillen Public School Parent Council be approved in the amount of $2000. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 361 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Mayor Foster THAT the Newcastle Business Improvement Association be approved for a one -time grant in the amount of $1000. CARRIED Mayor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. CLERK'S DEPARTMENT ANIMAL SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT — JANUARY — MARCH, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 362 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report CLD- 011 -11 be received; and THAT a copy of Report CLD- 011 -11 be forwarded to the Animal Alliance of Canada. CARRIED PROPERTY STANDARDS INVESTIGATIONS - RICHARD WARD Resolution #GPA- 363 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report CLD- 012 -11 be received for information. CARRIED 4 -18 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TENDER NO. CL2011 -12 HIGH FLOAT RESURFACING Resolution #GPA- 364 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report COD - 013 -11 be received; THAT Miller Paving Limited, Gormley, Ontario, with a total bid price of $1,058,084.86 (net of H.S.T. Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2011 -12, be awarded the contract for the High Float Resurfacing; THAT funds in the amount of $1,216,797.59 (net of H.S.T. Rebate) which includes $1,058,084.86 for tendering, administration, material testing and contingencies be drawn from the Operations Department 2011 Capital Budget Rural Road Resurfacing Account #110 -36- 330 - 83680 -7401; and THAT pending satisfactory pricing and service the contract be extended for a second and third year. CARRIED CL2011 -13 SUPPLY AND HAULAGE OF GRANULAR MATERIAL Resolution #GPA- 365 -11 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report COD - 014 -11 be received; THAT CDR Young's Aggregates Incorporated, Pontypool, Ontario, with a total bid in the amount of $188,784.72 (net of HST Rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2011 -13, be awarded the contract for Supply & Hauling of Granular Material, as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Operations Department; THAT funds in the amount of $200,995.92 which includes $188,784.72 for tendering, administration, material testing and contingencies be drawn from the Operations Department various 2011 Annual Operations Road Maintenance and Construction Accounts, as follows: -19- 4 -19 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION Culvert Entrance Culverts Sidewalk Mtce, Guide Rail Ditch /Shoulder Mtce Gravel Resurfacing — Various Prices Gravel Resurfacing — Consulting /Material Testing /Contingencies and General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 ACCOUNT NUMBER 100 -36- 380 - 10205 -7112 100 -36- 380 - 10225 -7112 100 -36- 380 - 10733 -7112 100 -36- 384 - 10310 -7112 100 -36- 380 - 10240 -7112 100 -36- 382 - 10280 -7112 100 -36- 382 - 10280 -7112 ESTIMATED PROJECT EXPENDITURE $3,318.00 $2,875.60 $1,106.00 $1,106.00 $1,106.00 $176,220.32 $15,264.00 $200,995.92 THAT pending satisfactory pricing and service the contract be extended for a second and third year. CARRIED PURCHASE OF PRE -BUILT PUMPER Resolution #GPA- 366 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report COD - 016 -11 be received; THAT the requirements of Section 2, Bid Policies of By -law 2010 -112 be waived for this transaction; THAT the Purchasing Manager be authorized to solicit Expressions of Interest from known fire truck manufacturers to determine the availability of a new 1250 GPM Pumper suitable for Clarington requirements; THAT the Purchasing Manager be authorized to negotiate a purchase price for a selected unit; and THAT a report to Council be provided summarizing the results of the Request for the Expressions of Interest and providing a recommendation for the purchase of the selected unit. CARRIED -20- 4 -20 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 Q2011 -9 HIGH PRESSURE AIR COMPRESSOR FOR EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES Resolution #GPA- 367 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill THAT Report COD - 017 -11 be received; THAT Acklands Grainger, Oshawa, ON with a total bid in the amount of $71,929.67 (net HST rebate), being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of Quotation #Q2011 -9, be awarded the contract for the supply and installation of a high pressure air compressor as required by the Emergency and Fire Services Department; THAT the expenditure in the amount of $70,000.00 (net of HST rebate) be charged to account #110 -28- 284 - 82805 -7401- Fire Mechanical- Compressor; and THAT the additional funds required of $1,929.67 be drawn from Fire Equipment Reserve Fund. CARRIED FINANCE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL STATEMENT .FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RESERVE FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 Resolution #GPA- 368 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report FND- 009 -11 be received; and THAT a copy of Report FND- 009 -11 be sent to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. CARRIED FINANCIAL UPDATE AS AT MARCH 31, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 369 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Report FND- 010 -11 be received for information. CARRIED SPAE 4 -21 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 ANNUAL COMMODITY HEDGING REPORT — 2010 Resolution #GPA- 370 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report FND- 011 -11 be received for information. CARRIED ANNUAL LEASING REPORT — 2010 Resolution #GPA - 371 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report FND- 012 -11 be received for information. CARRIED DEBT FINANCING Resolution #GPA- 372 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT Director of Finance be requested to prepare a report showing debt and debt financing, including a comparison to other municipalities. CARRIED SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. -22- 4 -22 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 OTHER BUSINESS AUDIO RECORDING OF MEETINGS Resolution #GPA- 373 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal WHEREAS good and meaningful governance requires transparency in the proceedings of Council; WHEREAS it is incumbent upon the representatives elected by the residents of Clarington to utilize modern technology to promote disclosure and accountability; WHEREAS many Municipalities have opted, in the public interest, to audio record Council and Committee meetings; AND WHEREAS the current absence of audio recordings of Council and Committee meetings deprives the Clarington public of a valuable resource; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Staff report back on the viability of: 1. Audio recording all Clarington Council and Committee meetings excluding closed meetings, special Council meetings and in camera sessions; 2. One copy of each audio recording to being stored in the Clerk's department to be made available to the public on request in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ( MFIPPA); 3. Public access under MFIPPA being provided by means of listening to audio recordings in the presence of a Municipal employee, approved by the Clerk's Department, during business hours; and 4. Uploading the audio recordings and webcasting to the Clarington Municipal website. CARRIED VICTOR HANC'S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY REFRESHMENT VEHICLE LICENCE Resolution #GPA- 374 -11 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Novak WHEREAS Victor Hanc has requested the issuance of a temporary refreshment vehicle licence to allow for the relocation of Hanc's Chip Truck to the parking lot of Hanc's restaurant on May 15, 2011 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Chip Truck; -23- 4 -23 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 AND WHEREAS By -law 2004 -114 which regulates the licensing of refreshment vehicles prohibits the placement of a refreshment vehicle within 60 metres of an eating establishment, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON THAT an exemption to section 13.a) of By -law 2004 -114 be granted to allow for the issuance of a temporary refreshment licence to Hanc's Fries for May 15, 2011; THAT staff be authorized to issue this temporary licence prior to final Council approval on May 16, 2011; and THAT Victor Hanc be advised of Council's decision. WITHDRAWN SUSPEND THE RULES I Resolution #GPA- 375 -11 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the Rules of Procedure be suspended. CARRIED Resolution #GPA- 376 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT, immediately following the General Purpose and Administration meeting of May 9, 2011, a Special Council Meeting be held to discuss the matter of Victor Hanc's request for a temporary refreshment vehicle license. CARRIED -24- 4 -24 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 COMMUNICATIONS CORRESPONDENCE FROM KEVIN AND DARLENE HAWES IN OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY -LAW TO PERMIT A GROCERY STORE IN THE NEWCASTLE VILLAGE CENTRE, THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING - REPORT PSD- 039 -11 Resolution #GPA- 377 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the correspondence from Kevin and Darlene Hawes in objection to the application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By -law to permit a grocery store in the Newcastle Village centre, the subject of the Public Meeting - Report PSD- 039 -11, be referred to the Director of Planning Services to be considered as part of the application review process. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE FROM NEWCASTLE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY -LAW TO PERMIT A GROCERY STORE IN THE NEWCASTLE VILLAGE CENTRE, THE SUBJECT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING - REPORT PSD- 039 -11 Resolution #GPA- 378 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Neal THAT the correspondence from the Newcastle Business Improvement Association in support of the application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By -law to permit a grocery store in the Newcastle Village centre, the subject of the Public Meeting - Report PSD- 039 -11, be referred to the Director of Planning Services to be considered as part of the application review process. CARRIED CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. -25- 4 -25 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 9, 2011 ADJOURNMENT Resolution #GPA- 379 -11 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT the meeting adjourn at 5:07 p.m. MAYOR 4 -26 CARRIED wztem DEPUTY CLERK QdfnR 7hr Wap Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 25, 2011 Minutes of a meeting of the Special General Purpose and Administration Committee . held on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. at the Newcastle & District Recreation Complex. ROLL CALL Present Were: Mayor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak, attended the meeting until 1:05 p.m. Councillor J. Neal attended the meeting at 1:16 p.m. Councillor W. Partner attended the meeting at 11:55 a.m. Councillor W. Woo Absent: Councillor C. Traill Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu Municipal Solicitor, A. Allison Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Director of Engineering Services, T. Cannella Executive Director, Clarington Board of Trade, Sheila Hall Director of Operations, F. Horvath Director of Corporate Services & Human Resources, M. Marano Manager, Development Review, C. Pellarin Director of Finance/Treasurer, N. Taylor Director of Emergency & Fire Services, G. Weir Municipal Clerk, P. Barrie Supervisor, Operations Department, C. Peters until 3:15 p.m. Parks Supervisor, Operations Department, R. Genosko until 3:15 p.m. Manager of Parks Development, P. Windolf until 3:15 p.m. Purchasing Manager, J. Barber until 3:15 p.m. Facilities Manager, G. Acorn Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement, L. Creamer Manager of Community Planning & Design, C. Salazar until 12:23 p.m. Deputy Clerk, A. Greentree until 3:30 p.m. Library Director, E. Hopkins until 12:23 p.m. Executive Assistant to the Mayor, L. Coutu Recreation Services Manager, S. Meredith Manager, Transportation & Design, L. Benson until 3:15 p.m. Deputy Treasurer, L. Gordon Manager of Infrastructure, R. Albright until 3:15 p.m. _1_ 4 -27 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 25, 2011 Mayor Foster called the meeting to order, stating that the purpose of the meeting was to continue with the work that has been commenced on the Municipality's strategic plan for the Council term 2010 -2014. Resolution #GPA- 380 -11 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report CAO- 003 -11 be received; and THAT the Draft Strategic Plan be approved, subject to any changes that may be made by the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting. CARRIED Mayor Foster turned the meeting over to Peter Spratt, ROCG, who facilitated the session. Peter Spratt provided an overview of the process to date, setting out expectations for success, discussion guidelines and the purpose of the plan, being that it will provide a road map for the future of the Municipality. Working in groups, discussion ensued as to the proposed mission for the Municipality. After joint discussion, the following Mission was agreed upon: _ "Committed to leadership, respect and the delivery of quality services." During the initial brainstorming session on March 10, 2011, the following themes emerged as priority areas: • Promoting economic development and tourism • Maintaining financial stability • Connecting Clarington • Promoting green initiatives • Investing in infrastructure • Showcasing our community • Developing waterfront and trails (now merged with Investing in infrastructure) • Growing smarter (can be achieved through the Municipality's Official Plan) Mr. Spratt assigned the first three priorities to various groups to review and discuss the goals, measures and strategies associated with the priority. Each group presented their findings, highlighting any improvements to the plan they identified. Will! 4 -28 Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes May 25, 2011 Resolution #GPA- 381 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Committee recess for lunch for 45 minutes. CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 1:10 p.m. Mr. Spratt assigned the last three priorities for review and discussion. Each group presented their findings, highlighting any identified improvements to the plan. Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer, advised that Mr. Spratt will now formulate all of the comments from today's session into a final plan which will be brought forward to the General Purpose and Administration Committee for final approval. At that time, the report will address a "roll -out" strategy for the plan. Mayor Foster thanked everyone for their input into today's session. ADJOURNMENT Resolution #GPA- 382 -11 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the meeting adjourn at 3:52 p.m. MAYOR CARRIED -3- MUNICIPAL CLERK 4 -29 DRAFT LIST OF DELEGATIONS GPA Meeting: May 30, 2011 (a) Glen Gench and Patricia Stephenson, Regarding Report PSD- 048 -11, Request for Extension of Draft Approval West Side of Rudell Road, Newcastle (b) Ted Watson, Regarding Report PSD- 051 -11, Amendments to Sign By -law 2009 -123 (c) Kelvin Whalen, Vice - President, Kaitlin Group Ltd., Regarding Report PSD- 049 -11, Former Boys Training School and Prisoner of War Camp 2020 Lambs Road, Bowmanville 6 -1 REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report #: PSD- 048 -11 File #: S -C- 2007 -0001 Subject: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DRAFT APPROVAL WEST SIDE OF RUDELL ROAD, NEWCASTLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 048 -11 be received; 2. THAT the extension for the draft approved Plan of Subdivision until August 19, 2014 be approved; 3. THAT the by -law authorizing entering into a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner of the lands and the Municipality of Clarington be approved as contained in Attachment 3 of Report PSD- 048 -11; 4. THAT a copy of Report PSD- 048 -11 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham Planning Department and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC); and 5. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 048 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: i David rome, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning Services B R/C P /df 6 May 2011 ��t Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 8 -1 REPORT NO.: PSD- 048 -11 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Patricia J. Stephenson 1.2 Proposal: To extend the lapsing date for the draft approved Plan of Subdivision until August 2014 1.3 Area: 1.84 hectares (4.55 acres) PAGE 2 1.4 Location: The lands front on the west side of Rudell Road between Given Road and Highway 35/115 in Newcastle Village (see Attachment 1) 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On August 19, 2008 Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0001 was issued draft approval. The draft approved plan includes 28 single detached units /lots and two blocks for future development (see Attachment 2). 2.2 A standard provision within the conditions of draft approval states that if final approval of the subdivision plan is not given within three years of the draft approval date, draft approval will lapse and the file shall be closed. However, reasonable extensions to draft approval may be granted by the approval authority as per Sections 51 (32) and (33) of the Planning Act. Where approval authorities provide a timeframe where an approved Draft Plan of Subdivision lapses after a period of no less than three (3) years, the approval authority may extend the approval for a time period specified by the approval authority and may further extend it; but no extension is permissible if the approval lapses before the extension is given. The approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0001 will lapse on August 19, 2011 if an extension is not granted. 2.3 On February 28, 2011, a request and fee were received for extension of draft approval for a further six (6) years. The Owner has advised that the draft plan has not proceeded to final approval and registration as she has been seeking a land developer /purchaser to purchase the property and proceed with the final engineering approvals. She noted the property has not sold due to the slow economic climate for home sales in the area which has affected the progress of the extension of municipal services to the site through the abutting development areas. The extended time period is requested as it is the owner's impression that Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0001 will not proceed to development until a significant portion of the development across the road gets built. 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS 3.1 The purpose of this report is to consider whether the conditions of draft approval should lapse on August 19, 2011 as scheduled or be reasonably extended. RM REPORT NO.: PSD- 048 -11 PAGE 3 3.2 The applicant has requested extension to the draft approval for a period of an additional six (6) years, until August 2017. Conditions of draft approval are typically approved with a three (3) year timeframe as permitted in the Planning Act, however, other than the economic climate the applicant has not provided a rationale for the longer timeframe requested. 3.3 Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0001 is part of the Foster Northeast Neighbourhood and is across Rudell Road from draft approved subdivision application 18T -89059 which is being developed by Lindvest/H &R. Lindvest will register Phase I shortly which includes portions of the lands fronting on Rudell Road. 3.4 In consideration of the progress being made on the adjacent lands, including servicing and construction of model homes, development of the subject plan of subdivision would not appear to have obvious reasons for delay. Although staff can support an extension to draft approval, six years is double the typical timeframe allotted. Staff recommends an extension of three (3) years. This will allow Council to review the application again against the policies of the day, following the completion of the Official Plan review, should the development not proceed to final approval and registration in that timeframe. 3.5 Taxes for the subject property are paid in full. 3.6 A by -law authorizing the execution of an agreement for the subject lands was not adopted when Council first considered supporting draft approval. In order to avoid a separate memo and by -law in the future when the owner wishes to pursue an agreement, staff recommends the passing of a by -law authorizing the execution of an agreement as described by the attached by -law (Attachment 3), facilitating final approval of the plan of subdivision. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION 4.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, it is recommended that draft approval be extended for a period of three (3) years, ending August 19, 2014. Furthermore, staff recommends the passing of a by -law authorizing the execution of a subdivision agreement as described by the attached By -law (Attachment 3). Staff Contact: Bob Russell Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision Attachment 3 — By -law Authorizing Subdivision Agreement List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Glenn Genge Gary & Mary Kettle Patricia Stephenson 1 c 1 4 0 X CD -0 0 �D Cn iv 0 =r o� P' m 00 � Location Map ( Newcastle ) IProperty F 'S WMTEHAMD DRIVE a� T - -- - -- - - -- R r -_ rq QQ9 C i r I !7 S ORADY DRIVE t - O ERSIGM DRMlE Z THOMAS WOODLOCRDRIVE _ IFZT ZBA 2007 -0002 J_ I ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT N, FLOODAVEM/E SC 2007 -0001 r ! Draft Plan of Subdivision Amendment ,.� Owner: Patricia Stephenson 0 X CD -0 0 �D Cn iv 0 =r o� P' m 00 � Attachment To Report PSD -048 -1 ZBA 2007 -0002 , $C 2007 -0001 8 -5 Attachment 3 To Report PSD- 048 -11 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NO: 2011- being a By -law to authorize entering into an Agreement with the Owner(s) of Plan of Subdivision S- C-2007 -0001 and any Mortgagee whom has an interest in the said lands, and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington in respect of S -C- 2007 -0001 WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington on August 19, 2008 approved Draft Plan of Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0001, located in Part Lot 31, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke; AND WHEREAS the Owner(s). of Draft Plan of Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0001 are now ready to proceed to finalizing the Subdivision Agreement; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the. Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, and seal with the Corporation's seal, an Agreement between the Owner(s) of the Plan of Subdivision S -C- 2007 -0001. 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to accept, on behalf of the Municipality, the said conveyances of lands required pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement. BY -LAW read a first time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a second time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2011 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk W. Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report #: PSD- 049 -11 File #: PLN 34.5.2.64 Subject: FORMER BOYS TRAINING SCHOOL AND PRISONER OF WAR CAMP 2020 LAMBS ROAD, BOWMANVILLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 049 -11 be received; 2. THAT The Municipality of Clarington support the application to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada for national designation for the area outlined in Attachment 1C; 3. THAT the Developer (Kaitlin) be requested to prepare a heritage assessment, in stages and over time, for the middle third of the property based on a terms of reference that will be mutually satisfactory to the Developer, Municipality and Clarington Museums and Archives; 4. THAT once the decision regarding National designation has been received and heritage assessment is in its final stages, Staff prepare a further report respecting the future options for the campus portion (middle third) of the property that has been offered to the Municipality by Kaitlin (Attachment 1 B); and 5. THAT all interested parties listed in this Report PSD- 049 -11 and any delegation be advised of Council's direction. Submitted b Y - David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services FL /DC /df 24 May 2011 Reviewed by. 0 Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 8 -7 REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The property identified as 2020 Lambs Road, Bowmanville covers over 40 hectares and is being addressed in thirds (Attachment 1A). The middle third contains a number of historic and architecturally significant buildings (Attachment 1B). In October, 2009 Council approved the retention of buildings 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, and 15 on the Municipal Register. The owner demolished buildings 1, 12, 14, 16 and 17 and the rear addition of 13 with approval from the Municipality in 2010. Buildings 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 have been left in place until such time as either a use is determined for them or the liability related to retaining them becomes unmanageable and demolition needs to be considered. 1.2 The owner submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning applications for the southern third of the property for residential development in December, 2009 which were deemed complete in April 2010. These applications are being processed and will be the matter of separate report(s) to Council in the future. A Public Meeting regarding applications COPA 2009 -0006, S- C -2009- 0003 and ZBA 2009 -0023; Report PSD- 068 -10 was held in June 2010. 1.3 The northern two- thirds of the property is within the Bowmanville Urban Area boundary but is designated "Future Urban Residential" and no privately- initiated application for this portion of the land will be considered by Council as per Policy 5.3.5 of the Official Plan. The existing use of the lands designated Future Urban Residential are allowed to continue and Council may consider other interim uses as per O.P. Policy 9.3.3; provided that such uses: ■ Are not capital intensive ■ Do not require municipal services ■ Do not adversely impact any natural heritage features ■ Do not jeopardize the orderly future development of the lands for urban uses 1.4 The Municipality has an interest in conserving and enhancing the cultural heritage resources as set out in Section 8 of the Official Plan. The middle third of the 2020 Lambs Road property were the buildings of the former Boys Training School campus, which was used as Camp 30 for Prisoners of War during the Second World War. As per the policies of Section 8 the Municipality supports the adaptive reuse of heritage structures. In fact the Municipality has been supportive of adaptive reuse of this site since the Province of Ontario sold the site in 1981. The site has operated as a series of different public and private schools. 1.5 Municipal water was extended to the site sometime in the early 1980's. In the fall of 2008, the private sewage treatment system failed, an Order issued by the Ministry of Environment with regard to sewage treatment meant that either costly repairs or replacement to the private system had to be undertaken or a sewer line from the municipal system have to be extended. This Order is what closed the last school on the site and forced its relocation. mi REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 PAGE 3 1.6 Currently the site is beyond the servicing limit for municipal sewers; however, the proposed development of the southern third would bring municipal services to the southern limit of the middle third, thereby allowing the retained buildings to be fully serviced. 1.7 Since October 2008 the buildings have been vacant. In March 2009, fires were started in the Administration building (14) and the Gymnasium /Natatorium (13). The roof and much of the interior of the Administration building was substantially damaged, the Gymnasium /Natatorium building fire was extinguished with minor damage to the building. The Administration building has since been demolished due to safety concerns. Since that time there have been minor fires in Building 8. 2.0 CURRENT PROPERTY ISSUES 2.1 In the fall of 2008, the Emergency and Fires Services Department notified the Kaitlin Group that they were to secure the buildings, and provide security and fire protection capability. The Fire Chief met with a representative of Kaitlin and made suitable arrangements to keep a water supply to the fire hydrants in the event of a fire. Water to the buildings has been shut off, as have the gas and hydro. The hydrant system on the site is charged and could be used for fire fighting. 2.2 The Municipal Law Enforcement Division issued an "Order Requiring Compliance" on December 11, 2008 relating to three areas of concern, the railings on the dam, the broken and dilapidated fencing around the property and the vacant buildings. Municipal Law Enforcement has indicated that the remedy for the vacant buildings is to have them secured. 2.3 Many of the buildings have been vandalized which has prompted liability concerns and other safety and security issues. Municipal Law Enforcement note that the buildings have seen repeated vandalism including damage to the boarded up doors and windows. Any exposed windows have been subject to ongoing breakage. Kaitlin maintenance staff have repeatedly increased the level to which they are barricading the buildings, using chain line gates fastened into the masonry and installing masonry block in some door openings. These measures have also been the victim of vandalism. 2.4 The buildings are not damaged beyond repair and the structural integrity has not been compromised to date. Additional measures have been taken to barricade entrances with steel plate doors, chain link fence panels, and large boulders placed at entrances. 2.5 Typically the best way to deter vandalism is to have a site used by the public and under the constant surveillance of neighbours, commonly referred to as `eyes on the street'. Vandals tend to not carry on their activities in full public view; however, there are issues with opening the site to public access given its location, heavy vegetation, on site hazards and liability issues. 2.6 The techniques used to secure the buildings should be altered and follow the similar practices used by the Ministry of Transportation in securing the buildings along the 407 route which appear to detour and prevent access to the interior of the buildings. Other REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 PAGE 4 anti - vandalism measures should be explored by investigating measures taken on properties with similar characteristics. 3.0 PROTECTING CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOUCES 3.1 The retention and rehabilitation of cultural heritage resources at the scale of this property is a community effort. It will require a partnership between the developer, Municipality, the assistance of upper levels of government, not - for - profit agencies and the commitment of countless individuals. 3.2 On July 13th, 2009 Council was provided with a petition containing over 800 signatures. They were informed that a Clarington branch of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) had been formed "to preserve our history and to educate the public on. the heritage of our area ". This group has been working with Kaitlin, Clarington Museums and the Planning Services Department to advance community knowledge and education of the site. In June 2010, with the cooperation of Kaitlin, the Clarington ACO hosted their first ever 'Doors Open' event with Camp 30 as the featured venue and drew over 1,200 visitors from all over the province, with more turned away at the gates, which indicated a broad level of interest in the history of the property. Clarington -ACO are working with Kaitlin to determine if a guided, ticketed tour can be provided of the site in the fall of 2011. 3.3 Early in 2009 the Municipality contacted the Provincial and Federal agencies charged with protecting cultural heritage resources and requested they become involved. While the provincial and federal agencies were supportive of heritage retention, it will take time and additional effort to have them appreciate the unique story and opportunities associated with the site. The Provincial and /or Federal agencies are not willing to lead the effort without the involvement of the Municipality. The Province has the strongest legislation with regard to heritage resource protection but are generally unwilling to exercise their authority; national designation does not have legislative authority attached to it to deter demolition. 3.4 The Provincial Minister of Culture has the ability to protect the site but appears reluctant to use her power and name the site a Provincial heritage site, this designation would afford the site the most protection. The Minister of Culture has recommended municipal designation (Attachment 2). Since that time a new Minister of Culture has been named and will have to be briefed on the file. The only buildings that Staff believe should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act are the triple dorm (2), hospital (4) and cafeteria (5). However, at this time Staff believe it is better to wait until the future of the site and other buildings is better understood. Designation as a heritage district, under Part V of the Act may better suit the long term use of the property. 3.5 An example of a similar type of campus that attempted to preserve the buildings and repurpose them is the former Whitby Psych Property, now Ontario Shores. When the hospital was decommissioned there were 22 buildings on site that in the opinion of the Province and Town of Whitby would have been eligible for designation. Through the process that was undertaken by the Province to dispose of the surplus lands and buildings on the site (including the 22 buildings that were worthy of heritage 8 -10 REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 PAGE 5 designation) only one building remains today. There are numerous parallels with regard to the vandalism, isolation from neighbours, lack of Provincial interest, involvement of a private developer, community desire to retain the buildings and time required to bring servicing to the site and thus, bring the buildings back into operation that are instructive for the Camp 30 situation. 3.6 Communication with the Ontario Ministry of Culture (Attachment 3A) and federal Ministry of Environment (Parks Canada and Heritage Properties) (Attachment 313) has led to a better understanding of the role these agencies are likely to play in any potential preservation and whether funding will be available. A number of grant programs exist and can be explored. 3.7 Based on the letter received from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (Attachment 4), Kaitlin have authorized the Municipality through the Clarington Museums and Archives to prepare the necessary documentation to seek national designation of the site for the area outlined on Attachment 1 C. While national designation is a great honour it does not place restrictions on the land owner. All sites are commemorated through the installation of a bronze plaque. Parks Canada may also provide financial assistance to owners such as incorporated not - for - profit organizations, other levels of government and aboriginal organizations. A recipient can receive up to a maximum of $1,000,000 annually as long as it is 50% of eligible costs incurred in the conservation and presentation of a national historic site. 3.8 Support of the application to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada by the Municipality is key to obtaining national designation. While national designation is not guaranteed, Camp 30 is the last remaining intact German POW Camp in Canada as such chances are extremely good; particularly since this history is augmented with the role the site has played provincially and locally. We are very confident that designation will be granted. Support by the Municipality for national designation does not commit the Municipality to financial support for the redevelopment of the site and the repurposing of the buildings (Attachment 5). 4.0 THE CONCEPT FOR THE MIDDLE THIRD 4.1 The concept for the future of the 2020 Lambs Road property that is being pursued breaks the property into thirds. The southern and northern thirds would be developed with a mix of housing. Kaitlin has offered the middle third of the property (approximately 18 + acres, Attachment 1 B) to the Municipality as district and /or community parkland with reuse of key buildings for community use and by other agencies. This concept was presented to Council in October of 2009 by Kaitlin (Attachment 6). 4.2 The concept set out by Kaitlin foresaw the middle third becoming a community park with a number of the buildings being retained for various uses. The middle third would be linked to the northern and southern thirds and connect further south along a trail system that would run through the valley lands of the Soper Creek. The concept for the residential lands in the north and south thirds is to build on the heritage of the property and its integration with the campus lands. Kaitlin wishes to retain building 15, the Jury 8 -11 REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 PAGE 6 House as part of the amenity facilities for the community similar to the Admiral's Walk in Port of Newcastle. 4.3 Council has taken no formal decision on whether to accept the offer of the land and buildings. Regardless of whether Council determines to accept this offer (Attachment 7) or not, the lands that are within the floodplain (some 36 acres) see Attachment 1A, would be turned over to the Municipality as part of the subdivision approvals. 4.4 During the fall of 2009, the developer and Staff worked with a final year studio class at Ryerson University to explore alternatives for the long term use of the site. In addition, a one -day summit with individuals interested in the revitalization of this site and economic development was held in partnership with the Clarington Board of Trade to help stimulate interest and ideas for the reuse of the buildings and site. The Ryerson students participated in the one -day summit. 4.5 The Ryerson students presented their findings to Council in January 2010. Upon graduation, the students received the Ted Tyndorf Award for the outstanding 4th year studio project. Many of the students involved in the studio project have continued to be involved with the Clarington Branch of the ACO, including participating in the Doors Open where they displayed their audio - visual model of the site and discussed the concepts presented in their study with visitors to the site. 4.6 At this point in time, drafting a more fulsome development concept and implementation strategy without positive feedback on national designation and funding from other levels of government would be premature. If other levels of government show an interest in retaining the historical and heritage aspects of the site, then a plan can be developed in concert with them that would see the buildings being reused for commercial, small -scale employment based industrial, institutional and residential development. 4.7 If the site were to be turned over to the Municipality or a not for profit agency, the designation of the site in the Official Plan and zoning could be sufficiently broadened to allow for uses that would encourage the reuse of the existing buildings rather than limiting them. Providing flexible and broad land use designations would be part of the contribution from the Municipality to the retention of the buildings and site in its current form as a campus. Designating the former campus portion of the site as a Special Policy Area in the Official Plan would allow for the greatest variety of uses to be considered. 4.8 The repurposing of these buildings should not be limited by the presumption that they will be accessible to the general public, for community use and /or as a museum. Rather the buildings and site could be a mix of uses; the buildings being repurposed with private entities and the site being more of a semi - public space continuing in the campus atmosphere. 4.9 Typically when a cultural heritage resource is being considered as part of a development a heritage assessment is prepared by a consultant to provide a baseline of information and recommendations for the cultural heritage resource. Preparation of heritage assessments will be included in the Official Plan as a requirement as part of 8 -12 REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 PAGE 7 the Bill 51, OPA #77. All such sites will in the future be required to prepare such a document. 4.10 In this case we are recommending that Kaitlin work with the Municipality and Clarington Museums and Archives to have a heritage assessment focusing on the cultural heritage landscape of the campus prepared in stages to coincide with the timeframe of the national designation and the municipal servicing of the site. This would allow for an inventory of the buildings, determination of the work that is needed to repurpose them, economic and tourism potential, and a potential mix of tenants for the buildings. In addition this assessment should include funding sources and options for how additional buildings and uses can be integrated into the site to make it financially viable. This assessment would be a vital communications piece for distribution to the numerous military and community groups that are interested in assisting with the overall repurposing of Camp 30. The Ministry of Culture Staff will be providing a terms of reference for similar studies that can be used to outline the study. In addition, there may be the opportunity to have other not - for - profit agencies that are focused on heritage landscapes assist in the preparation of the document. 4.11 Similar case studies for the repurposing of historic sites have been undertaken, Parks Canada in collaboration with the provincial and territorial governments prepared Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. In all cases the first step is to select an appropriate and sustainable use. The Municipality in combination with the owner and interested agencies has the opportunity of determining the future of this site; however it is important to find the right fit between the use and the historic place to ensure the use will last and provide a stable context for conservation. Therefore, the national or provincial interest in the site must be determined. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 This property is of national, provincial and local significance. The Federal and Provincial governments have been kept informed of the Municipality's efforts and recommendations. Municipal support for national designation from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is integral to the application and recommended as a first step. 5.2 National designation would open up funding sources through grant programs and assist with having the Provincial Government recognize the site. Once national designation has been granted a fulsome development concept and implementation strategy to repurpose the property and examine the refurbishment of specific buildings could be developed. 5.3 When the site receives national designation the offer of Kaitlin to turn the buildings and 18+ acres of the site over to the Municipality should be addressed. If however the application to the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is unsuccessful then the Municipality should determine, in partnership with Kaitlin, how the site could be developed and be self- sustaining while still allowing for public access to the middle third. 8 -13 REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 PAG E 8 5.4 Given the history of other sites where buildings have been vacant for a period of time and vandalism has been a major factor it would be reasonable for the Municipality, Kaitlin and the community to agree to next steps if federal designation is not received. 5.5 While the Municipality does not wish to be saddled with the financial burden of being responsible for the refurbishment of the buildings, they are supportive of the repurposing of the buildings within a campus setting that would see the buildings and site as viable entities. The Municipality can contribute appropriate land use designations to allow for flexible and creative zoning on the site to bring the buildings back into use. 5.6 Kaitlin see the buildings and campus site (18+ acres) as an integral part of their overall development of a community that would have a historic campus at its centre. Their concept calls for the repurposing of the buildings and making the site accessible to the community beyond just the residents in the immediate area. 5.7 Staff will continue to work with Kaitlin to monitor the protection and securing of the buildings. Kaitlin has requested the Clarington Museum and Archives and Planning Services Staff assist with the preparation of documentation for national designation. National designation does not afford protection to the buildings rather it commemorates the site and its history. It does bring with it the ability to access funds for refurbishment. 5.8 This report and the Municipality's support of the national designation request are the first step towards the repurposing of Camp 30 as a cultural heritage landscape for the community. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid Attachments: Attachment 1A Attachment 1 B Attachment 1 C Attachment 2 Attachment 3A Attachment 3B Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 - Site Map of 2020 Lambs Road, divided into thirds and showing floodline - Middle Third including building status (Municipal Register, Demolished) and boundary of campus lands offered to Municipality from Developer - Area submitted for national designation - Heritage Designation Process - Letter from Provincial Government - Letters from Federal Government - Kaitlin letter regarding national designation - National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program - Kaitlin's Concept - Kaitlin's Offer to Donate the land to the Municipality List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Barbara Karthein Nicolette Lafave Eric Walters Carleen Attersley 8 -14 Steve Gusterson Cheryl Tibbetts Capt. R. C. McGuire Cheryl Marek REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 Nancy Hamer Strahl Joan Rene Barbara Kerr Quenten Majoor Mark Birdsall Barry Majoor R & T Ali John Armstrong Peter and Wendy Mooney Grant Humes Rita Edgell Clark Morawetz Rose McGuire Marilyn Morawetz Raymond Smith Kim Frattura Sgt. Brett Devries Ron Titley Margaret Clayton Thomas Royle Kristina Thomas Sandra Stainton Sara Weales E. Stuff Catherine Starr Gail Preston Joanne Laton Jenna & Suzanne Fallis John C. Schneider Robert & Christel Schwirtz Richard Vandyk Petra Schwirtz Teresa Miceli Garth Gilpin Nancy M.A. Leask Paul Cormack Melanie Gaudet Philip Ford Lauri Richards John W. Royle Roy Richards Mathew Ferguson Dave Watt Paul Cairns Teresa Miceli Joan Kellett Terry Myles Mathew P. Ferguson Stephen Burns Hugh Laing Dennis Brooklebank Donna Hilditch Ann Beley- Corrigan Gail Guthrie Aaron Wickens Terry Price Nicole Belej- Corrigan Nancy Milner Peter Jim Shosenberg David Lockwood Martina Kirkwood Charlynne Jourard Gabbie Kirkwood Steffi Nathan Jim & Corry Kamstra Gary Nathan Hewitts' Kim Gleason Lynda Armstrong Jim Corrigan Jack Gordon Joan & Blain Moffat Barry Russell Cecil & Betty Morrison Mary Tillcock Bernice Puk Tina & Maurice Bachand Connie Puk Rolf Piro Ron Alldred Harold Parnham Stephen Brickell Despina Chymeftos Peter Brickell Danna Levinson Margaret Ford Andrew A. Horton Randy McDougall Trevor Hutchinson Jason Moore Alexander Filip Josic PAGE 9 8 -15 REPORT NO.: PSD- 049 -11 Heinz Nitschke Bobbi -Jo Penny Clarington Museums and Archives Ministry of Culture Ontario Heritage Trust CHC Lynn Phillip Hodgson Bev Oda, MPP John O'Toole, MP 8 -16 PAGE 10 00 I 0U) CD� 3 6 D� .MAWR :. 11= u �nnnnnn 1 `•nnuut� _ � uuq _10 = 11►c% J I IIU. ,, r 11'lllll.l II'llllll .I ME / iiiiiliiiliiiiii��: � � —_ _ � �� �� �� �� ♦- ♦� ♦• �• ♦•.• ♦• � G �� �♦�. ♦•.♦ �♦ ♦•♦♦•. ♦•.♦ �• ♦ ♦ ♦• ♦•. ♦•. ♦• _� ♦ ♦� - __ •• ♦�� ♦ :� �••• ♦�• ♦�••••• •• ♦♦ ♦♦ •�.•.� 1111111111111111111111 - �. 11111"1 II'111111 .,. � ♦•� >�• ♦�� ♦•�♦ • • . ♦•��, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII /�� �R _ ♦•.•.• ♦•.♦ ♦.�.�. ♦. C / iiliiiiiii� 1�• ♦• ♦• ♦ MINIMUM!! � �• :• � ♦• ♦�l�•�♦ �•i ♦�. �•♦ ♦� ♦ ♦�. ♦.� ♦� ♦ ♦.�� �IIIIIIIIIIIIII // ♦•••'••�•�••• IIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllll— Ilnnummnm � / illllllnllllll ►• ,II, ° L, =11111 ♦��• ♦• ♦• ♦• ♦••� ►��..t, ♦..�.. ♦.. ♦ ♦..�.�� .•• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � -', — IIIIIIIIIIII �— �••••••••••••••••••....... � �_ � ••••••• •..•..•..•..•..•..•..•..•..•..� •..•..•..•.��..•..•..•..•..•..• ,_111111 = ;,,111'= 1111111111? III ����- 111nllr; __ �•..•.. allllllllllll �_ _ �• ��• .••:•. ♦•:••:••:••:••:•.••.�••:• IIIIIIIIIIIiII _,�� ���iiiiil�' 111111 Ipll� \IIIIInllllll1111- 111111 IN�I;;;;;;,;;.�ID =, �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� � � �� = �Ill�lri`r �:r IIIIIIIIIIIIilllll ►,= . � • �_ ==_ _IIIIIIIIIIIII� �__ _ S �IIIIIIIIIIIII, �_ . - _ .. • � 11 „III, 11 111 -"'�I�1IIIIIIIIIIIIII unlllllllllllllllllllllll= = = 111111 IIIIIIIIt� � _��� \rill O = 1111111111 / / /I /i�P � _ _Illlllrpi ,� - - .•••.:•Q Q, ° _- , ,N ••. aipl ry • �, ' � !IIIIIIIIIC iIi1111I110 tl111111111i1i11 Illllllllt� 1 1111111111 1 .111.. . IIIIIIIIII Jim IIIIIIIIIill — / = _ _ - UNION . . 111111= �►����� ....... . �' 11111111111 ///. . `'�����1IIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ ��nni1111111= IIIII_r 1111!!11�� .;� 0U) CD� 3 6 D� 00 I 00 Flood Plain 36.42 Acres All 18 E3 i I 1 1 Pei / / �1 15 12 VS 14 O 13 03 � I I i I I O I t CONCESSION STREET F rO W C Kaitlin has offered to MOC Lands 19.23 Acres �4� roperty Location Map (Bowmanville Subject Site * Municipal Register X Demolished 2010 — — Flood Plain PLN 34.5.2.64 2020 Lambs Road Owner: Lambs School Property Limited D v � 0 W =r 0 3 0 co CD I n■ 00 I r Co i Property Location Map (Bowmanville) IV / 11 I [,i 115 12 1 �;J � 10 � 9 C3 Subject C91 L Site ILI' 13 � * Suggested boundary for s 16 0 national designation Flood Plain 19.34 Acres 36.42 Acres 17 �1 0 o: W ME 1 I * Municipal Register / X Demolished 2010 — — Flood Plain 1 O I ' PLN 34.5.2.64 2020 Lambs Road s CONCESSION STREET EAST Owner: Lambs School Property Limited t I--- v � 70 D �P CO 7 Attachment To Report PSD- 049 -1: Heritage Designation Process In accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, initiation of the designation process begins with Council authorizing the Clerk to give Notice of intention. Council is to consult with the CHC before giving the Notice prescribed. The Notice is to be served on the owner and is to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality and is to include a statement that notice of objection to the designation may be served on the Clerk within 30 days after the date of publication. If there is no objection council can pass a by -law designating the property. Objections to the designation are to be referred to the Conservation Review Board for a hearing. The Conservation Review Board will hold a hearing and within 30 days of the conclusion of the hearing will report to Council with its recommendations. Upon considering the report Council can pass a by -law designating the property. A copy of the by -law, together with a statement explaining the cultural heritage value or interest of the property and a description of the heritage attributes of the property is served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust , is registered on the title of the property, and the notice of the by -law is published in the local newspaper. Should Council not wish to proceed with .designation the Notice of intention to designate is withdrawn and a notice of withdrawal is served on the property owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and is published in the local newspaper. The decision of Council is final with regards to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Province has other measures and powers to pursue designation. If a Notice of Intention to designate is given under the Ontario Heritage Act'any permit that allowed for the alteration or demolition of the buildings on the property would be void as of the day the Notice of Intention is given and the property is treated as if it is designated. Owners of designated properties cannot demolish or remove buildings from a property unless they apply to Council and receive consent in writing. Council has 90 days to review the application. This period can be extended upon agreement between the owner and Council. Council is to consult with the heritage committee and may consent to the application, consent subject to terms and conditions, or refuse the application. Notice of Council's decision is served on the owner and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and is published in the local newspaper. If Council refuses the application to demolish or remove a building, or approves the application subject to terms and conditions, the property owner can appeal Council's decision within 30 days of receiving notification. Appeals filed with the Municipal Clerk and the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB will hold a hearing and may order that the appeal be dismissed,. or that the Municipality consent to the demolition without terms and conditions, or with the terms and conditions set by the OMB. The decision of the Ontario Municipal Board is final. ,rinistry of Culture Minister 5"' Floor, Mowat Block 900 Bay Street Toronto ON M7A 1 L2 Tel: (416) 325 -1660 Fax: (416) 325 -1726 MAR 2 5 mg Mlnistere de la Culture Ministee 5° etage, edifice Mowat 900, rue Bay Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1 L2 Tel: .(416) 325 -1660 Telec: (416) 325 -1726 His Worship Jim Abernethy Mayor of Clarington . 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L 1 C 3A6 Dear Mayor Abernethy: Attachment To Report PSD -049 M Ontario 1090MC- 2009 -109 Thank you for your letter regarding the Prisoners of War Camp 30 in Bowmanville and for enclosing various background materials. I applaud you and your Council for taking the first steps to use the powers under the Ontario Heritage Act to recognise and protect local cultural heritage. I encourage your municipality to further use the powers provided under the Act that will protect the site from demolition or alteration. As Camp 30 was established by the .wartime Government of Canada, I suggest that you share your comments regarding the importance of thig site with the federal government. Should you wish to contact them, you can write to the Honourable James Moore, Minister of. Canadian Heritage, at: House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A OA6. Ministry of Culture staff are in contact with Clarington municipal staff and the municipal heritage committee regarding. Camp 30. 1 understand that Ministry staff recently provided focused training in your municipality on the municipal heritage conservation tools available under the Ontario Heritage Act. I trust that Ministry staff will continue to liaise with the Municipality of Clarington following the training session about conservation tools. Should you or your staff wish to discuss this matter further, please contact Mr. Bert Duclos, Heritage Outreach Consultant with responsibility for advising municipal heritage committees, at (416) 314 -7154, or by e-mail, at bert.duclos #ontario.ca. Thank you again for writing to me about this matter, and for your interest in preserving Ontario's heritage. Yours truly, Aileen -arroll Minister. c: John O'Toole, MPP Durham 8 -21 Mr. Bert Duclos, Heritaqe Outreach Consultant ?:stin R:;, Minister of the Environment' ' Ministre de I'Environnemeni The Honourable L'honorable APR 14 2009 Jim Prentice Ottawa, Canada K1 OH3 His Worship Mayor Jim Abernethy Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville ON L1 C 3A6 Dear Mayor Abernethy: Attachment 313 To Report PSD- 049 -11 y APR 11 2009 Al, YOR'S OFFICE___ Thank you for your letter of February 26, requesting protection and designation of Camp 30 in Bowmanville as a site of national historic significance. The Minister of the Environment designates places, people and events of national historic significance on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC), the advisory body on historical matters. The Board evaluates the significance of a nominated subject by considering whether it has had a national impact on Canadian history or represents a national example or illustration of Canadian human history. When a place, person or event is declared to be of national historic significance, Parks Canada, which supports the Board in the conduct of its business, carries out the Government's direction with respect to designation, for which the standard form of commemoration is the installation of a bronze plaque. While Camp 30 may be of interest to the HSMBC, the Board will require the permission of the site owner before it may proceed with an evaluation of the property. Please note that designation as a national historic site does not constitute protection, as these matters are the responsibility of the provinces and territories under their respective heritage legislation. If you have not already done so, you might wish to contact the Minister of Culture of Ontario, the Honourable M. Aileen Carroll, by mail at 4th Floor, Mowat Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto ON M7A 1 L2, or by telephone at (416) 212 -0644. The activities and mandate of the Board, as well as how to proceed with a submission for designation, are described on the Parks Canada Web site at www.pc.gc.ca /clmhc -hsmbc /index E.asp. If, upon review of this documentation, you .., believe that Camp 30 merits consideration by the Board, you or the owner may Canada 8 -22 .../2 -2- submit an application, including the owner's consent, to Ms. Julie Dompierre, Executive Secretary of the Board, at the address provided on the Web site. The material sent with your letter is kept on file at the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada's Secretariat to supplement a future request for designation, or be returned to you on request. Your interest in preserving Canada's heritage is appreciated. Sincerely, T oura le Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P. c.c.: The Honourable Bev Oda, P.C., M.P. The Honourable James Moore, P.C., M.P. The Honourable Peter MacKay, P.C., Q.C., M.P. 8 -23 X lo9JUN15 Pt-1 1:11:1$ Minister of the Environment Ministre de I'Environnement The Honourable L'honorable Jim Prentice Ottawa, Canada K1 OH3 JUN 1 12009 Ms. Patti L. Barrie Municipal Clerk Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville ON L1 C 3A6 Dear Ms. Barrie: JUN ' 7 2009 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT Thank you for your letter of April 8, regarding the preservation of Prisoner of War Camp 30. The Ontario Heritage Act enables your municipality to designate properties of cultural heritage value or interest, bringing awareness of the property's heritage value to a community but also helping to ensure the conservation of these important places for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. I would therefore encourage the Municipality of Clarington to continue to engage stakeholders in discussions on measures to ensure the preservation of Camp 30. Should the property owners show an interest in having the property evaluated as a possible national historic site, they may wish to be made aware of the activities and mandate of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, as well as how to proceed with a submission for designation. These are described on the Parks Canada Web site at www.pc .gc.ca /cimhc - hsmbc /index_E.asp. If, upon review of this documentation, they believe that Camp 30 merits consideration by the Board, they may submit an application, including the owner's consent, to Ms. Julie Dompierre, Executive Secretary of the Board, at the address provided on the Web site. Thank you for your interest in preserving Canada's heritage Since 8 -24 e Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P. Cmaaa ' MST-1 REVIEWD By ORkiWL TO. .O cow" o?fILE DIRECTION ftTft TNt 1 co" Tw. 3 O MAYOR O 1*MKRS {� OF COUNCIL r • COMI ATY O CORPORATE MRVICES SERVICES SBM • ENGMIEERNG O MUNICIPAL C.I OFERATO RRMS CLERKS PKNG O SOLICITOR a TREASUA O OTHER MIJ LPAL CLERK'S FILE JUN.19.2009 10:14AM CANADIAN HERITAGE Historic Sites and Commission des lieux at Monuments Bpard monuments histuriques of Canada du Canada 25 Fddy Street, 60 floor (25 -5 -0) Gatineau, Quebec K1 OM5 June 10, 2009 Kaitlin Group Attention: Bill Daniells 28 Sarldiford Drive Suite 201 Stouffville, ON L4A 1L8 Dear Mr. Daniells: 25, rue Eddy, 50 Otage (25.5 -0) Gatineau (Quebec) K1 f10M5 Attachment 4 To Report PSD- 049 -11 I was asked to relay information on the designation of National Historic Sites. Please find below a summary of our commemoration program and its implications. The Minister of the Environment designates places, people and events of national historic significance on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC), the advisory body on historical matters. The Board evaluates the significance of a nominated subject by considering whether it has had a national impact on Canadian history or represents a national example or illustration of Canadian human history. When a place, person tar event is declared to be of national historic significance, Parks Canada Agency, which Supports the Board in the conduct of its business, carries out the Government's direction with respect to designation, for which the standard form of commemoration is the installation of a bronze plaque, Parks Canada may also provide financial assistance to owners of National Historic Sites, The National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program is a contribution program whereby up to 50% of eligible costs incurred in the conservation and presentation of a national historic site, are paid to the site owner in the form of reimbursements. A recipient can receive up to a maximum of $1,000,000, Eligible recipients are incorporated not - for -profit organizations, other levels of government, and aboriginal organizations. It is important to note that the designation of a national historic site does not place any restrictions on the land owner, as the Historic Sites and Monuments Act does not carry that authority. While the HSMBC hopes that the historic values of a National Historic Site of Canada will be protected and that the site will be managed in accordance with sound cultural resource management principles, the protection of national historic sites, other than those owned by Parks Canada, is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments, because they hold jurisdiction over private property- '11#1 8 -25 JUN-19.2009 10:15AM CANRDIAN HERITAGE N0.366 P.1 /1 I have.included some reference material (Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places and Cultural Resources Management Policy) that could be useful in the management of a national historic site. I trust that this information is satisfactory, however, should you have any additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me either by mail or by telephone at (819) 994 -1808. Please accept my best wishes. Enclosures I Sincerely, Julie Dqmpierre Executive Secretary Parks Canada - National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program Attachment 5 To Report PSD- 049 -11 F& & I Parks Panes Canada Canada Home > National Historic Sites > National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program Parks Canada is pleased to announce the launch of the NEW National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program. Parks Canada recognizes the need to support, maintain and improve the health and wholeness (the commemorative integrity) of national historic sites of Canada. This role is an integral part of our mandate, which includes protecting and presenting nationally significant examples of Canada's cultural heritage. The National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program is a contribution program whereby up to 50% of eligible costs incurred in the conservation and presentation of a national historic site, are paid to the site owner in the form of reimbursements. A recipient can receive up to a maximum of $1,000,000. Eligible recipients are incorporated not - for - profit organizations, other levels of government, and aboriginal organizations. Projects eligible for funding include those intended to develop technical and planning documents agreed by Parks Canada as necessary to ensure the site's commemorative integrity, and conservation projects to preserve, rehabilitate and /or restore components of a national historic site in order to ensure its commemorative integrity. Conservation projects may also include the development and implementation of presentation projects that focus on communicating to the public the reasons for designation as a national historic site. Applications for financial assistance will be assessed according to established criteria. Please note that funding is limited. The application deadline for fiscal year 2009 -2010 is April 24, 2009, with subsequent twice - yearly application deadlines to be announced. For further information, please contact the Program Office for the National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program: Planning and Programs Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada 25 Eddy Street (25 -5 -Q), Gatineau, Quebec, K1A OM5 Phone: 1- 866 - 377 -1947 Fax: 819 - 953 -4909 Email: partagedesfrais.costsharing @pc.gc.ca Previous Page Date Modified: 2009 -03 -03 Table of Contents Next Page 8 -27 http: / /www.pe.gc.ca/ progs /lhn- nhs /ppf- csp /index_e.asp 4/3/2009 Parks Canada - 2.0 Who is Eligible? ' Paft Pants Dada Canada mada Home > National Historic Sites >. National Historic Sites Cost - Sharing Program > 2.0 Who is Eligible? National Historic Sites of Canada Cost - Sharing Program 2.0 Who is Eligible? Previous Page Table of Contents 2.1 Applicants must be either: Next Page Owners or lessees (as defined below) of national historic sites of Canada, or parts of a national historic site, or contributing propertiesz within a national historic site which are: • incorporated not - for - profit organizations; • provincial, territorial, regional or municipal governments, Incorporated not - for - profit organizations acting on the authority and behalf of an eligible owner or lessee. Not - for - profit aboriginal organizations with a formalized stewardship responsibility directly related to all or part of a national historic site managed by a related Aboriginal organization. Note: A lessee must have at least 10 years remaining on the lease as of the date of the application to the Program to be eligible. 2.2 Project Categories Category Title Description Preparatory Projects to develop technical and planning documents necessary to 1 Assistance ensure the site's commemorative integrity. Eligible costs will be Projects reimbursed up to the lesser of $25,000 or 50 %. A. Projects to conserve, rehabilitate and /or restore components of a national historic site, in order to ensure its commemorative integrity. B. The conservation project may also include developing and ' 2 Conservation implementing Presentation Projects that communicate the reasons Projects for designation as a national historic site to the public. Eligible costs for presentation projects will be reimbursed up to the lesser of $25,000 or 50 %. Total eligible costs for Category 2 will be reimbursed up to the lesser of $1,000,000 or 50 %. Receipt of funding for projects under Category 1 does not guarantee funding for projects under Category 2. Each application will be assessed on individual merit. Eligible expenses include direct project expenditures that are itemized and costed in the project proposal and funding application. These may include: • Cost of construction materials, goods and related shipping or transportation; • Actual cost of services for time spent on the project, such as salaries and benefits, specific 8 -28 http: / /www.pc.gc.ca/ progs /lhn- nhs /ppf- csp /page02_e.asp 4/3/2009 Parks Canada - 2.0 Who is Eligible? labour rates or per diem fees for subcontractors not exceeding market rates, or actual project disbursements; Cost of equipment and related installation or maintenance; • Other actual or reasonable expenses or budgeted amounts of expenditures; • Applicable taxes (federal, provincial, territorial) on materials, labour and other services that qualify as eligible costs that the funding recipient shall pay, less any credits or reimbursements to which the recipient may be entitled. 2.3 Eligible Expenses and Activities Eligible project expenses include only the minimum necessary costs to fulfill the project objectives, as agreed to by the Parks Canada Agency. Specific costs are limited by the application of various standards and techniques, including Treasury Board travel regulations where appropriate; limitations on salary rates or consultant costs charged; negotiated costs where warranted, etc. For Category 1: Preparatory Assistance Projects, eligible expenses include: Professional and technical services needed to complete documents required by Parks Canada to aid in its assessment of a conservation and /or presentation project proposal. This might include: preparing a Commemorative Integrity Statement (CIS), architectural and engineering services, technical drawings or photography, historical research, archaeological research /investigation, environmental assessment, fire safety plans, and interpretive plans. Note: Reports or documentation prepared in support of a subsequent Conservation Proposal must be included as an appendix to that proposal. For Category 2 A: Conservation Projects, eligible expenses include: Materials and labour directly related to the conservation of the national historic site and its cultural resources. The conservation work must lead directly to the protection of a cultural resource or character - defining element, including the reduction of threat and /or level of impairment.A This work may involve preservation measures to protect, shelter, reinforce and stabilize cultural resources, or more invasive conservation measures involving limited restoration of deteriorated parts, or replacement of missing or deteriorated parts, including fittings, machinery, landscape elements, or other components that Parks Canada agrees are integral to the commemorative integrity of the national historic site. • Environmental assessment required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Eligible costs are limited to the specific assessment activities needed to support the implementation of the approved conservation project. • Acquisition of part of the designated place, as defined in the certified CIS. Related costs are eligible when Parks Canada determines that acquisition is essential to ensuring the site's commemorative integrity and when the applicant is an eligible recipient at the time of application.A Eligible costs include those related to purchase, such as historical research, title searches, property inspections and appraisals, legal surveys, and legal fees. • Fire detection and suppression systems where Parks Canada agrees that these are the most appropriate means of safeguarding the national historic site or its cultural resources from catastrophic fire loss. • Maintenance and inspection plans and manuals to ensure the long -term viability of 8 -29 http:// www. pc. gc. ca/ progs /lhn- nhs /ppf- csp /page02_e.asp 4/3/2009 Parks Canada - 2.0 Who is Eligible? conservation work or to ensure the site's commemorative integrity over the longer term. Category 2 B: Presentation Components of Conservation Projects, eligible expenses include: • Professional services, such as research, planning, design and project management to support presentation activities for the national historic site. • Development, design, production and installation of on -site presentation media, including brochures, panels, models, audio - visual productions, interactive CDs, and publications, which help communicate the reasons for designation. • Development, design and production of new presentation programs, including costumes and scripts, which help communicate the reasons for site designation.A • Development, design and production of outreach education projects that communicate the reasons for designation, including educational school kits, curriculum materials, additions to information on existing Internet Web sites, and video or CD ROM presentations. • Replication of historic objects or the acquisition of moveable resources to support presentation projects and programs where it is demonstrated that these are the most effective means of communicating the reasons for designation. • Translation of presentation materials into one of the official languages of Canada. Translation of the reasons for designation into a third language when appropriate to the needs of a site's audience(s) to ensure the commemorative integrity of the national historic site. 2.4 Ineligible Expenses Ineligible expenses include costs for any work incurred that is inconsistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, or with Parks Canada's Cultural Resource Management Policy (see Annex E), and that is not identified as necessary by Parks Canada to ensure the site's commemorative integrity. The following costs are not eligible project expenses: • Acquisition of property located outside of the designated place; • Acquisition of movable resources not directly related to presentation projects and programs; • New construction, including modern additions to historic structures; • Demolition not related to the preservation of commemorative integrity; • Services and facilities related to visitor use, such as roads, parking lots, interpretive centres, washrooms, etc.; • Period reconstruction or replication of whole structures or complexes; • On -going expenditures for maintenance or operation of the historic site, including salaries of staff and /or administrators; and • Creation of Web sites. 2.5 Documents Required The Statement of Significance (see Annex D: Definitions) for a site is required when applying for funding. The Canadian Register of Historic Places (www.historicplaces.ca) lists this Statement on its registry. Please verify that your site is listed on this registry. If the property is not listed, please contact the Program Office, before preparing your application (see Section 8.0 Contact Information). 8 -30 http: / /www.pc.ge.ca/ progs /lhn- nhs /ppf- csp /page02_e.asp 4/3/2009 Attachment To Report PSD- 049 -1: 7 905 642 -7050 28 Sandiford Drive, Suite 201 F 905 642 -8820 Stauffville. ON L4A 1 L8 E infoCkaitlingroup.com www.kaitlingroup.corn INIKAITLIN GROUP May 24, 2011 Mayor Adrian Foster and Council The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Re: Application for National Designation 2020 :Lambs Road Former Boys Training School and Former `Camp 30' Property Members of Council are well aware of the colouful history of this property and the keen interest in preserving its heritage. Since the last tenants vacated the property in October 2008, the buildings have been subject to incessant trespass, vandalism, and at least one significant fire. This has caused concern for both the Municipality and ourselves for the safety and well being of those illegally entering the property, and as well for the damage being inflicted upon the buildings themselves. Council has listed a number of the buildings on the Municipal Register for heritage purposes, and allowed the demolition of others for which there was no heritage interest or conditions were beyond repair. The challenge had been put to us to find a way to firstly relent on the demolition of further buildings, and to identify ways in which they could be salvaged and further deployed in a way that could be successfully integrated into some form of development scenario. At the GPA meeting of October 19, 2009, a presentation was made outlining our concept for development of the full property of some 43 Ha ( 106 acres). This concept outlined three pockets of residential development at the southern, northern, and northern middle portions of the property but indicated that the majority of the middle portion containing the buildings and former campus would be created as a municipal park. The park area, when combined with the Open Space areas of the Soper Creek Valley and its various tributaries, would result in the Municipality coming into ownership of approximately 65 of the 106 acres of the overall property, in conjunction with the development of the abutting lands. With this assembly, opportunity would be created for the formation of a seamless band of recreational greenspace. Trail systems and pedestrian connections could be made throughout the site and west, north, and south to linkages along the Soper Creek Valley. /2 8 -32 FACKAITLIN GROUP' -2- By bringing the buildings within this land dedication into public ownership, there is a unique opportunity, over time, to cater to and attract a diverse group of residents, and at the same time retain the history and potential of the property. To date, the Municipality has not formally responded to this offer. It is our understanding that the Municipality would prefer to know the results of the National Designation process. We have previously indicated that based upon the letter received from Julie Dompierre, Executive Secretary of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, that we are prepared to submit the application and have requested the Municipality to assist in its preparation. It is our further understanding that having the support of both the owner and the Municipality is crucial to a successful application, in addition to the historical pedigree of the site.. We encourage the Municipality to support the request for national designation and once that has been received, that further opportunities for site re- development and funding programs can then be pursued. Yours very truly Kelvin Whalen, P. Eng., Vice - President, Land Development 8 -33 ----------------- I "-q CON ESSION ROAD Vie: 06290- LAMBSROAO- OP- CONCEPT3- JJNE11- 09,I)+G nFt� 11 To Report PSD -( t.vl I% -t:jJL r 1011 FOR PART OF LOT 7, CONCESSION 2 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM Town a0/ C- L1arin411 1? 1 et Park Development r i - � ambs Road 5. Yr JL•t� Faw. l i• �s.� R1CR• l .n.r. t. North Parcel 19Dm.36.3amfando SlrgVl 122 uNiT3) 2a.ama M.lsm[ondo SiNle1 110 UNITS) NcM Paml Tod UMk 132 UNITS) Nw* Pam' RolldaMaal Arad - 3.924 ha V,,,- PdtlN - m Sp- SSVM F.Hillu Nonh Parcel Total Am - 4.271 ha Middle Parcel cwga' TamI— (12 UNITS) 73 mfando Tannhwas IN UNITS) 3 Flow Canto Apamnend (108 UNITS) Middle PacN Tad Unl0 1159 UNITS) Midde Parch RC den9al Alen - 3336 hR V.,— F.6" - 160 5-1 Amenity seam - 0.620 ha Middle Panel T.W A— - 4.136 ha South Parcel fiwga'ow Toxni -- 123 UNI75' 7.Sm Cmdo Tow ," 129 UNITS) 12m Cando Simi., (39 UNITS) 12.0. S— Si*. 139 UNITS) slO P. l Tad Unie 1130 UNITS) S . Pawl Raddmllal— - 6.006 ha V,c,.P.kim - 32 SPacea Amenity SPAw . 0,M ha S11'M Falllllat - allol ha Soleh Parcel Taal AlN - 6.735 ha TOTAL 0 UNITS RESIDENTIAL 1321 UNITS 3 TOTAL AREA RESIDENTIAL - 13.162 ha CAMP 30 PARK Mu nlXV Park, VWmr PaWN - IN Sp.ul Possible Future Re3ilulaM, 66 Spwsr Barrdahell. Senior Soccer Fleld &,T.1;11; • m.636'u TOTAL AREA OF SUBMISSION 42.9701. DATE I cmMO I MOR90"s I 6Y � ,uN anaRA� SrTroN — R.x 5ER'�NA'3 0350CIOTE�i res Camp 30 Park Development Lambs Road 08290 Mww " men )49 Clarineton Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Report #: PSD- 050 -11 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A File #: A2011 -0008 to A2011 -0018 (not A2011 -0016) Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2011 AND MAY 12, 2011 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report PSD- 050 -11 be received; 2. THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on April 28, 2011 for applications A2011 -0008 to A2011 -0012 and on May 12, 2011 for applications A2011 -0011, A2011 -0013 to A2011 -0015, A2011 -0017 and A2011 -0018; and 3. THAT Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. Submitted by: MM /CP /df 20 May 2011 ' I Q `�-- Reviewed by: Da'Vid,J/Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 E -11MV REPORT NO.: PSD -050 -11 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS PAGE 2 1.1 All applications received by the Municipality for minor variance are scheduled for a hearing within 30 days of being received by the Secretary- Treasurer. The purpose of the minor variance applications and the Committee's decisions are detailed in Attachment 1. The decisions of the Committee are summarized below. DECISION OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APRIL 28, 2011 Application Number Staff Recommendation Decision of Committee A2011 -0008 Approve Approved A2011 -0009 Approve with Conditions Approved with Conditions A2011 -0010 Approve Approved A2011 -0011 1 Deny Tabled A2011 -0012 I Approve with Conditions [Approved with Conditions DECISION OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR MAY 12, 2011 Application Number Staff Recommendation Decision of Committee A2011 -0011 Approve Approved A2011 -0013 Table Tabled A2011 -0014 Approve Approved A2011 -0015 Approve Approved A2011 -0017 Approve Approved A2011 -0018 Approve Approved 1.2 Application A2011 -0008 was filed to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling by reducing the minimum required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.3 metres and by increasing the maximum permitted total lot coverage for the dwelling from 45% to 45.6 %. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 1.3 Application A2011 -0009 was filed to facilitate an application for lot boundary realignment by increasing the maximum permitted total floor area for all accessory buildings from 90 m2 to 167 ml; by reducing the minimum required front yard setback to an accessory building from 6 metres to 4 metres; and by increasing the maximum permitted height for an accessory building from 4.5 metres to 5 metres. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application subject to the condition that the variance apply only to the existing accessory building and no new accessory buildings will be permitted. 8 -35 REPORT NO.: PSD- 050 -11 PAGE 3 1.4 Application A2011 -0010 was filed to permit the construction of a horse barn by reducing the minimum required agricultural setback required in the Zoning By -law from 300 metres to 86 metres from the dwelling located at 3664 Concession Road 4, Clarke. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 1.5 Application A2011 -0011 was filed to permit the construction of an accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total floor area for all accessory buildings from 90 m 2 to 250 m2; and by increasing the maximum permitted height of an accessory building from 4.5 metres to 6.6 metres. This application was first heard at the April 28, 2011 Committee of Adjustment meeting and was tabled since neither Staff nor the Committee felt that the application met the four tests for approving a minor variance. The main concern was the size and use of the proposed building. The property owner disclosed that they were a contractor and planned to store business related items in the building. This is not a permitted use of the subject property. Following the April 28th meeting, the applicant spoke with Staff and agreed to reduce the variances being sought to an increase in maximum floor area to 160 m2 and an increase in maximum height to 5 metres. They also confirmed, in writing, that the building would be used exclusively for residential accessory purposes. This would provide enough space.for the storage of vehicles and personal belongings but no additional space for non- residential use of the building. Staff recommended approval of the amended application and the Committee concurred at the May 12, 2011 meeting. 1.6 Application A2011 -0012 was filed to permit the construction of an attached deck by increasing the maximum permitted projection into a required yard from 1.5 metres to 2.5 metres. Upon site inspection, Staff discovered two accessory buildings on the property that did not comply with the Zoning By -law. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application, subject to the condition that the accessory buildings be brought into compliance with the Zoning By -law within 30 days. 1.7 Application A2011 -0013 was filed requesting an increase in the maximum permitted floor area for accessory buildings from a previously approved 95 m2 to 175 m2 and from a previously approved 12.3% lot coverage to 14.5% lot coverage. After reviewing the application and conducting a survey of the surrounding neighbourhood, Staff were not in a position to offer a favourable recommendation. In an effort to provide the Applicant with the opportunity to revise his application, Staff recommended that the Committee of Adjustment table the application to allow for further discussions to take place. Staff have met with the applicant and anticipate the application will be heard at the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment. 1.8 Application A2011 -0014 was filed to permit the construction of an attached deck by increasing the maximum permitted projection into a required yard from 1.5 metres to 2.3 metres and by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage 8 -36 REPORT NO.: PSD- 050 -11 PAGE 4 from 40% to 42 %. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 1.9 Application A2011 -0015 was filed to facilitate a land assembly of three properties thereby creating a new lot totalling 22.44 hectares, which is less than the minimum lot size of 40 hectares required in the Agricultural (A) Zone. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 1.10 Application A2011 -0017 was filed to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 45.7% and by increasing the maximum permitted projection of an unenclosed attached deck into a required rear yard setback from 1.5 metres to 3 metres. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 1.11 Application A2011 -0018 was filed to permit the construction of an attached deck by increasing the maximum permitted projection into a required yard from 1.5 metres to 3.5 metres. The Committee concurred with Staff's recommendation and approved the application. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 Staff reviewed the Committee's decisions for applications A2011 -0008 to A2011- 0015, A2011 -0017 and A2011 -0018 and are satisfied that they are in conformity with both Official Plan policies, consistent with the intent of the Zoning By -law, are minor in nature and desirable. 2.2 Council's concurrence with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment for applications A2011 -0008 to A2011 -0015, A2011 -0017 and A2011 -0018 is required in order to afford Staff official status before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of any decision of the Committee of Adjustment. Staff Contact: Mitch Morawetz Attachments: Attachment 1 - Periodic Report for the Committee of Adjustment (May 17, 2011) 8 -37 Attachment 1 to Report PSD- 050 -11 Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: H & H BUILDING CORPORATION OWNER: H & H BUILDING CORPORATION PROPERTY LOCATION: 16 VIVIAN DRIVE, COURTICE PART LOT 30, CONCESSION 3 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2011 -0008 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 7.5 METRES TO 6.3 METRES AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE FROM 45% TO 45.6 %. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 7.5 METRES TO 6.3 METRES AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE FROM 45% TO 45.6% AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY -LAW, IS MINOR IN NATURE AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: LAST DAY OF APPEAL: April 28, 2011 May 18, 2011 • 1 .� n �r Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: BEAT & EDITH NIKLAUS OWNER: BEAT & EDITH NIKLAUS PROPERTY LOCATION: 55 METCALF STREET, CLARKE PART LOT 26, CONCESSION BF FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE FILE NO.: A2011 -0009 PURPOSE: TO FACILITATE AN APPLICATION FOR LOT BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM 90 M2 TO 167 M2; BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK TO AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FROM 6 METRES TO 4 METRES AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FROM 4.5 METRES TO 5 METRES. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM 90 M2 TO 167 M2. BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK TO AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FROM 6 METRES TO 4 METRES AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FROM 4.5 METRES TO 5 METRES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCE APPLY ONLY TO THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDING AND NO NEW ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WILL BE PERMITTED, AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLANS AND THE ZONING BY -LAW, IS MINOR IN NATURE AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: April 28, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: May 18, 2011 8 -39 • ClarjRdOR Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: KEVIN & DEBORAH NORTON OWNER: JOHN & KATHY SHEWCHUCK PROPERTY LOCATION: 3674 CONCESSION RD 4, CLARKE PART LOT 25, CONCESSION 4 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE FILE NO.: A2011 -0010 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HORSE BARN BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AGRICULTURAL SETBACK REQUIRED IN THE ZONING BY -LAW FROM 300 METRES TO 86 METRES FROM THE DWELLING LOCATED AT 3664 CONCESSION ROAD 4, CLARKE DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HORSE BARN BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED AGRICULTURAL SETBACK REQUIRED IN THE ZONING BY -LAW FROM 300 METRES TO 86 METRES FROM THE DWELLING LOCATED AT 3664 CONCESSION ROAD 4, CLARKE, AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLANS AND THE ZONING BY -LAW, IS MINOR IN NATURE AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: April 28, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: May 18, 2011 l • Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: MAURICE GAUTHIER PROPERTY LOCATION: 2460 CONCESSION RD 8, DARLINGTON FILE NO.: PURPOSE: PART LOT 14, CONCESSION 8 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE A2011 -0011 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL FLOOR AREA FOR ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM 90 SQUARE METRES TO 250 SQUARE METRES; AND BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING FROM 4.5 METRES TO 6.6 METRES. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO TABLE THE APPLICATION TO A FUTURE MEETING TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS THE APPLICATION WITH STAFF CONCERNING THE PROPOSED USE, DESIGN, SIZE, CONSTRUCTION AND LOCATION OF THE BUILDING. DATE OF DECISION: LAST DAY OF APPEAL: 8 -41 April 28, 2011 May 18, 2011 C• Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: GAETANO MAZZOTTA OWNER: GAETANO MAZZOTTA PROPERTY LOCATION: 62 HARRY GAY DRIVE, COURTICE FILE NO.: PART LOT 27, CONCESSION 3 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON A2011 -0012 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED DECK BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROJECTION INTO A REQUIRED YARD FROM 1.5 METRES TO 2.5 METRES. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED DECK BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROJECTION INTO A REQUIRED YARD FROM 1.5 METRES TO 2.5 METRES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING BY -LAW WITHIN 30 DAYS, AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY -LAW, IS MINOR IN NATURE AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: April 28, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: May 18, 2011 8 -42 Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: MAURICE GAUTHIER OWNER: MAURICE GAUTHIER PROPERTY LOCATION: 2460 CONCESSION RD 8, DARLINGTON PART LOT 14, CONCESSION 8 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2011 -0011 PURPOSE: To permit the construction of an accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total floor area for all accessory buildings from 90 square metres to 250 square metres; and by increasing the maximum permitted height of an accessory building from 4.5 metres to 6.6 metres. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: Approval of the amended application to permti the construction of an accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total floor area for all accessory buildings from 90 square metres to 160 square metres; and by increasing the maximum permitted height of an accessory building from 4.5 metres to 5 metres as it meets the intent of the Official Plans and Zoning By -law, is minor in nature and not detrimental to the neighbourhood. DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: June 1, 2011 8 -43 • Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: TENZIN GYALTSAN OWNER: TENZIN GYALTSAN PROPERTY LOCATION: 106 BEAVER STREET SOUTH, NEWCASTLE VILLAGE PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 1 FORMER VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE FILE NO.: A2011 -0013 PURPOSE: To permit the relocation of a detached garage by increasing the maximum permitted floor area from 95 square metres to 175 square metres and increasing the maximum permitted lot.coverage from 12.3% to 14.5 %. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: To table to application to a future meeting (as soon as possible) DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: June 1, 2011 8 -44 • Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: BRYAN WRAY OWNER: BRYAN WRAY PROPERTY LOCATION: 126 HARRY GAY DRIVE, COURTICE PART LOT 27, CONCESSION 3 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2011 -0014 PURPOSE: To permit the construction of an attached deck by increasing the maximum permitted projection into a required yard from 1.5 metres to 2.3 metres and by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 42 %. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: Approval of the application to permit the construction of an attached deck by increasing the maximum permitted projection into a required yard from 1.5 metres to 2.3 metres and by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 42% as it meets the intent of both Official Plans and the Zoning By -law, is minor in nature and is not detrimental to the neighbourhood. DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: June 1, 2011 8 -45 ClarjRCMR Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: INNOVATIVE PLANNING SOLUTIONS OWNER: SAMEEM MOHAMED, RAKESH, RAJNI AND MADHUL GUPTA PROPERTY LOCATION: 4435 HIGHWAY 2, NEWTONVILLE PART LOT 9 & 10, CONCESSION 1 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE FILE NO.: A2011 -0015 PURPOSE: To facilitate a land assembly of the 4435 Durham Highway 2 property and two severed parcels thereby creating a new lot totalling 23.34 hectares, which is less than the minimum lot size of 40 hectares required in the Agricultural (A) Zone. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: Approval of the reduction in minimum lot area from 40 hectares to 22.44 hectares as it meets the intent of the Official Plans and Zoning By -law, is minor in nature and not detrimental to the neighbourhood. DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: June 1, 2011 Amp • Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: H & H BUILDING CORPORATION OWNER: HALMINEN BUILDING CORP. PROPERTY LOCATION: 48 JANE AVENUE, COURTICE FILE NO.: PURPOSE: PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 3 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON A2011 -0017 To permit the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 47.5% and by increasing the maximum permitted projection of an unenclosed deck into a required rear yard setback from 1.5 metres to 3 metres. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: Approval of the application to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 45.7% and by increasing the maximum permitted projection of an unenclosed attached deck into a required rear yard setback from 1.5 metres to 3 metres, as it meets the intent of the Official Plans and Zoning By -law, is minor in nature and not detrimental to the neighbourhood. DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: June 1, 2011 8 -47 • Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: BRAD PATTERSON OWNER: BRAD PATTERSON PROPERTY LOCATION: 70 HARRY GAY DRIVE, COURTICE PART LOT 27, CONCESSION 3 FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2011 -0018 PURPOSE: To permit the construction of an attached deck by increasing the maximum permitted projection into a required yard from 1.5 metres to 3.5 metres. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: Approval of the application to permit the construction of an attached deck by increasing the maximum permitted projection into a required yard from 1.5 metres to 3.5 metres as it meets the intent of the Official Plans and Zoning By -law, is minor in nature and is not detrimental to the neighbourhood. DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 2011 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: June 1, 2011 8 -48 1 � n Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report #: PSD- 051 -11 File #: PLN 8.13 Subject: AMENDMENTS TO SIGN BY -LAW 2009 -123 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD- 051 -11 be received; 2. THAT the By -law to amend the Municipality of Clarington Sign By -law 2009 -123 as per Attachment 1 to Report PSD- 051 -11 be approved; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 051 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: Dawi J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, DireCtor, Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer I L /FL /df 19 May 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 • , REPORT NO.: PSD- 051 -11 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Sign By -law 2009 -123 regulates signs on private property across the Municipality. When the Sign By -law was being reviewed extensive consultation was undertaken. Generally, the sign by -law has created a level playing field for all commercial enterprises and also reduced the visual clutter that Council and the community were seeking to address. As new issues are identified that were not addressed as part of the review, staff are bringing forward amendments to address these issues. Site specific issues are addressed by proposed amendment at the time of application. 1.2 It has recently been brought to staff's attention that the signage regulations contained within Sign By -law 2009 -123 do not sufficiently address the signage needs of businesses that are seasonal and generally located in rural areas. Agricultural businesses that have a commercial component, such as garden centres, produce outlets, pick your own operations, and outdoor facilities, such as golf courses and driving ranges, are seasonal businesses that are not open during the winter months. As such, their signage requirements are different from businesses that are open on a year round basis. 1.3 Staff have consulted with representatives of these businesses to determine how to address the seasonal nature of their business and provide for signage suited to their needs. The results are outlined below and affect the regulations in the Sign By -law in regards to temporary signs and permanent signs for agricultural and recreational land uses. 2.0 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Mobile signs 2.1 The Sign By -law states that a maximum of three temporary sign permits for a mobile sign for a single business can be issued in one year provided that sixty days has elapsed between the expiry of the last sign permit and the mobile sign has been removed for a period of 60 days. This regulation meets the needs of businesses that are open year round as they have an entire year in which to choose to advertise for 60 day periods. Businesses that are closed during the winter months do not require advertising during that period. 2.2 Seasonal businesses particularly farm markets, golf course and driving ranges, require continuous promotion of products and specials during the months of the year that they are open. Sign By -law 2009 -123 permits a mobile sign on a property for 60 days and then requires the sign to be removed for 60 days before another sign can be erected. The specific signage needs of seasonal businesses were not considered when drafting these regulations. 2.3 These businesses can open as early as April, if the weather permits, and can remain open until the year end. In order to give these businesses the opportunity to advertise during the period of the year that they are open to the public it is proposed that the Sign 8 -50 REPORT NO.: PSD- 051 -11 PAGE 3 By -law be amended to provide a definition of seasonal related businesses and permit such businesses to have continuous mobile signage from April 1 st until December 31 st 2.4 A temporary sign permit application is required for each mobile sign and the permit is valid for 60 days. Seasonal - related agricultural and golf related businesses would be required to pay a temporary sign permit application fee for every 60 day period, or portion thereof, that the sign is posted on the property. Monolith /Pylon Signs 2.5 Seasonal businesses are generally located on rural lands outside of urban areas. Section 7.5 of the Sign By -law states that the type of sign allowed on a property is based on the use of the property, therefore, agricultural properties that have a commercial component and properties that have a recreational use would be allowed to have a monolith or pylon sign in accordance with Table 1, Signs Allowed by Property Use. 2.6 Section 7.10 Table 10 of the Sign By -law allows 50 percent of the display surface area of pylon or monolith signs to be used for an electronic message board. Electronic message board signage is appropriate in urban areas but is not suited to the rural environment. It is proposed that the Sign By -law be amended to permit only non- electronic message board signs on monolith or pylon signs on properties that have a commercial component in rural areas. A definition of a non - electronic message board sign is included in the amendment. 2.7 Motor vehicle traffic travels at a slower pace in the urban areas, therefore a message board area of 50% of the display surface area of a sign is of a sufficient size for motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic to read. In the rural areas where traffic speeds are higher it is requested that the message board area should be larger so that it is legible to the traveling public. It is proposed that the message board area be increased from 50 percent of the sign display area to 80 percent for monolith or pylon signs on agricultural properties with commercial components and recreational land use properties. 2.8 Monolith signs have a solid continuous base that is equal to the width of the sign and their sign display surface is limited to 1.5 metres above finished grade. These types of signs are commonly located on automotive dealerships and gas stations. Pylon signs are supported by one or more poles and their sign display area is limited to 2.44 metres above finished grade. It is recommended that the sign display area be lowered to 1 metre above finished grade for the Monolith /Pylon signs and correspondingly that the height also be reduced from 7.5 metres to 5 metres for commercial agricultural uses and properties that have a recreational land use. This would provide flexibility in the location display area and would allow for greater visibility and ease of updating the message. 8 -51 REPORT NO.: PSD- 051 -11 3.0 CONCLUSION PAGE 4 3.1 The proposed amendments to the Sign By -law are detailed in the amending by -law included in Attachment 1. Approval of the amending by -law will enhance the Sign By- law's comprehensiveness, while addressing the signage needs of seasonal business owners /operators and aid in protecting the scenic quality of Clarington's rural environment. Staff Contact: Isabel Little Attachments: Attachment 1 — Proposed Sign By -law Amendment List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Nancy Mallette Ted Watson 8 -52 Attachment 1 To Report PSD- 051 -11 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NO. 2011- being a By -law to amend Sign By -law 2009 -123, as amended of the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, Chapter 25, as amended, provides for the amendment of By -laws regulating or prohibiting the erection of signs; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By -law 2009 -123, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: Section 2 — INTERPRETATION OF BY -LAW is hereby amended be including the following new definitions ": "NON- ELECTRONIC MESSAGE BOARD SIGN" means a sign which has messages displayed by non - electronic means. "SEASONAL- RELATED BUSINESS" means any business that is .open to the public for limited periods through -out the calendar year, for farm retail sales or a golf course or a driving range. 2. Section 8.10 - Monolith /Pylon Signs is hereby amended by adding at the end of 8.10 iv): "Monolith /Pylon signs on seasonal - related business properties shall not have a sign display surface area located lower that 1 metre above finished grade and shall not be more than 5 metres in height". 3. Section 9 — EXCEPTIONS BY AMENDMENT is hereby amended by inserting the following new subsections By adding the following new subsection: "9.23 Notwithstanding Section 8.9 i) and Section 8.9ii), seasonal - related business are permitted to install temporary mobile signs on a continuous basis from April 1st to December 31St in each calendar year. A temporary sign permit application fee must be paid for each 60 day period, or portion thereof, the sign remains on the property. 9.24 Notwithstanding Section 7.10 Table 3, electronic message board signs are not permitted on monolith or pylon signs on seasonal - related business properties. A maximum of 80% of a sign display 8 -53 area on a monolith or pylon sign on seasonal - related business properties can be used for a non - electronic message board." BY -LAW read a first time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a second time this day of 2011 BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2011 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 8 -54 • Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A Report #: PSD- 052 -11 File #: PLN 33.3.10 Subject: DURHAM -YORK ENERGY FROM WASTE PROJECT CLARINGTON COMMENTS ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL APPLICATION (AIR) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: "WHEREAS the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York submitted application on March 3, 2011 to the Ministry of Environment under Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act, O. Reg 419/05, for a Basic Comprehensive Certificate of Approval; and WHEREAS to demonstrate compliance with air emission, the application submission was supported by an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) Report; and WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington retained SENES Consultants Ltd. to review the Certificate of Approval Application — Air and the ESDM to ensure that the conditions set out in the Environmental Assessment Approval and the Host Community Agreement are appropriately addressed in the Certificate of Approval; and WHEREAS SENES' review of the Certificate of Approval application and the ESDM identified a number of issues that should be addressed by the Ministry of Environment in their review and approval of the application; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Report by SENES Consultants Ltd. (Attachment 2, under separate cover) be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on the Application for a Certificate of Approval — Air for the Durham -York Energy from Waste Project; CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 8-55 REPORT NO.: PSD- 052 -11 8 -56 PAGE 2 2. THAT the Municipality of Clarington requests the Ministry of Environment to include the following as conditions in the Certificate of Approval — Air to be issued for the Durham -York Energy From Waste Project in order to make them legally binding: a) That annual stack testing be conducted as per MOE A -7 Guidelines; b) That testing be carried out such that the waste stream represents the typical waste composition being fed into the facility; c) That the performance condition of 9 mg /Rm3 be applicable to total PM2.5 (filterable and condensable) as set out in the conditions of EA approval; and d) That re- modeling be required should the source testing show emission rates higher than those used in the ESDM; 3. THAT the Council of the Municipality of Clarington hereby requests the Ministry of Environment provide the Municipality with the draft Certificate of Approval — Air for review and comment prior to issuance of the final approval; 4. THAT at the time of the renewal of the initial Certificate of Approval, 5 years after commissioning (approximately 2018), that there be no "grandfathering" of emission limits and other relevant conditions so that the relevant standards at that time can be incorporated; 5. THAT a copy of Report PSD- 052 -11 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the Region of York, and the Ministry of Environment; and 6. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD- 052 -11 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by. FL /sn /df 26 May 2011 David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services Reviewed b . ranklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer REPORT NO.: PSD- 052 -11 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 At the March 28th, 2011 Council meeting, resolution #C- 167 -11 was passed: "THAT the Director of Planning Services be authorized to re- engage SENES Consultants Ltd. to prepare comments on the application to the Minister of Environment for Certificates of Approval for the Energy -From- Waste facility at a cost of $18,345.56 with a report and presentation to the General Purpose and Administration Committee...." and a further resolution #GPA- 307 -11 was passed on April 4, 2011: "THAT the Director of Planning Services be directed to advise SENES Consultants to expand the scope of the Peer Review to the Certificate of Approval for the Energy- From -Waste proposal to address PM2.5 to a maximum cost of $3000." 1.2 SENES's proposal is Attachment 1. The scope of work to be undertaken by the Consultant was limited to the Certificate of Approval Application - Air and how the application addressed the conditions set out in the Environmental Assessment Approval conditions and the requirements of the Host Community Agreement. 1.3 Staff have obtained approval from the Region to have the Region's consultant provide the computer model and other pertinent information directly to SENES, including the Emission Summary and Dispersion Model (ESDM) study upon which the application for the Certificate of Approval for air is based. 1.4 Staff have notified the Regions and Ministry of Environment (MOE) that the Municipality will be making comments on the Certificate of Approval - Air, and requested that approval not be granted until after the comments from Clarington have been received and considered. 1.5 Staff and SENES met with Ms. Wendy Bracken, who is one of the representatives from EFWAC (the Energy from Waste Advisory Committee) to the Ambient Air Monitoring Working Group, to review her presentation to GPA from March 28, 2011. Specific attention was given to her comments regarding PM2.5, and the way in which data is being calculated and displayed in the Certificate of Approval Application — Air as compared to the conditions of EA Approval. 1.6 The Clarington representative on the Ambient Air Monitoring Working Group is Janice Szwarz, Senior Planner who has been involved in the discussions with SENES and attended the first meeting of the Working Group on April 28tH 2.0 PROCESS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL(S) 2.1 The Environmental Assessment for the Durham — York Energy from Waste Project was approved by the Minister of Environment on November 19, 2010 subject to a number of stringent conditions which, for the most part, will be achieved and implemented through the Comprehensive Certificate of Approval to be issued for the project. 8 -57 REPORT NO.: PSD- 052 -11 PAGE 4 2.2 The Comprehensive Certificate of Approval Application for Air, Noise, Waste and Stormwater was submitted to the Ministry on March 3, 2011. The review by SENES Consultants is limited to the Certificate of Approval - Air portion of the application. Staff has expertise in noise /vibration and stormwater issues, but typically do not review the Certificates of Approval for noise /vibration and stormwater for projects. Rather, as with all projects that involve the submission of a noise /vibration study and a stormwater study, Staff will review the design and engineering of the EFW facility through the Site Plan application process to ensure that the proposed construction meets the requirements of these studies. 2.3 The Municipality has two opportunities to review and comment on the Certificate of Approval: at the application stage (e.g. this review) and later when the MOE issues the draft Certificate of Approval. 2.4 It is expected that MOE will issue a Draft Certificate of Approval - Air in the near future. Because this project received an approval under the EA Act, the Draft Certificate of Approval - Air will not be posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights website. Rather the proponent (the Regions) have committed to posting the information to the project website. It will be important that the Municipality review the Draft Certificate of Approval as it will be our second opportunity to comment and ensure that the requirements set out in the Host Community Agreement, the Conditions of EA Approval and the peer review of the application for the Certificate of Approval — Air (Attachment 2 under separate cover) have been addressed. 2.5 The Consultant and Staff believe that the resolution, as set out in Recommendation 4 to the Ministry of Environment seeks to ensure that the conditions of the EA Approval and Host Community Agreement with regard to air emissions are adequately addressed in the Certificate of Approval. It does not, in our opinion, constitute "an objection" as set out in the Host Community Agreement. 3.0 COMMENTS ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL APPLICATION 3.1 SENES Consultants will be presenting the results of their peer review to Committee on May 30, 2011. SENES's Report, Peer Review of the Durham -York Energy Centre ESDM Report is Attachment 2 and will be distributed under separate cover. 3.2 Staff have provided SENES with clarification as to the Municipality's concerns and other factual information. Staff are not experts in air quality and are relying on the expertise of the peer review team to prepare the Municipality's comments on air quality issues. 3.3 SENES have to date not received dispositioning comments from the Regulator or Proponent. We have requested these be submitted by May 31St. Dispositioning comments will be communicated to Council in an addendum report for the June 6tn, 2011 meeting. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid 8 -58 REPORT NO.: PSD- 052 -11 PAGE 5 Attachments: Attachment 1: SENES Consultant Ltd. Proposal Attachment 2: SENES Consultant Ltd.: Peer Review of the Durham -York Energy Centre ESDM Report (under separate cover) List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Mirka Januszkiewicz - EFW Project Team Gavin Battarino, Ministry of the Environment Wendy Bracken Tracey Ali Kerry Meydam Doug Anderson Linda Gasser LAIM 100300 21 March 2011 SENES Consultants Limited Ms. Faye Langmaid Manager of Special Projects Planning Services Department Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario, L I C 3A6 Dear Faye: Attachment 1 To Report PSD- 052 -11 121 Granton Drive Unit 12 Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L4B3N4 Tel: (905) 764 -5380 Fax: (905) 764 -9386 E -mail_ senes @senes.ca Web Site: http: / /www.senes.ca SENES is pleased to present you with this proposal to undertake an audit and peer review of Air Dispersion Modelling Work completed for the York Durham EFW facility, on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington. SENES proposes- to liaise with Golder Associates, who completed the work, in order to obtain the ESDM report and gain access to the supporting electronic files for the Certificate of Approval application. If necessary, senior SENES staff will visit Golder's offices in Mississauga, Ontario for one day in order to understand the approach that was taken and to get a copy of the CALMET/CALPUFF modelling system input files and other information about the site including, but not limited to, emission inventory and proposed air pollution controls, building locations and sizes, terrain elevations used, landuse to be used, proposed CALPUFF modelling grid, location of all proposed local sensitive receptors, the sources of the meteorological data set to be used and any adjustments that have been made to it; emission source locations, types and characteristics; and the version of the CALMET / CALPUFF Modeling system to be used as well as rationale on input switches selected and the reasoning behind them. This information will be brought back to SENES' office in Richmond Hill where it will be extensively reviewed by a senior level team. SENES will provide an external hard disk drive to transport the data files. All electronic copies will be destroyed or returned to Golder Associates at the completion of the project and acceptance of the report. Golder will be contacted after the first day for clarification purposes only. SENES will then prepare its findings and suggestions in the form of a letter report to the Municipality with detailed Appendices where necessary. SENES will pay particular attention to any proposed approach and/or commitments that, in its opinion, deviates with what was agreed upon in the HCA and the EA Approval. In these cases a suggested alternative approach will be given with a supporting rationale. In addition, SENES will prepare a presentation that summarizes the results of the review for presentation to Council at a later date. SENES expects to complete the review and write a draft copy of the report within three weeks of the award of contact assuming that staff from Golder Associates will be available within 5 business days of award. SENES looks forward to working with the Municipality of Clarington once again. Yours very truly, SENES Consultants Limited Murali Ganapathy, M.A. Sc, P.Eng. Principal mm Peer Review of Air Quality Modelling and ESDMof an Energy From Waste Facility located in the Municipality of Clarington, ON TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE MANDATE ............... 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY .... 3.0 DELIVERABLES ............... ............................... 4.0 PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THE PROJECT. 5.0 COST ................................. ............................... APPENDIX A - CURRICULA VITAE 100300 - March 2011 8 -62 i Page No. .. ..............................1 . ............................... 2 . ............................... 3 . ............................... 4 . ............................... 6 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of Air Quality Modelling and ESDMof an Energy From Waste Facility located in the Municipality of Clarington, ON 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE MANDATE This scope of work. has been developed by SENES with the assumption that the Municipality wishes to have a relatively complete review and assessment done on the ESDM report. As part of the project SENES will review and verify the validity and source of all data to be used as input to the air dispersion modelling assessment that was completed by Golder Associates for the future EFW facility to be built in York - Durham. Specifically, this includes review of the following elements: • Emissions Data • This will include a review of the significant emission sources for the facility • Sources of data, assumptions and calculation methodologies will be reviewed for each of the processes included in the assessment ■ Spot checks will be performed on 10% of the emission sources to verify the accuracy of the calculations • CALMET Modelling o This will include a cursory review of the base meteorological input information (i.e. use of surface and upper air stations and/or data from a mesoscale model), the mesoscale model used (if applicable), the grid spacing of the source data (36 km vs 12 km, etc), as well as the source and resolution of terrain and land use data • CALPUFF Modelling o This will include review of ■ the model set -up, including the representativeness of the terrain and land use data in the vicinity of the site; • the accuracy and representativeness of the emission source characteristics used in the model (physical dimensions, location flow, etc); • the accuracy and representativeness of the building characteristics, including the building envelopes, absolute and relative locations, terrain elevations, etc; and • the receptor grid spacing (with respect to conformance with MOE requirements), as well as the location(s) of any sensitive receptors included in the modelling. • CALPOST Results o The CALPOST input files will be reviewed to verify the following: 100300 - March 2011 1 SENES Consultants Limited 8 -63 Peer Review of Air Quality Modelling and ESDM of an Energy From Waste Facility located in the Municipality of Clarington, ON ■ The averaging periods specified for each of the relevant contaminants to be extracted match the regulatory requirements with respect to existing air quality standards and guidelines 7n Ontario; • At all receptors • At selected sensitive receptors. SENES anticipates that at least one visit to Golder's offices will be required to discuss the overall objectives of the air dispersion modelling assessment, as well as to review the extent of the available data to be included in SENES' review. This will include: • Acquisition of the supporting materials and data to be used in the air dispersion model, including provision of the following files to SENES: o Mapping (base maps, site layout drawings); o Excel spreadsheets documenting emissions calculations; ■ Supporting /supplementary data (i.e. source test data, etc) o CALMET, CALPUFF, and CALPOST input files; ■ Supporting /supplementary input data files (i.e. surface meteorological files, upper air data, mesoscale meteorological data (if applicable), terrain data, land use data); and • generation of a summary report on SENES' findings. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODOLOGY The approach to be used is as follows: 1. Contact Golder Associates project staff (Anthony Ciccone) to discuss potential mechanisms for data transfer between SENES and Golder, and staff availability for a meeting at their offices; 2. Attend at the premises of Golder Associates to review the nature and extent of the data: SENES has assumed that this visit will be completed by Chris. Marson and Zivorad Radonjic, who will discuss the overall approach that was taken in the emissions calculations, model set ups, etc., and the nature and quantity of the available data for review. Both Chris and Zivorad will attend the meeting in the morning, and Zivorad will remain at Golder during the afternoon to identify which specific data files are required, and copy them to a storage device for return to SENES' office. 3. Collect in electronic form all data pertaining to inputs, model version, outputs and assumptions made, and in particular: 100300 - March 2011 8 -64 2 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of Air Quality Modelling and ESDMof an Energy From Waste Facility located in the Municipality of Clarington, ON a. maps, photos and diagrams outlining the location and extent of each operation (mining, processing and tailings (if applicable)), as well as site plans outlining locations of all buildings and emission points (direct and indirect) and locations of roadways (paved and unpaved); b. process information (through -put, material flows, contaminants, etc.); c. emissions information for each source (emission rates and physical source parameters such as source height (and base elevations), flow rate /exit velocity, temperature, stack diameter (or physical extents of storage piles, etc); d. model input files (CALMET, CALPUFF and CALPOST) and supporting information/data; and e. documentation justifying model switches used (or not) and outputs to be generated; assumptions made and any exclusions; SENES will supply a portable hard disk drive which will be used to copy the electronic files and return them to SENES' offices for the detailed review. The information will be destroyed or returned to Golder at the completion of the project and acceptance of the report. 4. Review the detailed files and source data as outlined in Section 1.0 above with respect to the emissions, CALMET, CALPUFF and CALPOST modelling, including: a. Model inputs, switches used, outputs to be produced (locations of sensitive receptors, tables and figures, statistics to be generated); and 5. Compile a report documenting the audit. 6. Prepare a presentation for municipal Council that summarizes the results and findings of the review, and provide this in person at a future Council meeting. 3.0 DELIVERABLES SENES will deliver a letter report to the Municipality which includes, but is not limited to: • A summary of the general assumptions that were used in the assessment, including a discussion of their applicability and robustness, and any recommendations for improvement; • A summary of the emission inventory for the project, identifying any issues or potential areas where the estimates may be overly conservative or under estimated, or where potential emission sources or air pollutants may have been overlooked; 100300 - March 2011 3 SENES Consultants Limited Now Peer Review of Air Quality Modelling and ESDMof an Energy From Waste Facility located in the Municipality of Clarington, ON • A high level summary of the meteorological (CALMET) modelling, including a discussion of the nature and quality of the input data used, and any potential issues that were identified; • A summary of the CALPUFF dispersion modelling, including: • a review of input information (significant sources, locations, physical source characteristics /parameters, and building information); • review of output locations (gridded and sensitive receptor locations); • A summary of the CALPOST modelling (i.e. a review of proposed data outputs (graphs, tables and analyses)); • An overall assessment of any data gaps, questionable assumptions or errors which may significantly affect the model results or result in insufficient conservatism; and • Overall expert opinion on the quality of the assessment as a whole. 4.0 PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THE PROJECT The personnel assigned to the project are Mr. Zivorad Radonjic and Ms. Abby Salb. Short paragraphs outlining their credentials are given below with their full curricula vitae in Appendix B. Abigail C. Salb, M.Sc., P. Eng, Air Quality Specialist specializes in management and completion of industrial air emissions inventories, atmospheric dispersion modelling, emission reduction strategies, air quality assessments and air quality monitoring. She has managed numerous small and large scale projects with budgets ranging from $10 K to several million dollars. Her experience in industrial air emissions and air dispersion modelling includes completion of studies for various industrial facilities such as integrated iron and steel mills, cement production plants and metal smelting and refining operations. She has also completed and/or reviewed many ambient air quality assessment projects including ambient air monitoring and preliminary design of air pollution controls. Ms. Salb has also troubleshooted failing air pollution control systems for industrial clients, and made recommendations for solutions and improvements. Zivorad Radonjic, B.Sc., Senior Air Modeller specializes in the development and applications of air quality dispersion models, as well as, boundary layer meteorology and micrometeorology observations. Recently Mr. Radonjic has been involved in applications of CALMET /CALPAUFF system for variety projects in Eastern Canada where this system is a regulatory model. Many projects for 100300 - March 2011 4 SENES Consultants Limited M Peer Review of Air Quality Modelling and ESDMof an Energy From Waste Facility located in the Municipality of Clarington, ON this area are done with coupling a meso -scale (WRF -NN" model with CALMET/CALPUFF system which is quite important for the boundary layer near shoreline. Mr. Radonjic applied the CALMET / CALPUFF system in Monte -Carlo for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). The air concentrations were estimated using atmospheric dispersion modelling and incorporated uncertainty analyses to provide quantitative confidence intervals on the estimated air concentrations. The distributions of air concentrations developed from the uncertainty analysis were subsequently used in a pathways analysis and dose assessment. He has reviewed work of other consultants, as well as he has completed the study in California on "Air Dispersion Modelling of Tritium Releases at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for 1998 using CALPUFF Complex Terrain Methodology. He has had extensive experience in the use of standard regulatory dispersion models recommended by regulatory agencies in Canada and the United States ( CALPUFF, CALGRID, ISC3, AERMOD and many other specific application models). Mr. Radonjic has extensive experience in the retrieval of meteorological data from international database systems, including the preparation and quality assurance testing of such data for use in air quality dispersion models. Mr. Radonjic has conducted modelling studies for secondary metal refineries and uranium processing facilities, thermal power plants and open pit mines. His experience includes modelling fugitive dust and associated toxic trace metals, organics, heavy gases, radionuclide emissions from ore processing operations and process waste stockpiles and tailings. Mr. Radonjic has designed and participated in a field verification study of emissions from natural gas fired turbines and has modelled the impact of two proposed co- generation facilities. Mr. Radonjic also participated in a project of assessing the impact from power plant in the Toronto area, comparing the results from the U.S. EPA model AERMOD and ISC3. Mr. Radonjic has been involved in many different CALMET/CALPUFF applications in Canada, the USA, Europe and Asia. Mr. Radonjic has also been involved in the critical review of CALMET/CALPUFF work completed by other consultants. 100300 - March 2011 5 SENES Consultants Limited 8 -67 Peer Review of Air Quality Modelling and ESDMof an Energy From Waste Facility located in the Municipality of Clarington, ON 5.0 COST The total estimated cost for this work including labour and expenses, exclusive of HST, is $16,235. The breakdown of the estimated cost to complete this audit of the model inputs is given in Table 1 below. All cost estimates are exclusive of applicable taxes. 100300 - March 2011 i ff r i SENES Consultants Limited PLANNING SERVICES FROM: Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects DATE: May 26, 2011 SUBJECT: PEER REVIEW OF DURHAM/YORK ENERGY CENTRE ESDM REPORT STAFF REPORT PSD- 052 -11 UNDER SEPARATE COVER ATTACHMENT FILE NO.. PLN 33.3.10 Peer review is a process used in many professional disciplines for checking work undertaken by a professional in a specific field by other independent professionals working in the same field (peers), Generally, the goal of all peer review processes is to verify whether the work meets specific criteria or follows accepted practices and, most importantly, to provide suggestions for improving the quality of the work, Peer review comments are generally submitted in writing to the study author, who in turn provides a written response either agreeing or disagreeing with the peer review comment, this is called dispositioning. In undertaking any study or peer review, professional judgement is being exercised, the consultants collectively are trying to ensure that accurate inform ationiresuIts and robust methodologies are followed. The dispositioned comments from the proponent and the regulator had not been received finalized early this week. Initially, Staff contemplated delaying the submission of the Peer Review and Staff Report to Council, as communicated in a letter to MOE and the Region, and copied to Mayor and members of Council, on May 24, 2011. The letter prompted MOE to respond to questions from SENES regarding data they had provided to the proponent, who in turn used the.data id the air modeling dispersion exercise. Please find attached the Preliminary Peer Review Report (Attachment 2 to Staff Report PSD - 052 -11) for the Durham York Energy Centre ESDM Report (Certificate of Approval — Air Application). On page 1.1 of the peer review report, SENES has outlined the contact they have had with the proponent's consultant and MOE. . Because the Energy from Waste facility has an EA Approval posting to the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) website is at the discretion of MOE. Section 2.4 of Report PSD -052 -11 indicated that the C of A would not be posted to the website. However; MOE has posted the EA and allowed 45 days for comment. Public comments on the C of A which has been posted to the EBR are due on June 5th. cc; Mayor and Mombers of Council Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Dept. Heads CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905- 623 -3379 TF 1- 800 -663 -1195 F 905 - 623 -0830 Preliminary Report PEER REVIEW OF THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE ESDM REPORT Prepared for: The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by: SENES Consultants Limited 121 Granton Drive, Unit 12 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N4 May 2011 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing Post- Consumer Fibre `� Peer Review ofDYEC ESDM Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SENES Consultants Limited was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to provide a Peer Review of the Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) Report that was submitted by Golder Associates (on behalf of Covanta Energy) in support of the Basic Comprehensive CofA (Air) for the Durham -York Energy Centre. The purpose of the review was to assess whether the ESDM Report was completed in a reasonably comprehensive manner, using an approach that was consistent with standard practices and protocols, and was consistent with the conditions of the EA Approval. The information provided in the EA itself, the EA Approval and the ESDM Report (in addition to supporting electronic files) was reviewed in terms of completeness, accuracy and the overall approach of the assessment, This was done in effort to determine whether the assessment was comprehensive, was consistent with what was completed in support of the EA, and if any differences were noted, whether these would fundamentally change the overall conclusions of the report. The review was completed in three pants, including: (a) the approach used in the Air Quality Assessment completed in support of the EA, and conditions of the EA Approval; (b) the emission inventory; and (c) the air dispersion modelling, including (i) the meteorological data that was used in the assessment, and (ii) the model configuration. The overall conclusion of the review is that the ESDM Report was reasonably well done, in a manner consistent with industry standard protocols and practices as well as Ontario Ministry of the Environment requirements for emissions inventories and air dispersion modelling assessments. However, some potential issues were identified, which led to the development of various recommendations. These are as follows: EA Approval and Related Conditions The EA Approval outlines requirements for the installation of a continuous emissions monitoring system and specifies conditions on how these systems are to be used operationally. It also specifies that the timing and frequency of monitoring is to be outlined in the conditions of the CofA (Air). It is recommended that the Municipality request a copy of the DRAFT CofA (Air) for review to ensure that these conditions are acceptable to the Municipality. In addition, some of the parameters may be monitored via source testing rather than continuous emissions monitors. It is recommended that the facility bo required to conduct source testing of the Main Stack on an annual basis, on a waste stream of typical waste composition. It is also recommended that the proponent be required to update the ESDM Report to demonstrate 350302 - 26 May 2011 ES -1 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revieii, of DYEC ESDMReport continued compliance with O.Reg.419 POI (Point of Impingement) limits should the testing indicate that the measured emission rates are higher than those used in the current ESDM Report. The proposed operational monitoring system will include a dioxins and furans sampling device. The EA indicates that time integrated samples would be collected on approximately a monthly basis, followed by laboratory analysis, which would result in a time lag of one or two weeks before the laboratory results are available. As a result, it is unclear how this will be used as an operational monitor. It is therefore recommended that the frequency /duration of sample collection be shortened if the data is intended to be used for operational control. In addition, there has been no provision for continuous sampling for mercury, as is encouraged in MOE Guideline A -7. As such, it will likely be sampled as part of the expected annual source testing campaign. However, given that there is no pre - sorting of the waste, it is likely that some mercury will enter the waste stream. It is therefore recommended that a time integrated, contiguous mercury sampling system be considered for installation at the facility. Emissions The emissions inventory for the Durham York Energy Centre used a combination of emissions testing data provided by the Proponent (Covanta Energy), U.S. EPA AP -42 emission factors and the EPA FIRE database, data from the MOE Peel Human Health Risk Assessment (Peel HHRA), manufacturer's specifications and the York Durham (YD) generic risk assessment. As mentioned earlier in this report, the DYEC has applied for a Basic Comprehensive CofA. A Basic Comprehensive CofA provides limited operational flexibility, allowing a proponent to operate within a maximum operating envelope which permits changes to be made to a facility (i.e. the addition of a new pieces of equipment, changes to process materials, modifications to air pollution control systems, etc.) without applying for an amendment to the CofA. It is recommended that the limited operational flexibility conditions for the DYECs Basic Comprehensive CofA be reviewed /renewed on a maximum 5 year interval, and that the submission materials be provided to the Municipality of Clarington for review and comment prior to issuance of the renewal. A discrepancy was identified with the manner in which particulate emissions were estimated in the EA in comparison to the ESDM Report. The ESDM Report addresses filterable and total particulate matter separately, whereas the particulate emission rate used in the EA was noted in the ESDM Report to be "filterable particulate matter" only (i.e., the EA did not account for condensable particulate). However, this distinction was not indicated in the EA documentation. As a result of these differences the PM2.5 emission rate used in the EA is lower than would be expected, as only the filterable portion was included. The ESDM Report used a PM2,5 emission rate that is based on total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable), and as such is more than a factor of 2 350302 - 26 May 2011 ES -2 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Reidery of DYEC ESDM times higher than that used in the EA. However, background (non - facility) PM2.5 concentrations accounted for a major fraction of the resulting PM2.5 concentrations in the EA. The facility related emissions contributed only a very small portion of the overall concentrations. Thus, the inclusion of total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable) would not have fundamentally changed the conclusions of the EA. Regardless, this may lead to the perception that the EA was not sufficiently conservative. The Air Emissions Operational Requirement listed in Schedule 1 of the EA Approval applies to Particulate Matter, and does not specify whether it is for total or filterable particulate matter. The air dispersion modelling and subsequent risk calculations completed in the EA were based on a PM2.5 emission rate that is equivalent to the Operational Requirement of 9 mg/Rm3. It is therefore recommended that the Municipality request that the EA Operational Requirement of 9 mg/Rm3 be applied to filterable PM (as is typically required) in addition to Total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable) if this is technically feasible from an operational perspective. If this is not feasible, it is recommended that the risk calculations related to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that were completed for the EA be revised and submitted as an addendum to the ESDM Report such that the calculations are consistent with the modelled emission rates and predicted concentrations presented in the ESDM Report. Some potential issues were also identified with the source data and basis of the emission rates for a number of other contaminants that were assessed in the ESDM Report. The emission rates provided in the ESDM Report for many contaminants were based on "engineering calculations ", based on data provided by Covanta. The calculations were based on a measured in -stack concentration from another facility, and applied to the Durham York Energy Centre using the expected stack conditions (flow rate, temperature, etc) at the future facility. It would be expected that these data were collected from a facility of a similar size and similar technology (in terms of process system — firing grate, etc). However, the ESDM Report does not clearly indicate whether the reference facility was similar in nature in terms of the size, basic incineration approach, installed air pollution control equipment and process conditions under which the test data were collected (waste firing rate, etc). Thus it is riot clear whether the concentrations are representative of the conditions that would be expected at the Durham York Energy Center. Therefore, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data are representative and meet criteria for "above average" quality or rerun the analysis using the most conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). The emission rates for many of the metal compounds were estimated based on information provided by Covanta Energy (with the issues identified above) as well as data from the MOE Peel HHRA (which is presumably the Algonquin Power facility located in Brampton, Ontario). 350302 - 26 May 2011 ES -3 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDM Report The Algonquin Power facility is of a similar size to that of the Durham York Energy Centre; however, the ESDM Report does not indicate whether the incineration processes /technologies are similar in nature. It is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). With respect to emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), a comprehensive list of VOCs was considered in the assessment. However, neither the EA nor the ESDM Report included assessments for acetone, acrolein, styrene, and mesitylene (1,3,5- trimethylbenzene), all of which have POI standards in Schedule 3 of 0.Reg.419, and are expected to be emitted from the facility as indicated in the EA. The lack of an assessment of acrolein and acetone were similarly identified as an issue by the MOE (Approvals Branch) during the review of the EA documentation. While the EFW facility would likely be a relatively minor source of these contaminants, these contaminants should be included in the assessment of compliance with O.Reg.419. This is particularly true for acrolein, which has a relatively stringent POI limit. It is therefore recommended that the ESDM Report be amended to include an assessment of acetone, acrolein, styrene and mesitylene. Start Up and Shutdown conditions can be of concern since emission rates are often elevated during these periods. Several different scenarios were used to assess Start Up conditions, including the operation of a single train with auxiliary burner and both trains with auxiliary burner, at different firing rates. However, the Start Up assessment used the same concentration values that were provided by Covanta to represent emission rates from the Main Stack under normal operations. Given that it is unlikely that the testing was completed during a Start Up phase, these concentrations may not be representative of the expected Start Up conditions at the DYEC. As such, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative, or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). Air Dispersion Modelling O.Reg. 419 specifies a list of approved air dispersion models appropriate for use in Ontario, which includes the AERMOD model and soon to be phased out ISC -PRIME model. Proponents may also request use of an alternate model if it can be shown that the use of an alternate model is more appropriate than any of the approved models. Due to the proximity of the proposed facility location to Lake Ontario, the Proponent requested to use the CALPUFF model, which is a non- steady state, Lagrangian puff model. The MOE granted the request, since the CALPUFF model is more appropriate at representing the complex meteorology that exists at a land -water boundary. 350302 - 26 May 2011 ES -4 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revieu, of DYEC ESDM As part of the Peer Review, SENES reviewed the input meteorological data, as well as the general inputs to the dispersion modelling portion. The meteorological data used in both the EA and the ESDM Report was previously reviewed and approved by the MOE. These data were provided to SENES electronically by the MOE. The data files were then reviewed by SENES staff with respect to data inputs and model switches used, in addition to the general approach used in the development of the data. SENES' review had initially indicated that there were potential issues with the MOE Approved meteorological data. However, based on MOE review and comments, these potential issues are not'expected to result in significant differences to the model predicted concentrations. The general model set up was also reviewed to assess whether the proposed facility layout was accurately represented in the model in terms of source locations and building wake effects. In addition, emission sources were reviewed to ensure that they were represented by the appropriate model source type (i.e, Point source, Volume source). Some issues were identified with the manner in which the building information was entered into the BPIP model. However, the-Main Stack is high enough that it is unlikely to experience significant plume downwash. Therefore, any changes to the BPIP inputs are unlikely to have a significant effect on the model predictions. 350302 - 26 May 2011 ES -5 SENES Consultants Limited Peet- Review ofDYEC ESDMRepon TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ ...........................ES -1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ................................................... ............................1 -1 2.0 ESDM REPORT REVIEW .................................................................. ............................2 -1 2.1 Conditions of the EA Approval ............................................ ............................... 2 -1 2. 1.1 Emissions Monitoring and Operational Requirements ............................ 2 -1 2.2 Emissions Inventory ..........................................................:... ............................... 2 -4 2.2.1 Criteria Air Contaminants ......................................... ............................... 2 -4 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Conclusions .............................................................................. ............................3 -1 3.2 Recommendations ......... ....................................................................................... 3 -2 350302 - 26 May 2011 1 sENES Consultants Limited 2.2.1.1 Data Quality ..... ............................................................................ 2 -5 2.2.1.2 Filterable Versus Total Particulate ................ ............................... 2 -6 2.2.2 Metals and Elemental Compounds ........................... ............................... 2 -7 2.2.2.1 Data Quality ..................................................... ............................2 -8 2.23 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( PAHs) ............. ............................... 2 -8 2.2.3.1 Data Quality ..................................................... ............................2 -8 2.2.4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ......................... ............................2 -9 2.2.4.1 Data Quality ..................................................... ............................2 -9 2.2.4.2 Contaminants Assessed ................................. ............................... 2 -9 2.2.5 Start up Conditions ................................................. .I.....:....................... 2 -10 2.3 Air Dispersion Modelling ................................................... ............................... 2 -10 2.3.1 Meteorological Data ................................................ ............................... 2 -11 2.3.1.1 Data Development ...................................... ............................... 2 -11 2.3.2 Model Source Configurations ................................. ............................... 2 -12 2.3.2.1 Building Wake Effects .................................... ...........................2 -12 2.3.2.2 Model Source and Emission Rate Inputs .... ............................... 2 -17 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1 Conclusions .............................................................................. ............................3 -1 3.2 Recommendations ......... ....................................................................................... 3 -2 350302 - 26 May 2011 1 sENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDM Report LIST OF TABLES Page No. Table 2.1 Air Emissions Operational Requirements ................................. ............................... 2 -2 Table 2.2 BPIP output for the Main Stack per Application (m) .............. ............................... 2-15 Table 2.3 BPIP output for the Main Stack per SENES (m)... ................................................. 2 -15 Table 2.4 CALPUFF Results Using Application BPIP Output vs SENES BPIP Output....... 2 -15 LIST OF FIGURES Pam Figure 2 -1 Durham York Energy Centre Building and Stack Layout ....... ............................... 2 -13 Figure 2 -2 Direction of Winds from 340 Degrees, DYEC ....................... ............................... 2 -14 350302 - 26 May 2011 ii SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revietir, of DYEC ESDMReport 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) is a proposed energy from waste facility to be located in Durham Region, within the Municipality of Clarington. The proposed facility was subject to a provincial Environmental Assessment (EA), which received approval from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in November, 2010. An application for a Basic Comprehensive Certificate of Approval (CofA) (Air) for the facility was submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in March, 2011, SENES Consultants Limited was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to provide a Peer Review of the Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) Report that was submitted in support of the Basic Comprehensive CofA (Air). The purpose of the review was to assess whether the ESDM Report was completed in a reasonably comprehensive manner, using a general approach that was consistent with standard practices and protocols in -the general approach, and was consistent with the conditions of the EA Approval. As part of this process, SENES reviewed the Air Quality Assessment completed in support of the EA, as well as the EA Approval documentation, the ESDM Report, and the air dispersion modelling files (both the meteorological inputs and model configuration and source inputs). An interactive process was followed, which included discussions with staff at the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Golder Associates (the authors of the ESDM Report, representing the Proponent, Covanta Energy) to apprise them of issues identified during the course of the review. In addition, information on some of these issues was provided to MOE to permit additional discussions and potential resolution in advance of completion of the Peer Review report. The review findings are outlined in the following sections of this Report. 350302- 26 May 2011 1 -1 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revietiv ofDYEC ESDMReport 2.0 ESDM REPORT REVIEW The information provided in the EA, EA Approval and ESDM Report (in addition to supporting electronic files) was reviewed in terms of completeness, accuracy and the overall approach of the assessment. This was done in effort to determine whether the assessment was comprehensive, was consistent with what was completed in support of the EA, and if any differences were noted, whether these would fundamentally change the overall conclusions of the report. As outlined earlier, the review was completed in three parts, including: (a) the approach used in the Air Quality Assessment completed in support of the EA, and conditions of the EA Approval; (b) the emission inventory; and (c) the air dispersion modelling, including (i) the meteorological data that was used in the assessment, and (ii) the model configuration. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. 2.1 CONDITIONS OF THE EA APPROVAL Several conditions placed on the approval of the Environmental Assessment are pertinent to this review. Most of these pertain to the emissions monitoring system that will be installed at the facility. This is discussed in detail in the following section. 2.1.1 Emissions Monitoring and Operational Requirements Sections 12 and 13 of the EA Approval outline requirements for the installation of a continuous emissions monitoring system and specify conditions on how these systems are to be used operationally. The continuous emissions monitoring system must be installed according to a Plan that is approved by the Director. The Plan must outline the sources and contaminants to be monitored, in addition to details regarding reporting frequency and protocols to be established in the event that the measured concentrations exceed the Air Emissions Operational Requirements that are also specified in the EA Approval. The contaminants outlined in Schedule 1 of the EA Approval are the minimum that must be monitored. Air Emissions Operational Requirements are specified in Section 13 and Schedule 1 of the EA Approval. These Operational Requirements outline the MOE's requirements that the facility is expected to meet the limits in Schedule I. at all times with the exception of start up, shut down or malfunctions. The EA Approval specifies that the timing and frequency of monitoring is to be outlined in the conditions of the CofA (Air). It is recommended that the Municipality request a copy of the DRAFT CofA (Air) for review to ensure that these conditions are acceptable to the Municipality. The Air Emissions Operational Requirements are shown in Table 2.2 as follows: 350302- 26 May 2011 2- SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revielh of DYE, C ESDMReport Table 2.1 Air Emissions Operational Requirements Contaminant Operational Requirement Particulate Matter 9 mg/Rm Cadmium 7 ug/Rm Lead 50 ug/Rm Mercury 15 ug/Rm Dioxins and Furans 60 pg/Rm Hydrogen Chloride 9 mg/Rm Sulphur Dioxide 35 mg/Rm Nitrogen Oxides 121 mg/Rm Organic Matter 50 ppmdv = 33 mg/Rm Carbon Monoxide 35 ppmdv = 40 mg/Rm Opacity 5 % (2 hour avg) 10% (6 minute avg) The EA Approval also specifies that the continuous emissions monitoring system must be operational prior to the receipt of waste at the site. It should be noted that the wording of the condition in Section 12.4 of the EA Approval is such that some of the parameters listed above may be monitored via source testing rather than continuous emissions monitors. The frequency of the source testing is expected to be on an annual basis, and will likely be included as a condition of the CofA as outlined in Ontario Ministry of the Environment Guideline A -7 - Air Pollution Control, Design and Operation Guidelines for Municipal Waste Thermal Treatment Facilities. It is recommended that the facility be required to conduct source testing of the Main Stack at a minimum of an annual basis, and that the source testing be carried out on a waste stream that is representative of the typical waste composition that is fed into the facility. Should source testing indicate that the measured emission rates are higher than those used in the current ESDM Report, it is recommended that the proponent be required to update the ESDM Report to demonstrate continued compliance with 0,Reg.419 POI limits. The ESDM Report indicates that the facility will continuously monitor the following: • Baghouse outlet o Opacity, o Moisture, o Oxygen content (02), o Nitrogen oxides (NO,,), o Sulphur dioxide (SO2), o Hydrogen chloride (HCI), 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -2 SENES Consultants Limited Peer ReWeiv ofDYEC ESDM Report o Hydrogen fluoride (HF), and o Ammonia (NH3). • Economizer outlet • Oxygen, • Sulphur dioxide, and • Carbon monoxide. In addition to the parameters listed above, the ESDM Report indicates that the system will also include the following "Operational Monitoring Equipment" which will provide feedback on the combustion units'operations: • Temperature measurements in the combustion zone or a surrogate, • Long term integrated continuous dioxin sampling device, • Flue gas stack exit temperature, • Temperature and pressure of the steam for each boiler, and • Mass flow rate of steam for each boiler. It is unclear how the proposed continuous dioxins sampling device will be used as an operational monitor. Based on the information provided in the EA, the time integrated samples would be collected on approximately a monthly basis, followed by laboratory analysis. There would likely be a time lag of one or two weeks before the laboratory results are available. This type of timing would make it very difficult to use the information operationally, as the conditions that may lead to higher monthly results would have long since passed before the data is available. However, the dioxin and furans cartridge samples can be collected more frequently, provided that the laboratory Method Detection Limits (MDLs) can be met. It is recommended that the frequency /duration of sample collection be shortened if the data is intended to be used for operational control. In addition, there has been no provision for continuous sampling for mercury. As such, it will likely be sampled as part of the expected annual source testing campaign. However, given that there is no pre - sorting of the waste stream, it is likely that some mercury will enter the waste stream. Similar to the proposed dioxin and furans sampler, systems are available to collect time integrated continuous mercury samples. MOE Guideline A -7 encourages proponents to explore the use of such techniques for continuous operational sampling of mercury and dioxins and furans. Use of such a system in the short term (i.e. 1St year of operation) could demonstrate whether the waste stream is adequately segregated or whether a pre - sorting system is should be considered to remove batteries and other mercury containing wastes. It is therefore recommended that a time integrated, continuous mercury sampling system be considered for installation at the facility. 350302- 26 May 2011 . 2 -3 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDMR 2.2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY An emissions inventory is an accounting of the expected air pollutant emissions from a facility. Generally, emissions inventories for facilities that do not yet exist are completed using information and data from similar emission sources (e.g., existing Energy from Waste (EFW) facilities) and operations. This can be from actual facility emissions tests from specific facilities that are of a similar size and nature, manufacturer's data or from information in databases of generalized, production -based emission factors (e.g., U.S. EPA AP -42 database). The emissions inventory for the Durham York Energy Centre used a combination of emissions testing data provided by the Proponent (Covanta Energy), U.S. EPA AP -42 emission factors and the EPA FIRE database, data from the MOE Peel Human Health Risk Assessment (Peel HHRA), manufacturer's specifications and the York Durham (YD) generic risk assessment. As indicated previously, the DYEC has applied for a Basic- Comprehensive Certificate of Approval. This type of approval provides limited operational flexibility to proponents by allowing them to operate within a maximum operating envelope which permits changes to be made to a facility (i.e. the addition of a new.pieces of equipment, changes to process materials, modifications to air pollution control systems, etc.) without applying for an amendment to the CofA, provided that they do not exceed the maximum operating envelope. The conditions related to the limited operational flexibility are generally reviewed and renewed every five years. It is recommended that the limited operational flexibility conditions for the DYECS Basic Comprehensive CofA be reviewed/renewed on a maximum 5 year interval, and that the submission materials be provided to the Municipality of Clarington for review and comment prior to issuance of the renewal. 2.2.1 Criteria Air Contaminants Criteria Air contaminants (CACs) are a suite of air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain and have the potential to affect human and environmental health. CACs include: • Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) • Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) • Carbon Monoxide • Ozonel • Lead • Particulate Matter 1 Note that the DYEC is not a significant source of ozone and thus it was not assessed as a primary (emitted) pollutant under O.Reg.419 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -4 SEMI ES Consultants Liniited Peer Revieli, of DYEC ESDM Repor7 n Total Particulate Matter (TSP), o Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PMIo), and o Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). 2.2.1.1 Data Quality The emission rates provided in the ESDM Report for these contaminants were based on "engineering calculations ", which indicates that they were provided by Covanta. The calculations were based on a measured in -stack concentration from another facility, and applied to the Durham York Energy Centre using the expected stack conditions (flow rate, temperature, etc) at the future facility. It would be expected that the data were collected from a facility of a similar size and similar technology (in terms of process system — firing grate, etc). However, the ESDM Report does not clearly indicate whether the reference facility was similar in nature in terms of the size, basic incineration approach, and installed air pollution control equipment. Also, it does not detail the process conditions under which the test data were collected (waste firing rate, etc), which would typically be at maximum firing capacity. Smaller or larger units firing at different rates (i.e. tonnes waste per day) could result in different exhaust concentrations. Thus it is not clear whether the concentrations are representative of the conditions that would be expected at the Durham York Energy Center. Ontario Regulation 419105 — Local Air Quality (O.Reg.419) outlines the requirements for the emission rates used in an ESDM Report. Section 11 of O.Reg.419 states that emission rates should be "The emission rate that, for the relevant averaging period, is at least as high as the maxitnutn emission rate that the source of contatninant is reasonably capable of for the relevant contaminant. " The ESDM Report also indicates that the emission rates provided by Covanta have been assigned a rating of "above average ". Section 8.3.2 of MOE Guideline A -10 "Procedure for Preparing an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report" (the Procedure Document) outlines the types of data sources that would be considered to be of above average quality. Without an indication of the type of unit that was tested (size and firing technology) and the rate at which it was tested, the data does not meet an "above average" quality classification. In the absence of these details data would likely be considered to be of "average" quality, with the highest emission rate from these sources selected, as per O.Reg. 419. Therefore, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data are representative and meet criteria for "above average" quality or rerun the analysis using the most conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -5 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revieit, ofDYEC ESDM 2.2.1.2 Filterable Versus Total Particulate The ESDM Report addresses filterable and total particulate matter separately. Filterable particulate matter is the fraction of particulate matter that is captured on a filter during a source emissions test. The EA was completed using a particulate emission rate that was estimated based on the performance limit of 9 mg/Rm3. The emission rate used in the EA was noted in the ESDM Report to be "filterable particulate matter" only. However, this distinction was not indicated in the EA, which conservatively assumed that all of the particulate emissions would be in the fine fraction, and thus used the same emission rate for PM10 and PM2,5 (i.e., the EA did not account for condensable particulate, as discussed below). A portion of the particulate known as condensibles passes through the filter and is captured in a set of impingers. In terms of PM2.5, a significant portion of the total emissions are typically in the condensable fraction. Most source testing limits and performance guarantees are applied to the filterable portion of particulate emissions only. For example, the MOE Guideline A -7 is silent on whether the limits apply to total or filterable particulate matter. Anne Maria Pennanen, Ail. Pollution Source Control Engineer at Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment was consulted on what was required by A -7, since this was not specified in the revised guideline. She indicated that "the particulate limits in A -7 are specifically for filterable particulate, as is consistent with the Ontario Source Testing Code ". The Ontario Source Testing Code (OSTC) indicates that the "impinges catch" is not to be included in the total for determination of the particulate emission rate for Method ON -5. In essence, this means that only filterable particulate is included in the reported particulate emissions from source testing, However, Mr. Guillermo Azoear, MOE Source Assessment Specialist was consulted on the requirement to include the condensable fraction in source testing assessments for PM2.5. He indicated that the OSTC is currently in the final stages of revision and will include a new method ON -7 for PM10 and PM2.5 (determination of particle size distribution). This method requires that the measurement include both the filterable and condensable fractions. In his opinion, once the OSTC is posted, both filterable and condensable will be required for assessment of compliance for fine particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) via source testing. As a result of the differences noted above, the PM2.5 emission rate used in the EA is lower than would be expected, as only the filterable portion was included. The ESDM Report used a PM2.5 emission rate that is based on total PM2,5 (filterable + condensable), and as such is more than a factor of 2 times higher than that used in the EA. Since PM2.5 emissions are related to potential health impacts, the approach used in the EA and the corresponding Human Health Risk Assessment is of concern. However, the magnitude of the resulting PM2,5 concentrations in the 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -6 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDMReport EA was primarily driven by the background (non - facility) PM2.5 concentrations. The facility related emissions contributed a very small portion of the overall concentrations. As a result, an increase in the facility related concentration of PM2.5 by a factor of 2.3 would only increase the concentration ratios presented for normal operations the EA to 0.87 from 0.84. The resulting concentration ratio remains below the threshold of 1. Thus, the inclusion of total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable) would not have fundamentally changed the conclusions of the EA. Regardless of the conclusion, this may lead to the perception that the EA was not sufficiently conservative. The Air Emissions Operational Requirement listed in Schedule 1 of the EA Approval applies to Particulate Matter, and does not specify whether it is for total or filterable particulate matter. Nor does it specify that the concentration is based on the procedures outlined in the OSTC. It is therefore recommended that the Municipality request that the operational requirement of 9 mg/Rm3 be applied to filterable PM in addition to Total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable) if this is technically feasible from an operational perspective. If this is not feasible, it is recommended that the risk calculations related to fine particulate matter (PM 10 and/or PM2.5) completed for the EA be revised and submitted as an addendum to the ESDM Report such that the calculations are consistent with the modelled emission rates and predicted concentrations presented in the ESDM Report. 2.2.2 Metals and Elemental Compounds The emissions inventory included a number of metals that are typically bound to emitted particulate, or are emitted as a vapour. These include: • Lead • Cobalt • Cadmium • Nickel • Mercury • Phosphorus • Aluminum • Silver • Antimony • Selenium • Arsenic • Thallium • Barium • Tin • Beryllium • Vanadium • Boron • Zinc • Chromium (hexavalent & total) The emission rates for most of these compounds were estimated based on information provided by Covanta Energy as well as data from the MOE Peel HHRA (which is presumably the Algonquin Power facility located in Brampton, Ontario). 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -7 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revieu, of DYEC ESDM Report 2.2.2.1 Data Quality As outlined previously, the Covanta data is rated as "above average" in the ESDM report. However, the ESDM Report does not indicate whether the tested facility employs a similar firing technology /process to the DYEC nor does it outline the test conditions at which the data were collected. In the absence of this information, the data are more likely rated as "average" and, it is not clear whether the Covanta data are representative of the expected concentrations at the DYEC. Therefore, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data are representative and meet criteria for "above average" quality or rerun the analysis using the most conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). The Algonquin Power facility is of a similar size to that of the Durham York Energy Centre; however, the ESDM Report does not indicate whether the incineration processes/technologies are similar in nature. The quality for this data source is rated as "average" in the ESDM Report. It is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). 2.2.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) PAHs are a group of compounds that consist of two or more fused aromatic rings. In some cases several fused rings are connected by hydrocarbon bridges. Differences in the locations of these connection points result in the formation of many structural isomers, which have the same chemical formula but are molecularly different in terms of structure. These compounds are generally of concern as they tend to be persistent in the environment and have the potential to affect human health. 2.2.3.1 Data Quality The emission rates used in the ESDM Report were based on information provided in the manufacturer's specifications as well as the Peel HHRA data. The data quality is rated as "average" in the ESDM Report. For emissions of contaminants that relied on data from the Peel HHRA, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data are representative or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). The manufacturer's specifications would generally be regarded as being acceptable as they are specifically related to the unit(s) in question. 350342- 26 May 2011 2 -8 SERIES Consultants Limited Peer Re,i,iew ofDYEC ESDM 2.2.4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) The term Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) is typically used to refer to organic chemical compounds which have significant vapour pressures, and which can affect the environment and potentially human health. Health Canada classes VOCs as organic compounds that have boiling points roughly in the range of 50 to 250 °C (122 to 482 °F). VOCs comprise a very large group of compounds which generally consist of hydrocarbon chains or rings with various chemical substitutions. Chlorine, fluorine and bromine tend to be common constituents. While there are a number of naturally occurring VOCs, the bulk of VOCs are man -made and are typically used as solvents used in surface coating (e.g., painting) or cleaning applications. 2.2.4.1 Data Quality The emission rates used in the ESDM Report were based on information provided in manufacturer's specifications, U.S EPA AP -42 emission factors and U.S. EPA FIRE database as well as the Peel HHRA data and YD generic risk assessment. The data quality from all of these sources is rated as "average" in the ESDM Report. For emissions of contaminants that relied on data from the Peel HHRA, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative, or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). Data from the other sources is considered to be acceptable since it is likely sufficiently conservative such that the emissions are not likely to be underestimated. 2.2.4.2 Contaminants Assessed In general, a comprehensive list of VOCs was considered in the assessment. VOCs were either included in the air dispersion modelling or were assessed but screened out of the air dispersion modelling portion because they were considered to be negligible as per the MOE Procedure Document. However, neither the EA nor the ESDM Report included assessments for acetone, acrolein, styrene, and mesitylcne (1,3,5- trimethylbenzene), all of which have POI standards in Schedule 3 of 0,Reg.419. The lack of an assessment of acrolein and acetone were similarly identified as an issue by the MOE (Approvals Branch) during the review of the EA documentation. It is expected that the EFW facility would be a relatively minor source of these contaminants; however, these contaminants should be included in the assessment of compliance with O.Reg.419. This is particularly true for acrolein, which has a relatively stringent POI limit. It is therefore recommended that the ESDM Report be amended to include an assessment of acetone, acrolein, styrene and mesitylene. 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -9 SEN>~S Consultants limited Peer Revieiv ofDYEC ESDM Report 2.2.5 Startup Conditions The emission rates and data quality discussed in the preceding sections apply to emissions from the Main Stack during normal operations. Emission estimates were also developed for Start Up conditions to assess the potential effects associated with these conditions. The emission estimates for the Main Stack during these conditions are generally rated as a lower quality, with a majority of them listed as "marginal ". The emission rates for these conditions were derived based on a combination of the Covanta data and U.S EPA AP -42 /FIRE emission rates, as the scenario includes the natural gas auxiliary boiler which must be fired at start up to bring the incinerator unit up to the necessary operating temperature. Several different scenarios were used to assess Start Up conditions, including the operation of a single train with auxiliary burner and both trains with auxiliary burner, at different firing rates. The assessment used the same concentration values that were provided by Covanta to estimate the start up emission rates from the Main Stack. Given that it is unlikely that the testing was completed during Start Up, these concentrations may not be representative of the expected Start Up conditions at the DYEC. As such, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative, or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP -42 emission factors). 2.3 AIR DISPERSION MODELLING Air dispersion modelling is typically used to assess the potential air pollutant concentrations resulting from the operation of a facility that is not yet built. An air dispersion model is a mathematical representation of how pollutants are dispersed and transported in the atmosphere as they move away from a source. The model uses the estimated air pollutant emission rates along with meteorological data that are representative of the conditions at the site and the mathematical representation of dispersion and transport to predict the air pollutant concentrations at various locations. O.Reg. 419 specifies a list of approved air dispersion models appropriate for use in Ontario, which includes the AERMOD model and soon to be phased out ISC -PRIME model. O.Reg. 419 also provides a mechanism for Proponents to request use of an alternate model if it can be shown that the use of an alternate model is more appropriate than any of the approved models. Due to the proximity of the proposed facility location to Lake Ontario, the Proponent requested to use the CALPUFF model, which is a non- steady state, Lagrangian puff model. The MOE granted the request, since the CALPUFF model is more appropriate at representing the complex meteorology that exists at a land -water boundary. 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -10 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revieiv ofDYEC ESDWeport CALMET (the meteorological pre - processor) has the ability to generate 3 dimensional meteorology on a grid, such that changes in terrain or surface characteristics (i.e. land to water, or vice versa) are considered in the dispersion calculations. However, this makes it a very complex model to use and/or review. As pant of the Peer Review, SENES reviewed the input meteorological data, as well as the general inputs to the dispersion modelling portion. 2.3.1 Meteorological Data The meteorological data used in both the EA and the ESDM Report was developed by Stantec (for the EA) and reviewed and approved by the MOE. These data were provided to SENES electronically by the MOE. The data were then reviewed by SENES staff with respect to data inputs and model switches used, in addition to the general approach used in the development of the data. 2.3.1.1 Data Development The meteorological data file was developed using meteorological observations as the primary data source. For the Application, data from 10 surface stations, 4 upper air stations, 5 precipitation stations and 3 water buoys (sea surface stations) were used for the generation of the CALMET 3- dimensional meteorology. To verify that CALMET generated accurate meteorology, data produced for a single day was analyzed. The results from this day indicated that there were potential issues with the meteorology, due to unexpected temperature gradients located within Lake Ontario, and the exclusion of the land/lake breeze module in Calpuff. Since this was an "MOE Approved" meteorological data set, SENES forwarded these issues to the MOE for preview and comment in advance of completion of the Peer Review Report. The MOE provided a response to SENES on 26 May, 2011. The response indicates that the observed temperature gradients were very weak (-0.5 degree centigrade) and were located far enough away from the facility not to have a significant impact. Also, the MOE noted that they cross checked the CALMET data with observations from two lake breeze events that occurred in May 2007, and found that "the CALMET configuration reproduced these two land/lake breeze cases fairly well." Based on the MOEs review, it is not expected that these issues would result in significant changes to the model predicted air concentrations. 350302- 26 May 2011 2-11 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDMReport 2.3.2 Model Source Configurations The general model set up was reviewed to assess whether the proposed facility layout was accurately represented in the model in terms of source locations and building wake effects. In addition, emission sources were reviewed to ensure that they were represented by the appropriate model source type (i.e. Point source, Volume source). 2.3.2.1 Building Wake Effects The BPIP (Building Profile Input Program) is used in air dispersion modelling assessments to incorporate the effects of wind flow over and around structures and the corresponding effects on the plume. The program only applies to emissions from stack (point) sources. As inputs, the program requires building dimensions as well as the location of emission sources. The program then produces a matrix of dimensional data that defines the projected effect the structure has on wind flow and emissions based on 10- degree wind directions. For each wind direction, the program produces, per stack emission source, dimensions of; • Building height • Projected building width • Projected building length along the flow • Along -flow distance from the stack to the center of the- upwind face of the projected building • Across -flow distance from the stack to the center of the upwind face of the projected building However, BPIP is sensitive to how the structure dimensions are entered into the program. For simple, 1- tiered structures, the program works quite well; however for multi - tiered or complex structures, the format of data entry is critical. The structure layout at the Durham York Energy Centre is complex and hence requires special attention. Figure 2 -1 provides the layout of structures at the Durham York Energy Centre. The numbered buildings align with those presented in the Application, while the red dots indicate the location of the emission sources. As can be seen in Figure 2 -3, buildings 1 through 9 are all part of the same structure, and hence wind flow over and around these buildings has to be considered as if it were one entire structure. Figure 2 -2 provides an overview of the main complex and the location of the main stack. For illustrative purposes, Figure 2 -4 also indicates the direction of wind flow for a wind coming from 340 degrees. As can be seen, winds corning from 340 degrees are virtually parallel to the length of the structure. 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -12 SFNFS Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDM Report Figure 2 -1 - Durham York Energy Centre Building and Stack Layout 660480 680500 680520 680540 680560 680580 680500 680620 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -13 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review ofDYEC ESDM Report Figure 2 -2 - Direction of Winds from 340 Degrees, Durham York Energy Centre 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -14 SENES Consultants Limited Peet Review of DYEC ESDMReport For this illustration, Table 2,2 provides the output from the BPIP model for the main stack as provided in the Application. In particular, the values highlighted represent the values for winds coming from 340 degrees. Thus for winds coming from 340 degrees: • The building height is 35.1 metres; • The projected building width is 41.13 metres; • The projected building length along the flow is 51.58 metres; • The along -flow distance from the stack to the center of the upwind face of the projected building is 47.41 metres; and • The across -flow distance from the stack to the center of the upwind face of the projected building is 2.56 metres. The problem, though, as can been seen in Figure 1B, is the projected building length along the 340 degree flow, for example, should be closer to 120 metres and not 51.58 metres; this is the 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -15 SENES Consultants Limited Table 2.2 BPIP output for the Main Stack per Application (m) SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 25 25 SO BUILDHGT ST9 25 25 25 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 25 25 SO BUILDHGT ST1 25 25 25 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT . ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDWID ST1 60.4 63.77 78.87 80.83 97.98 95.99 SO BUILDWID ST1 91.09 92.81 93.2 73.98 70.61 65.09 SO BUILDWID ST1 46.9 37.23 36.87 35.4 36.63 55.2 SO BUILDWID ST1 60.4 63.77 78.87 80.83 97.98 95.99 SO BUILDWID ST1 91.09 92.81 93.2 73.98 70.61 65.09 SO BUILDWID ST1 46.9 40.87 40.32 41.13 48.32 55.2 SO BUILDLEN ST1 55.92 54.54 65.09 57.59 55.39 43.71 SO BUILDLEN ST1 41.13 51.5 65.2 67.89 74.51 78.87 SO BUILDLEN ST1 64.65 24.44 19.17 13.32 17.56 55.6 SO BUILDLEN ST1 55.92 54.54 65.09 57.59 55.39 43.71 SO BUILDLEN ST1 41.13 51.5 65.2 67.89 74.51 78.87 SO BUILDLEN ST1 64.65 62.14 57.74 51,58 53.59 55.6 SO XBADJ ST9 35.26 28.6 7.48 2.2 -10.18 -12.25 SO XBADJ ST1 -23.12 -39.58 -55.22 -69.18 -81.05 -90.45 SO XBADJ ST1 -97.1 -100.8 - 101.44 -99 -98.79 -96.45 SO XBADJ ST1 -91.18 -83.14 -72.57 -59.8 -45.29 -31.46 SO XBADJ ST1 -18.01 -11.92 -9.98 1.3 6.54 11.58 SO XBADJ ST1 32.44 38.66 43.7 47.41 45.2 40.85 SO YBADJ ST1 38.98 49.16 51.01 56.68 51.81 53.44 SO YBADJ ST1 53.45 52.39 49.85 54.19 47.83 40.02 SO YBADJ ST1 36.35 26.59 10.8 -5.31 -21.26 -27.62 SO YBADJ ST1 -38.98 -49.16 -51.01 -56.68 -51.81 -53.44 SO YBADJ ST1 -53.45 -52.39 -49.85 -54.19 -47.83 -40.02 SO YBADJ ST1 -36.35 -24.77 -11.3 2.56 15.42 27.62 The problem, though, as can been seen in Figure 1B, is the projected building length along the 340 degree flow, for example, should be closer to 120 metres and not 51.58 metres; this is the 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -15 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review ofDYEC ESDM Report distance from the north edge of building 1 to the south edge of building 7, and passing through buildings 2, 4 and 6. This discrepancy implies that the building dimensions were not entered into BPIP in the format that is required for complex structures. Table 2.3 provides the BPIF outputs that SENES believes more accurately represent the flows around the main complex of the facility in respect of the main stack. As can be seen, the projected building length along the 340 degree flow is now calculated to be 122.26 metres. Table 2,3 - BPIP output for the Main Stack per SENES (m) SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 25 25 SO BUILDHGT ST1 25 25 25 35.1 351 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 351 35.1 25 25 SO BUILDHGT ST1 25 25 25 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDWID ST1 86.08 98.71 110.54 119.01 123.87 124.96 SO BUILDWID ST1 122.26 123.91 123 118.93 117.45 112.4 SO BUILDWID ST1 10194 92.31 77.89 70.27 71.65 76.7 SO BUILDWID ST1 86.08 98.71 110.54 119.01 123.87 124.96 SO BUILDWID ST1 122.26 123.91 123 118.93 117.45 112.4 SO BUILDWID ST1 903.94 92.31 77.89 70.27 71.65 76.7 SO BUILDLEN ST1 118.93 117.45 112.4 103.94 92.31 77.89 SO BUILDLEN ST1 70.27 71.65 76.7 86.08 98.71 110.54 SO BUILDLEN ST1 119.01 123.87 124.96 122.26 123.91 123 SO BUILDLEN ST1 118.93 117.45 112.4 103.94 92.31 77.89 SO BUILDLEN ST1 70.27 71.65 76.7 86.08 98.71 110.54 SO BUILDLEN ST7 119.01 123.87 124.96 122.26 123.91 123 SO XBADJ ST1 0.42 -2.43 -5.2 -7.81 -10.18 -12.25 SO XBADJ ST1 -23.12 -39.58 -56.52 -76.14 -93.45 - 107.92 SO XBADJ ST7 - 119.11 - 126.69 - 130.41 - 130.17 - 129.89 - 126.25 SO XBADJ ST1 - 119.35 - 115.03 - 107.21 -96.13 -82.13 -65.64 SO XBADJ ST1 -47.15 -32.68 - 20.18 -9.93 -5.26 -2.62 SO XBADJ ST1 0.1 2.82 5.45 7.91 5.98 3.25 SO YBADJ ST1 33.11 44.1 52.65 59.61 64.75 67.93 SO YBADJ ST1 69.04 67.94 64.75 59.89 56.3 51.01 SO YBADJ ST1 44.16 35.97 26.69 12.01 -3.75 -18.17 SO YBADJ ST1 -33.11 -44.1 -52.65 -59.61 -64.75 -67.93 SO YBADJ ST1 -69.04 -67.94 -64.75 -59.89 -56.3 -51.01 SO YBADJ ST1 -44.16 -35.97 -26.69 - 12.01 3.75 18.17 It is noted here that the main stack is being used for illustrative purposes only. Given the height of the main stack in comparison to the height of the buildings, there will likely be no impact from the buildings on the emissions from the main stack. For the remaining stacks, there will be a significant impact from wind flow around buildings on stack emissions. 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -16 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDMReport To test the impact of the difference in BPIP outputs to dispersion modelling results, the CALPUFF model was run for one day of meteorological data, chosen at random, with the only change being the BPIP dimensional data. The CALPUFF results are presented in Table 2.4. It is noted that the results do not represent any particular pollutant, but are rather provided for illustrative purposes only. Table 2.4 - CALPUFF Results Using Application BPIP Output vs SENES BPIF Output Meteorolo ical Day = July 5, 2003; Scenario = emissions from 4 silos only Maximum 1- Location of Maximum 24- Location of hour Maximum 1- hour Maximum 24- concentration hour concentration hour (11g/m) concentration (µg/m) concentration Application 771.97 680615 E 134.02 680687 E 4860146 N .4860393 N SENES 567,67 680687 E 139.84 680687 E 4860393 N 4860393 N As can be seen in Table 2A, the application of the BPIP is critical to achieving accurate CALPUFF results. Using the SENES BPIP, results in the maximum 1 hour concentration dropping significantly on the day in question, and the location of the maximum also changes, occurring over 250 metres away from the location of the maximum concentration in the Application. On a 24 -hour basis, the SENES concentration is higher than the maximum in the Application, though they both occur at the same location. However, BPIP has little impact on the Main Stack, which is the primary emission source. Therefore, SENES does not believe that any changes to BPIP would significantly affect the maximum predicted concentrations, and thus the conclusions of the report are unlikely to change. In order to demonstrate that this is in fact the case, SENES recommends that the impact of these corrections on the maximum predicted 24-hour concentrations be examined for a few of the key contaminants, 2.3.2.2 Model Source and Emission Rate Inputs SENES reviewed the model input files to assess whether the source inputs were correctly entered into the files. This included spot checks on the stack parameters (temperature, exit velocity, etc) and contaminant emission rates for the various model scenarios that were assessed. No issues were identified. 350302- 26 May 2011 2 -17 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revieu, of DYEC ESDMRepof•t 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 CONCLUSIONS The overall conclusion of the review is that the ESDM Report was reasonably well done, in a manner consistent with industry standard protocols and practices as well as Ontario Ministry of the Environment requirements for emissions inventories and air dispersion modelling assessments. However, some potential issues were identified. These are as follows: Emissions Monitoring • Based on the monthly sampling regime outlined in the EA documentation, it is unclear how the proposed continuous dioxins /furans sampling device will be used as an operational monitor. • Although encouraged by the MOE A -7 Guideline, there has been no provision for continuous sampling for mercury. Emissions Inventory • Emission rates for many of the compounds included in the assessment were based on data provided by Covanta, presumably from source testing at other facilities. However, no details were provided related to the source of the data (facility size, nature of the facility /installed operations and air pollution control technologies), waste firing rate, etc. This information is necessary to assess whether the data (and hence estimated emissions) are representative of the expected conditions and concentrations at the DYEC. • Emission estimates for a number of the compounds were based on data from the Peel HHRA, presumably from the Algonquin Power facility, which is of a similar size to that of the Durham York Energy Centre. However the report does not indicate whether the incineration processes /technologies, installed air pollution controls, etcetera are similar in nature. Therefore it is unclear whether the estimated emissions are representative of what would be expected from the DYEC. + The Environmental Assessment was completed using a particulate emission rate that was estimated based on "filterable particulate matter" only. As a result, the PM2.5 emission rate used in the EA is lower than would be expected. The ESDM Report used a PM2.5 emission rate that is based on total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable), and as such is more than a factor of 2 times higher than that used in the EA. 350302- 26 May 2011 3 -1 SENES Consultants Limited Peer ReWew of DYEC ESDMReport • Although the facility is expected to emit acetone, acrolein, styrene, and mesitylene (1,3,5 - trimethylbenzene), neither the EA nor the ESDM Report included assessments for these contaminants, which all have POI standards in Schedule 3 of O.Reg.419. Meteorology • SENES' review had initially indicated that there were potential issues with the MOE Approved meteorological data. However, based on MOE review and comments, these potential issues are not expected to result in significant differences to the model predicted concentrations. Model Source Configurations • There are issues with the manner in which the building information was entered into the BPIP model. However, given the source configuration at the site, and the height of the the primary emission source (Main Stack), any changes to the BPIP inputs are unlikely to have a significant effect on the model predictions. 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS As indicated throughout the report and in the preceding section, many of the issues that have been identified are unlikely to result in significant changes to the conclusions of the ESDM Report. However, in many cases this is not clear without actually implementing the changes. SENES therefore makes the following recommendations: 1. The Municipality should request a copy of the DRATT CofA for review and comment prior to issuance of the final CofA to ensure that the Municipality's concerns are adequately addressed within the conditions of the CofA. (section 2.1.1) 2. It is recommended that the facility be required to conduct source testing of the Main Stack on an annual basis at a minimum, and that the source testing be carried out on a waste stream that is' representative of the typical waste composition that is fed into the facility. (section 2.1.1) 3. It is recommended that the proponent be required to update the ESDM Report within 3 months to demonstrate continued compliance should source testing indicate that the measured emission rates are higher than those used in the current ESDM Report. (section 2.1.1) 354342- 26 May 2011 3 -2 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDM Report 4. With respect to the continuous, time integrated dioxins /furans sampling, it is recommended that the frequency /duration of sample collection be shortened if the data are intended to be used on an operational basis rather than simply a reporting basis. (section 2.1.1) 5. Given that the waste will not be pre - sorted, it is recommended that a time integrated, continuous mercury sampling system be considered to demonstrate that significant quantities of mercury are not entering the incinerator. (section 2.1.1) 6. It is recommended that the limited operational flexibility conditions for the DYECs Basic Comprehensive CofA be reviewed/renewed on a maximum 5 year interval, and that the submission materials be provided to the Municipality of Clarington for review and comment prior to issuance of the renewal. (section 2.2) 7. It is recommended that the Municipality request that operational requirement of 9 mg/Rm3 be applied to filterable PM in addition to Total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable) if this is technically feasible from an operational perspective. If the proponent can demonstrate that this is not feasible, it is recommended that the risk calculations related to fine particulate matter (PM1Q and/or PM2.5) completed for the EA be revised and submitted as an addendum to the ESDM Report such that the calculations are consistent with the modelled emission rates and predicted concentrations presented in the ESDM Report. (section 2.2.1.2) 8. With respect to the source emissions inventory data, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data from Covanta and the Peel HHRA are representative and meet the data quality criteria, or use more conservative emission factors (potentially AP -42 emission factors) in the assessment (2.2.1 — 2.2.4). 9. It is recommended that the assessment be amended to include an assessment of acetone, acrolein, styrene and mesitylene, Rich were not included but have Point of Impingement Limits in Schedule 3 of O.RegAM (section 2.2.4.2) 10. It is recommended that the Proponent examine the effect of the suggested corrections to BPIP for a few of the key contaminants to demonstrate whether there is an impact on the maximum predicted 24 -hour concentrations. (section 2.3.2.1) 350302- 26 May 2011 3 -3 SENES Consultants Limited • Leading the Way, 1 1A i ENGINEERING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday May 30, 2011 Report #: EGD- 021 -11 File #: By -law #: Subject: JOSEPH ATKINSON PARK RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT the grounds surrounding the Newcastle Town Hall be named Joseph Atkinson Park; and 2. THAT interested parties be notified of Council's decision Respectfully by, Submitted by: A.P.-Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services May 20, 2011 ASC /PW /jo Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 - 623 -9282 9 -1 REPORT NO.: EGD- 021 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 At the April 4 GPA meeting Council reviewed report EDG- 017 -11 - Newcastle Memorial Park - Proposal to Rename (attachment 1) and made the following recommendation: THAT report EDG- 017 -11 be referred back to staff to consider other options; and THAT input be sought from various groups, including the Royal Canadian legion Bowmanville Branch, on the history of Newcastle Memorial Park and dedicating a park to Joseph E. Atkinson. 2.0 ANALYSIS Although there are no records to indicate when and why Newcastle Memorial Park was named it is generally agreed that it was named to honour war veterans. The Royal Canadian Legion remains adamant that Memorial Park should not be re- named. But they have no objections to naming the grounds around the Newcastle Town Hall after Joseph Atkinson. Municipal staff has since met with the Newcastle and District Historical Society, Newcastle Hall Board, and Clarington Museums and Archives to discuss other potential locations to name after Joseph Atkinson. All groups agree that the grounds around the Newcastle Town Hall would be appropriate since the site does not have an official name, and Atkinson lived just east of the site on King Avenue. There is also an existing Provincial Historical plaque honouring Atkinson at the site. The Newcastle Horticultural Society is currently planning a renovation project for the grounds surrounding the Town Hall which would include the re- location of the existing Atkinson plaque. Staff has met with members of the Horticultural Society to obtain their input on the proposal to name the grounds "Joseph Atkinson Park ". The Horticultural Society's concern is that any proposed park signage should be appropriately designed and located so it will not detract from their renovation of the grounds. The type of sign used to name the park should be keeping with the heritage theme for the grounds. 9 -2 REPORT NO.: EGD- 021 -11 PAGE 3 There is currently no funding allocated for a sign to name the area after Joseph Atkinson. The estimated cost for an appropriate sign would be $1000 -$2000 depending on the sign material, size and design. It could be a sand blasted wood sign, decorative metal sign, or a stone monument style sign. The Horticultural Society has not included a sign in their grounds renovation budget but the Newcastle and District Historical Society will investigate other sources of funding for the sign to officially name it "Joseph Atkinson Park ". The proposed sign location and design would be reviewed by all stakeholders prior to construction. 3.0 CONCLUSION Joseph Atkinson was a Newcastle native who rose to national prominence in the newspaper industry and as a social activist. The Atkinson Foundation remains today and has granted more than $55 million since its inception. The grounds surrounding the Newcastle Hall are a fitting location to name after Joseph Atkinson. The site is close to his childhood home and the Provincial historical plaque placed in his honour. Should Council decide to name the grounds "Joseph Atkinson Park" the site would require a new sign. If an outside source of funding is not found Council could consider the sign in the 2012 budget. Attachments: Attachment 1 - EDG- 017 -11 - Newcastle Memorial Park - Proposal to Rename Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Rick Saunders - The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178 Myno Van Dyke - Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Martha Rutherford Conrad - Clarington Museums and Archives Peter DeJong- Newcastle Hall Board Jeanie Barrett - Newcastle Horticultural Society 9 -3 ATTACHMENT #-4-70 REPORT # FG D -Oa7J -// �lI1 �1 REPORT Leading the Way ENGINEERING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 'Date: Monday April 4, 2011 Report #: EGD- 017 -11 File #: (;01 By -law #: Subject: NEWCASTLE MEMORIAL PARK - PROPOSAL TO RENAME RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Newcastle Memorial Park continue to be known by that name;and 2. THAT all interested parties be notified of Council's decision Respectfully by: j Submitted by: A.8. Cannella, C.E.T. Reviewed by: ranklin Wu, Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer ASC /PW /jo March 25, 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 - 623 -9282 9 -4 REPORT NO.: EGD- 017 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 1.1 At the Council meeting of January 17, 2011, Myno Van Dyke of the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society made a presentation to Council and provided correspondence to recommend that Newcastle Memorial Park be re -named to honour Joseph Atkinson. A copy of his correspondence is Attachment 1 of this report. The correspondence describes the early life of Mr. Atkinson who was born and raised in Newcastle and went on to become a leading newspaper publisher and social activist. Mr Atkinson was the editor and majority owner of the Toronto Star from 1899 until his death in 1948. A Provincial Heritage Plaque honouring Mr. Atkinson is located at King and Mill. Street in front of the Newcastle Town Hall. 1.2 Council direction from the presentation was as follows: THAT Correspondence Item D -6 from Myno Van Dyke, Director, Newcastle Village & District Historical Society, with respect to naming the park area surrounding the new library in Newcastle "Joseph Atkinson Park" be referred to staff for follow -up and processing. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 The Clarington Museums and Archives were asked to investigate the original naming of Newcastle Memorial Park. Their findings are summarized in Attachment 2 of this report. They concluded that the park was once the location of a Drill Shed. Drill Sheds were used for the purpose of training local military regiments. While the Museum was unable to locate a document signifying the meaning of the name Newcastle Memorial Park, they believe the intent was to honour local veterans with the park name. 2.2 The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178 was asked to provide their input on the possible re- naming of Newcastle Memorial Park. Their letter is Attachment 3 of this report. The Legion disagrees with re- naming the park and feel that it was. originally named in honour of veterans and should continue in their memory. 9 -5 REPORT NO.: EGD- 017 -11 PAGE 3 3.0 CONCLUSION 3.1 Joseph Atkinson was a Newcastle native who rose to national prominence in the newspaper industry and as a social activist. The, Atkinson Foundation remains today and has granted more than $55 million since its inception. The Municipality's policy regarding Memorial Tributes allows for the naming of parks, streets or facilities in honour of Members of the Community at Large or Nationally recognized individuals at Councils discretion (Attachment No. 4). 3.2 While no documentation could be found regarding the naming of Newcastle Memorial Park it is evident that "Memorial Park" has been applied to parks in various communities to honour war veterans. 3.3 New residential development in the Foster Neighbourhood and North Newcastle will result in the development of new schools and Neighbourhood Parks. The Municipality also has an unnamed.Community Park site on Rudell Road. So there are certainly future opportunities to name a facility to honour Mr. Atkinson. It is staff's recommendation that a future park in Newcastle be named in honour of Joseph E. Atkinson and that the name Newcastle Memorial Park be maintained for the park surrounding the library. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Letter from Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Attachment 2 — Letter from Clarington Museums and Archives Attachment 3 — Letter from The Royal Canadian Legion Attachment 4 — Policy Regarding Memorial Tributes Interested parties to be advised of Council's..decision: Rick Saunders The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178 Myno Van Dyke - Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Martha Rutherford Conrad - Clarington Museums and Archives M. ❑ OT, HE ". MUNICIPAL CLERKS �le Village & District Historical Society sent Council a letter on April 30, 2010 requesting that a street in Newcastle be named after Joseph E. Atkinson. This was turned down by the Region of Durham as there is a duplication issue regarding a similar named street in Ajax. As per recent correspondence from the Municipality, it appears that it is not possible to name a street in Newcastle after Mr. Atkinson. At a Newcastle Village & District Historical Society Director's Meeting on November 9, 2010, the following motion was made and passed. "What a letter be sent to the Municipality of Clarington Council requesting that the parkland immediately surrounding the new Clarington Library at 150 King Avenue East be named "Joseph Atkinson Park' . " Prior to the new Library being built on this property, the park was initially. called "Jubilee Park ". (around 1900) and later referred to as "Memorial Park ". During construction of the new Library, the Memorial Park sign was. removed. and it was not placed back on the property. At our Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Archives, we can find no evidence that this area around the library was ever officially called "Memorial Park ". We do know that this was the site of the Newcastle Armouries at one time and the public outdoor skating rink. This site was used for many village activities and more recently was the site of a baseball diamond. The baseball diamond,`W'ps removed and now the property has the beautiful new library, a parki > j.9t to the north, and north of that, two small soccer pitches and a child ren's::layground. ATTACHMENT NO.:1 REPORT NO.: EGD -017 -11 9 -7 '. LSE i +'` :� _ _ DISTRIB TO. REVIEWED BY %ALTO; 2OUNCIL ❑ COUNCIL NOV. � u i U � DIRECTION INFORMAI IDS COPY TO: • MAYOR C2 MEMAERS C1 GAO OF COUNCIL November 15, 2010 • CDMMUNII), SERVICES ❑ CORPQRA-TE ❑ EMERGENCY SERVIj�ayOrEl16EF ster and Members of The Municipality of Clarington Council: • ENGINEERING ❑ MUNICIPAL ❑ OPERATIONS SERVICES I • PLANNING CLER'K'S ❑ SOLICITOR ❑TREASURY f E0 LID- � T - 5 - s 2 yj'••�, 1 . � �` e SERVICES e: Josep . Atkinson Park ❑ OT, HE ". MUNICIPAL CLERKS �le Village & District Historical Society sent Council a letter on April 30, 2010 requesting that a street in Newcastle be named after Joseph E. Atkinson. This was turned down by the Region of Durham as there is a duplication issue regarding a similar named street in Ajax. As per recent correspondence from the Municipality, it appears that it is not possible to name a street in Newcastle after Mr. Atkinson. At a Newcastle Village & District Historical Society Director's Meeting on November 9, 2010, the following motion was made and passed. "What a letter be sent to the Municipality of Clarington Council requesting that the parkland immediately surrounding the new Clarington Library at 150 King Avenue East be named "Joseph Atkinson Park' . " Prior to the new Library being built on this property, the park was initially. called "Jubilee Park ". (around 1900) and later referred to as "Memorial Park ". During construction of the new Library, the Memorial Park sign was. removed. and it was not placed back on the property. At our Newcastle Village and District Historical Society Archives, we can find no evidence that this area around the library was ever officially called "Memorial Park ". We do know that this was the site of the Newcastle Armouries at one time and the public outdoor skating rink. This site was used for many village activities and more recently was the site of a baseball diamond. The baseball diamond,`W'ps removed and now the property has the beautiful new library, a parki > j.9t to the north, and north of that, two small soccer pitches and a child ren's::layground. ATTACHMENT NO.:1 REPORT NO.: EGD -017 -11 9 -7 Joseph E. Atkinson was born in 1865, in a rented house just east of the Village of Newcastle. Although the home is no longer there it was on the east side of Golf Course Road where the Newcastle Golf Course is today. In 1866, after his father was killed by a train in Newcastle, Joe's mother Hannah moved her family into a house at 44 King Street East, Newcastle. This home is now owned by Jack and Peggy Pruner. Here Mrs. Atkinson ran a boarding house where she took in men who worked at the Newcastle Woollen Mill and the Massey Foundry. Just before Joe's 14th birthday his mother died and Joe took a job at the Woollen Mill. After the Woollen Mill burned down he took a job at the Post Office as a clerk. Later he got a job as a clerk at the Port Hope Times. and this began a spectacular career in the newspaper business. The house that Joseph Atkinson grew up in is only a short walk west of this park. Presently, there is a Provincial Heritage Plaque honouring Mr. Atkinson at the corner of King and Mill Streets in Newcastle. If Council grants this request to name the park area around the library, "Joseph Atkinson Park ", we would also recommend that this plaque be moved to the park. The Newcastle Horticultural Society will soon be undertaking a project to completely re -do the gardens around the Newcastle Community Hall and have plans to move the plaque to a slightly different location. In a recent conversation with their President Jeany Barrett, they are in full support of moving the plaque to the park if this takes place. Note: We would be pleased to present this information to Council as a Delegation. R ( ctfully submitte , Myno V n Dyke, Director, Newcastle Village & District H 905- 987 -5482 so 28 February 2011 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 RE: Newcastle Memorial Park At Clarington Museums and Archives, we advocate the preservation of the history of Clarington. With this in mind and due to requests from the public, we undertook research into the naming of Newcastle Memorial Park. Through our research, we verified that there was only one Armoury built in the Municipality of Clarington and it is located in Orono. Other communities, including Newcastle and Bowmanville, built Drill Sheds for the purpose of military training of local regiments. The Drill Sheds, which were a more temporary structure than an Armoury, no longer exist. However, in Bowmanville, Memorial Park was named and dedicated to our World War 11 Veterans in order to ensure the memory of their sacrifices remained a part of the history of Bowmanville. In Newcastle, the Drill Shed was located on the grounds of the'current day Newcastle Memorial Park. While our Archivist was unable to locate a document signifying the meaning of that name, we feel that due to the intent of-Memorial Park in Bowmanville and the location of Memorial Park in Newcastle on the former Drill Shed grounds, it is highly likely that this park was named in honour of their Veterans. While Clarington Museums and Archives applauds the efforts of the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society in recognizing the accomplishments of Joseph E. Atkinson along with his affiliation with Newcastle, we respectfully request that this recognition takes place without the removal of an existing historical name. Even though today people may not specifically recall the motive for the naming of a site, we view this as an opportunity to educate our residents on that historical name rather than removing it from the face of our community. Newcastle is a growing community and that growth presents opportunities for recognition through the naming of their new parks, schools and even library. We are requesting that the Municipality employ one of these new opportunities to recognize Atkinson and allow the history of Newcastle Memorial Park to remain in place. Sincerely, Martha Rutherford Conrad Executive Director .cc Peter Windolf, Planning Department ATTACHMENT NO.:2 REPORT NO.: EGD- 017 -11 The Royal ' Canadian Legi on BOWMANVILLE (ONT. NO. 176) BRANCH BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO LiC 3K6 March 18, 2011 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Re: Newcastle Memorial Park The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178 Bowmanville Disagrees with the name change of Memorial Park Newcastle. We feel that the original name of Memorial Park was named in memory of our World War 11 Veterans and that the name should continue in their memory. ;CIS ely s President 9 -10 "They served tilt death! Why not we ?" ATTACHMENT N0.:3 REPORT NO.: EGD- 017 -11 .�rvrc i NU.: ADMIN. 16 -98 PAGE 3 Attachment # 1 to Report Admin. -16 -98 POLICY REGARDING MEMORIAL TRIBUTES A) MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: Mavors: recognize past or present Mayors by the naming of a facility. Councillors Deceased During Term of Office /or Deceased in First Term After Leaving Office: may be recognized upon request, by the naming of a street or a park within the Municipality. B) MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE Members of the Community At Large: recognition on an ad -hoc basis by Council, as requests are received, by the naming of any park, street or facility, based on the length and degree of service to the community. C) NATIONAL TRIBUTES /RECOGNITION OF ROYALTY Nationally recognized individuals, such as Terry Fox, and recognition of Royalty through visits to Municipally hosted events, may be recognized by the naming of a street, park, or facility. STREET NAMES: The suggestion of any street names will be processed in conjunction with the Planning Department's registry and street naming process. FUNDS: Funds required to implement recognition memorial tributes will be budgeted in any given year that the tribute is anticipated, and otherwise may be drawn from the Unclassified Administration Receptions and Tributes account. INITIATION: Requests will be considered by Council on an as requested basis. Interested parties are to be notified of Council's decision. ATTACHMENT NO.:4 REPORT NO.: EGD- 017 -11 9 -11 • Leading the Way REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, May 30, 2011 Resolution #: Report #: EGD- 022 -11 File #: By -law #: Subject: PROVISION OF CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES NORTH SCUGOG COURT, WEST SCUGOG LANE TO CONCESSION RD. 3 BOWMANVILLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 022 -11 be received; 2. THAT the firm of D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited be retained to furnish professional engineering services for the design and contract administration for the reconstruction of North Scugog Court from West Scugog Lane to Concession Road 3; 3. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Engineering Agreement with D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited; and 4. THAT the request made by Halloway Developments Limited be capitalized on in order to avoid duplication of works and services currently being provided to the company by D.G. Biddle & Associates saving the Municipality engineering costs and waive the Purchasing By -law 2006 -127 for the construction works associated with the project. Respectfully by: Submitted by: A. . Cannella, C.E.T. Director, Engineering Services ASC /RA/jo May 24, 2011 Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 - 623 -9282 9 -12 REPORT NO.: EGD- 022 -11 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND In order to facilitate the development of an addition phase of residential development in northwest Bowmanville the reconstruction of North Scugog Court is required from West Scugog Lane to Concession Road 3. This project includes the reconstruction of the existing rural cross section of North Scugog Court to an urban 8.5 m local road standard. In conjunction with the adjacent residential developments, providing servicing for existing homes and a school and the need to complete the reconfiguration of the transportation network for this area of Bowmanville in accordance with the vision of the Official Plan, the Municipality agreed to take the lead role in the project providing the remaining services through the reconstruction of North Scugog Court. This includes the Regional sanitary works and all other services necessary as part of our road reconstruction project. The reconstruction of North Scugog Court will require coordination between 7 parties. This includes the Municipality, Durham Region, Hydro One, Enbridge Gas, Veridian Connections, Halloway Developments Limited and the existing development along North Scugog Court including Knox Christian School. The services provided by each are listed below; • Veridian Connections will be'relocating a number of their service line poles within the North Scugog Court right -of -way; • Enbridge Gas will be relocating a length of their existing gas main within the North Scugog Court right -of -way which is in conflict with the proposed road reconstruction; • Hydro One will be working with the Municipality to facilitate the completion of the road reconstruction north of the Rose Garden subdivision including the construction of a cul -de -sac to create the termination of North Scugog Court just south of Concession Road 3; 9 -13 REPORT NO.: EDG- 022 -11 PAGE 3 • The Developer will be installing the required servicing infrastructure and grading in the road allowance to facilitate the completion of the Rose Garden subdivision; • Existing landowners adjacent to the reconstruction will be working with the Municipality of Clarington to allow the full development of the urban section including grading as required to necessitate the reconstruction; • Region will provide the additional servicing with respect to sanitary sewers on North Scugog Court north of the Rose Garden subdivision limits; and • Municipality will be installing the local storm sewers required and construct North Scugog Court completing a portion to the vital link. As the design of the cul -de -sac requires additional deliberations with Hydro One and the Region of Durham did not include for the sanitary servicing of North Scugog Court north of the proposed development in their 2011 budget, the north portion of the reconstruction will be completed next year. This also has the added benefit of maintaining at least one open entrance to the Know Christian School throughout the reconstruction works. 2.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited are the Engineering Consultants for owners of the development on the east side of North Scugog Court. Since D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited have been actively involved in this area and already have a database of engineering knowledge on the site and road grading, existing drainage proposals, servicing works, road design, and utility locations, it is desirable to retain this Engineering Consultant to carry out the design for the reconstruction of North Scugog Court. This arrangement will eliminate any confusion and delays during the design and construction process. As the owner of the development land east of North Scugog Court, Halloway Developments Limited has requested a collective benefit (Attachment #2). Halloway Developments Limited will relieve the Municipality of the design and contract administration of the project in order to streamline the process thereby ensuring their development schedule. The Municipality will benefit through reduced fees in eliminating 9 -14 REPORT NO.: EDG- 022 -11 PAGE 4 the duplication of services currently being completed by D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited for Halloway Developments Limited. It is also suggested that the project from West Scugog Lane to the north limit of the subdivision on North Scugog Court be tendered in conjunction with the development work in order to take full advantage of pricing based on volume. The tender process will be open to multiple bidders and acceptance of the unit prices will be subject to the Director of Engineering approval. This assures the best interests of the Municipality are considered. The Engineering Department has discussed the process with the Purchasing Division who concur with the ability to waive the Purchasing By -law 2006- 127 in order to take advantage of this proposal. 3.0 CONCLUSION Our staff has dealt extensively with D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited on large residential developments in various areas within the Municipality of Clarington, including Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle Village. We have found their performance to be reliable and proficient. The Municipality has a standard consulting services agreement, which outlines the terms and conditions for their consulting services to the Municipality. The agreement with D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited will be prepared on the same basis as our standard consulting agreement. Consideration of the request made by Halloway Developments Limited would be advantageous to the Municipality on several levels. Beyond fiscal compensation, the proposal reduces the possibility of errors through design coordination, delays through construction coordination, liabilities of multiple contractors working within the Municipal right -of -way, and avoids confusion of construction limits and the responsibilities thereof. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — Correspondence ( Halloway Developments Limited ) 9 -15 Key Map (Bowmanville) O N NASH ROAD CONCESS ION NRROAD�3 UUnULJU 6 DS 'PEE: 0 North Scugog Court �co s� o CONCESSION ROAD 3 �a �� WESTOV R DR Q n a Q < LONGWORTH PVE O O z z z w O LU w O of 5 HOCK Q o Rose Garden O TTT Phase 2 DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 OO CSC UGC U) LLI � LU �OOO ti LO 0.� �- Knox Christian Elementary School �0 D: ,per J Q o ®Extent of Works by (D D.G. Biddle and Associates Ui BONS AVENUE Q o! o � Fs Durham Christian s CGS, REPORT EGD- 022 -11 Secondary School Off, ATTACHMENT NO.1 �'9,y DATE MAY 2011 ATTACHMENT NO.: 2 REPORT NO.: EGD- 022 -11 HII LL0141A Y DEVELOI'1I4E-1VTS LIIWTED May 6, 2011 Municipalih, of Clarington Engineering Department 40 Temperance Street Bow nanville, Ontario LlC 3116 Attention: Mr. Ron Albright Re: Rose Garden Subdivision, Phase 2 Draft Plait of Subdivision 18T -87089 North Scugog Court Reconstruction Front 60m Blest of West Scugog Lane To 320ni North & Nest of West Scugog Lane Our File: 104050 Dear Sir, As you are aware, the Subdivision Agreement executed between the Municipality and Hallo.\ay Developments Limited contains the following clauses under Section 4.12 "Special Conditions" (19) The Owner acknowledges and agrees to make a monetary contribution for airy Works associated for the intersection of farmer Old Scugog Road, now know as North Scugog Court and Concession Road 3, in an amount determined by the Director of Engineering Services forthwith after being given written notice by the Director requiring the Owner to do so. These Works include but are not limited to intersection improvements, turning circles, turning lanes. utility relocations, ditch grading, sodding, entrance construction and streetlighting. (20) The Owner acknowledges and agrees to make a monetary contribution for any Works associated with the reconstruction of Concession Road 3 and Cornier Old Scugog Road, now North Scugog Court, in an amount determined by the Director of Engineering Services, torthwit.h after given written notice by the Director requiring the Owner to do so. These Works include but are not limited to intersection improvements, turning circles. turning lanes, utility relocations. ditch grading, sodding.. entrance construction and streetlighting. Continued....... 177NbNQUONR6AD. 20r4FLpc-)1,-. OSHAWA. ON7AR,10, L 1 G3S2 hk`V:• 90557.9-1626 / t 1: 905579 -94 72 9-17 halkaret7d @rogers.com -2- (22) The Owner acknowledges that Phase 2 of this development cannot proceed until the Municipality of Clarington has approved the expenditure of funds for the reconstruction of North Scugog Court from the intersection of Vest Scugog Lane to Concession Road 3 to a full urban section. As outlined in Paragraph 22 above, the development cannot proceed until the Municipality of Clarington has approved the expenditure of funds for the reconstruction of North Scugog Court from West Scugog Lane to Concession road 3 to a full urban section. It is also our understanding that the Municipality has included the reconstruction from West Scugog Lane to Concession Road 3 in this years budget. As you are also aware. our Consulting EnOticers, D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited. have obtained approvals for Phase 2 of the Rose Garden Subdivision that also includes the Engineering Drawings for North Scugog Court to the north limit of the development and it is our desire to proceed this summer with Phase 2 of our development. As the Developer. we would be willing to undertake the responsibility for design. tendering and administration of the works on North Scugog Court to the north limit of our development.. The benefit of proceeding this summer with the works across the frontage of our development is to accommodate an access to the Durham Christian High School from the north entrance during this Contract and to have the southern entrance available while the remainder of the court is being completed at a later date, thereby always maintain a fire route access to the school. In addition to the above, we suggest that the Municipality consider the advantages of including the servicing of this portion of North Scugog Court as part of the Development Tender for servicing and roadworks. This will provide economics of scale with the potential for lowering the costs for both ourselves and the Municipality. The North Scugog Court services and roadworks would be tendered as a separate section so that there would be the ability to easily compare unit rates in the tender between the Municipality portion and our costs. The Municipality would have the ability to accept the award of the tender price for the services on North Scugog Court in order to provide flexibility and control by the it-1 Lill icipality. Continued.......... EM -3- The Municipality portion of the Contract can be invoiced upon the initial acceptance of Stage I Services and upon the initial acceptance of the Stage 2 Services, as outlined on the attached Works Cost Estimate. Please advise a your earliest convenience if the Municipality are willing to adopt this approach for the reconstruction of North Scugog Court. Yours truly, HALLOWYDEVLOPMENTS LIMITED Robert Hann President RH:kd C.C. Mr, William Creamer, D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited Job Files\ 104050\104050 Correspondence1104050 North Scugog Reconstruction:%vpd 9 -19 • Leading the Way REPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday May 30, 2011 Report #: EGD- 023 -11 File #: Subject: HAMPTON SKATEBOARD PARK RECOMMENDATIONS: By -law #: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report EGD- 023 -11 be received; 2. THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Gift Agreement between Hydro One and The Municipality; and 3. THAT interested parties be notified of Council's decision Respectfully by, Submitted by: A.S. Cannella, C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services May 20, 2011 ASC /PW /jo 6 6"t_Q (" Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 F 905 - 623 -9282 9 -20 REPORT NO.: EGD- 023 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 In November 2010 a number of letters and petition were submitted to the Community Services Department requesting a Skateboard Park for the Village of Hampton (Attachment 1). The CSD responded to the letters and forwarded the information to the Engineering Department for follow -up. Engineering staff met with Melanie Blakely, who submitted the petition to CSD on behalf of the community to discuss possible locations and funding sources for a skateboard park in Hampton. 2.0 ANALYSIS When the municipality has received similar requests from community groups in Orono and Newcastle we have committed to providing a suitable municipal site and providing the riding surface for modular skateboard park equipment. The community then raises the funds to purchase and install the equipment. Modular equipment is pre- manufactured for placement on a paved surface and is the most cost effective way of providing a skateboard park for a small town or village. As with the skateboard park projects in Orono and Newcastle the municipality assists with applications for outside sources of funding such as the Ontario Trillium Foundation. This model was used successfully to construct the Orono Skate Board Park and is currently underway for the proposed Newcastle Skateboard Park. Unfortunately the Newcastle Lions grant application to Trillium was not approved but staff will continue to meet with interested parties in Newcastle to pursue outside sources of funding. Ms. Blakely is not affiliated with a service club or other incorporated entity so she would not be eligible to apply for Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant for the project. 9 -21 REPORT NO.: EGD- 023 -11 PAGE 3 Hydro One Networks has a funding program called PowerPlay which is geared to supporting children's community sports and active play. The program is open to municipalities and registered charities in communities where Hydro One is the local electricity supplier. Hampton is supplied by Hydro One so an application to the PowerPlay program was submitted by the municipality for modular skateboard park equipment. In April the municipality was informed that PowerPlay would grant $15,000 towards the project. To receive the grant a Gift Agreement (Attachment 2) between Hydro One and the Municipality needs to be executed. 3.0 CONCLUSION The grant from Hydro One PowerPlay is an excellent start towards purchasing modular skateboard park equipment for Hampton. The application to PowerPlay was for a $25,000 grant but the community is committed to raising additional funds to hopefully reach that amount. Staff will continue to meet with Ms. Blakely and other interested community members in Hampton to determine an appropriate location and design for the park. The Gift Agreement provides 12 months to spend the grant funds. This will provide the community time to raise additional funds and to determine an appropriate location in conjunction with the municipality. Depending on the location, the municipality may need to construct a paved surface for the equipment. If so the funding for the paved surface would be referred to the 2012 budget. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Letters of request and petition Attachment 2 — Gift Agreement Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Melanie and Dan Blakely Monty Wheller and Michael Convery Shane Blakely 9 -22 melame tslawy -i!efanie Blakelv" <dan.blakelv@sympatico.ca> Sent: November -25- 1010:38 AM Subiect Fw: Skateboard letter Melanie and Dan Blakely 5206 Old Scugog Rd Hemton,Ont. LOB 1J0 MUNICIPALITY OF 010 ATTACHMENT NO.A REPORT NO.: EGD- 023 -11 Nov 25,2010. Mr Joe Caruana: Director of Community Services We would like to express our concern to you as parents of young children growing up in the rural community of Hampton. Our son Shane LOVES to skateboard and ride his bike. Unfortunately with our concerns of persistent speeding on Old Scugog Road and lack OT side -walks in the lower portion of the village, we have had to try and encourage our kids to ride on the back streets. This is not an optimal setting for kids to spend their time. We know that everyone wants kids to stay out of trouble, therefore we want to support them in their desire to obtain a skate pork We have spent many days at the skateboard parks, carpooling other kids from the community in and out of Courtice and Bowmanville and Orono, how nice would it be for them to have a place in Hampton they could call their own. Recently a group of youth, aged 10 -13 signed a petition (see enclosed) asking for a skateboard park in Hampton. It was presented to the Hampton Community Association. The Association followed up by approaching relatives in Warkworth who had recently built a skate park there. They have given us information on how to get started & raise funds, as well as including a catalogue with many styles of parks. We would like to ask your point of view and suggestions in this venture to help us follow through for our kids and for the kids in the future. We also need to ask about an appropriate location. We have 3 possible locations, behind the Post office (where the quonset now sits with caution tape surrounding it-or definite attraction for bored kids); behind the community hall or behind Darlington Sports Centre. I think all are good possibilities, but the Sports centre is a little more secluded, perhaps too secluded. We would like to provide the people in our community with a safe area to meet their friends for healthy exercise. If you have ever sat and observed the participants at a skatepark, you already know the ranges of ages are immense, They range from young children learning how to ride their bikes, ride their skateboards and scooters to the 30 year old man who just loves to skateboard. With todays population of overweight kids growing at an alarming speed, we find it very important to encourage excerise in our young people. We would appreciate your consideration as well as any guidance on legal matters and what steps should be taken next. Thank -you, we look forward to your response. Sincerely Melanie & Dan Blakely (parents of an 11 yr old skateboarder) 25/11/2010 9 -23 Dear town of Hampton, NOV 25 2010 lin{Timuniev ServicGS DOW. Hi my name is Monty Wheller. I was thinking about having a skate park in our town and I thought that would be awesome if we did. The reason why I would like one is because if I wanted to go to a skate park I have to get a drive and most of the time I can't get a ride. But if we got a skate park in town we could use it everyday and know would need to get a drive. Me and my friends made a petition almost about a year ago and I brought it to school and I kept it in pocket just in case I saw some people that did not sign it yet I think I got around 250 kids to sign it and I got some adult's to. Thank you for reading this letter and one more thing can you look into a bowl for the skate park if you decide to make it oh and place's to build it the basketball court in the park or at the community center. Sincerely Monty Wheller 9 -24 2_5 2010 MUN1011P : i_(* 017 i _....:s: COMM unity Services usut. To whom this may concern: My name is Shane Blakely and I am a 11 year old boy. I live in Hampton and I would like to see a skatepark come to our community because there is a need for it. We have to drive all the way to Courtice, Bowmanville or Orono to have a good skate. This means having to ask one of our parents to drive us there. My friends and I have so much fun skateboarding, but this fun time shall last no longer then 2 hours because I have to go home. Buisness's don't like us skateboarding on there property, or municipal places like the hall or the arena, yet we have no were else to go. If we had a skateboard park we could be ourselves, without worrying about getting yelled at. We are all good kids. Pretty much all of the kids who volunteered to work the Hampton Fun day are the kids whom desperately want to see a park in Hampton. My three friends Cory Crawford, Ben Jeffs and Monty Weller and I had voluntered to husk corn and set -up and ran also various games, we saw this and through and also stayed to help clean-up. I think that a skate park is an appropriate feature of our wonderful community, not a crime 9 -25 Sincere /y,Shane Blakely And remember skateboarding is , 2919 i MUNICIF'& _ Dear Hampton People Its monty wheller and Michael convery we are wondering if we could have a skate park in Hampton. The reason that we want a skate park is because we are always biking around and there is no good place to do our tricks and the only good places to go are Bomanville Oshawa courtice.skate parks and they are all to far away and we half to get our parents to drive us there. We also would like one so could just walk out the door and bike or skateboard there. Here is a list of people that would like a skate park as well as us. 9 -26 J pfd ru A t. -, ' 9 rres eri�� �m.t I- I- , Rennc a fl �f Eder\ ��1 1 6-9 a-vi e-n eese 'Ter4ouw 9 -27 w Ba 4 CCN <0 c-) My (Cq)a a, rt biao,� am Gift Agreement with Hydro One Networks Inc. (Power Tla/ EwergE7 oktarioCowwaa%C6es GIFT AGREEMENT BETWEEN HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC. ( "HONI ") THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON (the "Recipient ") ATTACHMENT NO.:2 REPORT NO.: EGD- 023 -11 HONI would like to make a donation to the Recipient through the Hydro One PowerPlay grant program, supporting children's sports and recreation facilities, on the terms and conditions set out in this Gift Agreement ( "Agreement "). (I) THE DONATION HONI agrees to make a donation ( "Gift ") of $15,000 in the form of a cheque on the terms and conditions set out herein. The Gift shall be issued once this Agreement is signed by both HONI and the Recipient. The Recipient shall issue a receipt for tax purposes in the amount of the Gift. (II) PURPOSE The Recipient shall use the Gift for the purchase and installation of modular skateboard park equipment for the current skatepark facility located in Hampton, Ontario, and to be transported to the new skateboard park facility once completed in 2012, located in Hampton, Ontario (the "Original Purpose "). If there is a change in this location, the Recipient shall promptly notify HONI of the change in writing. If the change results in a move to a location outside of HONI distribution service territory, the Recipient shall promptly return the Gift to HONI. If the Recipient cannot use the Gift for the Original Purpose, at HONI's option, HONI shall either be entitled to a refund of the Gift or direct the Recipient to use it for an alternate purpose to be determined by HONI in consultation with the Recipient. The Gift will be utilized in accordance with this Agreement within six (6 months of issue date. The Recipient must promptly notify HONI in Pw writing of any delay in such use. (III) RECOGNITION In recognition of the Gift from HONI, the Recipient shall do the following with HONI's prior written consent: 1) Acknowledgement on recipient website, and any publications made about the facility, including any newsletters, and 2) Affix permanent signage /plaque with HONI's logo, along with other community funders, at the site of the facility. The Recipient will work with HONI to come to an agreement on the specifications. Recipient shall ensure that said signage remains free of graffiti and damage, and otherwise remains in a state of good repair at all times. Recognition of Hydro One in donor listings will be in the name of Hydro One Inc., unless otherwise directed by Hydro One. 9 -29 Recognition items above shall'be reported to HONI as outlined in Section (IV) Recipient Reporting. Gift Agreement with Hydro One Networks Inc. Page 2 of 2 (IV) RECIPIENT REPORTING The Recipient shall deliver to HONI a written final report upon project completion on the status of the Gift and how it was applied by the Recipient. The report can be brief, but must include the following: - Total final cost of the project - Total funding raised by the community - How HONI funding was applied - Benefits to the community and measurable impacts made on the community - Testimonials from community members - Photos of the completed project and photos of signage (electronic version) The Recipient shall deliver this report to HONI within 30 days of project completion. The Recipient shall promptly notify HONI in writing of any delay in project completion past the date set out below. Based on current projections, I anticipate that the project will be complete by JuNr- 30,2012. �w OTHER (V] (Date) (Initiao The Recipient agrees that in no event shall HONI, any of its affiliates, or their respective directors, officers, employees, or consultants ( "Indemnitees ") be liable for any loss, damage or injury to persons or property (including death) of any kind whatsoever (including, without limitation any economic loss, loss of goodwill, or for any special, indirect or consequential damages), whether the said losses, damages or injuries are incurred by the Indemnitees, the Recipient or by any third party claiming through or under the Recipient and /or the Indemnitees, which arise out of or are related to the Gift, the Original Purpose and /or otherwise as a result of this Agreement ( "Losses "). The Recipient shall defend and fully indemnify the Indemnitees from and against any and all such Losses and any and all actions, suits, proceedings, claims, debts, obligations, expenses, demands, penalties, fines and costs arising therefrom and connected therewith. The Recipient hereby, for itself and its successors and assigns, releases and forever discharges the Indemnitees from and against any and all such aforementioned liability. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. In the event that the Gift and the activities undertaken by the Recipient in connection therewith are in material conflict with the mission and /or policies of either HONI or the Recipient, either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately and the Recipient shall return the Gift to HONI within thirty (30) days of such termination. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between HONI and the Recipient respecting the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, understanding or agreements, written or oral, between them. This Agreement may be amended only by mutual written agreement of the HONI and the Recipient. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. Agreed to this day of 52011. HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC. THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Name: Title: I have authority to bind the corporation. Name: Title: I have authority to bind the company. 9 -30 Clarftwn REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A Report#: CSD- 009 -11 File #: Subiect: June is Recreation and Parks Month RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CSD- 009 -11 be received for information. Submitted by: Reviewed by: Aseph uana Franklin Wu, Director, Community Chief Administrative Officer Services JPC /SM /EM /wg CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 12 -1 REPORT NO.: CSD -009 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 1.1 Each June, hundreds of communities across Ontario celebrate Recreation and Parks Month. June is Recreation and Parks Month was launched in 2005 as an initiative of Parks and Recreation Ontario (PRO), Ontario Recreation Facilities Association (ORFA) and Ontario Parks Association (OPA). Since that time the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Ontario Public Health Association, Ontario Society of Physical Activity Promoters in Public Health, Ontario Trails Council and the Sport Alliance have also united their efforts to improve the quality of life by promoting the benefits that recreation and parks provide to communities and to Ontario's citizens. 1.2 The goal of Recreation and Parks Month is to increase public awareness of the value and benefits of recreation for individuals, families, neighbourhoods and communities. It is an opportunity to celebrate the success of recreation and parks in contributing to the quality of life in our communities across Ontario. 2.0 BENEFITS OF PARKS AND RECREATION 2.1 Regular physical activity has numerous physical and mental health benefits. For example, it can decrease the risk of developing illnesses such as heart disease, osteoporosis and diabetes, lower the risk of becoming obese, and reduce stress, anxiety and feelings of depression. Recreational facilities and trails provide an excellent setting for common physical activities such as walking, sports and exercise. 2.2 Family bonds are enhanced by the sharing of leisure time. Families that participate in recreation activities together tend to be closer and are more cohesive. This is true with both parent -child relationships and couples. Families are the cornerstone in promoting well -being and healthy development in children. 2.3 Community pride is bred through leisure and park facilities. When communities compare themselves to one another, keen to improve, they almost always evaluate their levels of open space, recreation facilities, and leisure program development. 2.4 Two of the fastest growing segments of tourism are festival and event driven tourism. A recent study indicates the fondest memories people have of their past tend to involve family outings and vacations. 3.0 RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH IN CLARINGTON 3.1 During the month of June, the Community Services Department will be celebrating Recreation and Parks Month, and promoting the theme of 12 -2 REPORT NO.: CSD- 009 -11 PAGE 3 "Live it everyday!" Regardless of how you define "recreation ", it is important to recognize the benefits recreation provides. 3.2 To encourage greater community participation in local programs and events, the Community Services Department is offering a variety of free or low -cost activities throughout the month of June to celebrate Recreation and Parks Month. In addition, a community calendar has been included in the Summer Recreation and Leisure Guide promoting a variety of community events occurring in June throughout Clarington. A full listing of events can be found on -line at http://www.clarington.net/htdocs/events/index.php. 3.3 Parks and Recreation opportunities are essential for strengthening and maintaining a healthy community. Positive impacts are evident throughout the community. Recreation brings neighbours together, encourages safer, cleaner neighbourhoods and creates a livelier community atmosphere. Parks and recreational facilities also help improve a community's image, socioeconomic status and enhances that area's desirability. Attachment 1 — June is Recreation and Parks Month Community Calendar 12 -3 Attachment 1 to Report CSD- 009 -11 facilities. Participants may enter more than one tracking sheet! Cost: FREE! See page 11 for details. 1 - Ontario Early Years Shake, Rattle & Roll every Wednesday until June 15. At the Newcastle Public Library, 1:30 - 2:30 PM (For a complete list of Ontario Early Years Programs, including their Outreach Locations Calendar, call 905 697 -3171 x 302) 1 - Ontario Early Years Play to learn every Wednesday until June 22. At Hampton Public School, 9 AM -12 PM 1 - Ontario Early Years Play to Learn every Wednesday until June 29. At Waverly Public School, 8:30 -11:30 AM 1 - Smile Theatre - 'Joyful Noise'at the Clarington Beech Centre. 1:30 PM, Cost: $5.00. Call COAA 905 -697 -2856 for details. 2 - Ontario Early Years Play to learn every Thursday until June 23. At Holy Family Catholic School ( Bowmanville), 9:30 -11:30 AM 2 -Ontario Early Years Indoor Playground every Thursday until June 9. At the Newcastle & District Recreation Complex, 9:30 AM -12 PM 3 - Free fitness Fridays at the Courtice Community Complex every Friday in June! :i -Ontario Early Years Shake, Rattle & Roll Infants every Friday until June 24. At the Bowmanville Library, 1 -2PM 3 - Ontario Early Years Shake, Rattle & Roll Toddlers every Friday until June 24. At the Bowmanville Library, 10:30 -11 :30 AM 3 - Ontario Early Years Play to Learn every Friday until June 24. At Hampton Public School, 9 AM -12 PM 4-5 - The Art of Country Living Family Adventure Tour in Clarington! A two day event showcasing Clarington Tourism locations and events. 10 AM -5 PM, Cost: FREE! wwwrlaringtontourism.net 4 - 30+ Dance in Tyrone at Tyrone Community Centre for singles and couples. Price includes late night snack. 8 PM 112M; 4st: $8.00. www i,, roneontario.com 7 -Ontario Early Years Indoor Playground at the Newcastle & District Recreation Complex, 9:30 AM` -12 PM 7 - Taoist Tai Chi Program every Tuesday in June at the Rickard Recreation Complex, 9:30 -11:30 AM & 7 -9PM 7 - Toonie Tuesday! Drop -in to Fitness at the Courtice Community Complex, Squash (Clarington Fitness Centre) or Aerobics (Courtice Community Complex/Newcastle & District Recreation Complex) for a tool>"ery Tuesday! Call 905 - 404 -1525 for details. 9 - Concerts in the Park at Rotary Park in Bowmanville every Thursday at 7 PM. Refreshments will be served. Rain or shine; bring your own lawnchair. This week's band: 'The Don MacArthur Band' 10-1) - Bowmanville Rockin' Rotary Ribfest at the Rickard Recreation Complex! www, bo wmanvilleribfest. com 11- Courtice Kids of Steel Triathlon Information Day at the Courtice Community Complex, 10 AM - 2 PM. See page 8 11- Doors Open Clarington! 10 AM - 4 PM. www.doorsopenclarington.wordpress.com 11- Summer Aquatic Registration begins at 12:01 AM 15— 19 - Dad works out at the Courtice Community Complex and enters to win a $50 gift card! 15 - Clarington Fiddle Club at the Newcastle Town Hall. 6 PM; Cost: $3.00 1(i - Yoga in Rotary Park (Bowmanville) Please bring a towel or blanket. 1:30 - 2:30 PM, Cost: FREE! See page 11 for details. 16 - Concerts in the Park at Rotary Park in Bowmanville. This week's band:'Whitby Brass Band' 17 - Pre -Teen Dance at the Courtice Community Complex (Grades 5 - 8), 7 - 9 PM 19 - Father's Day! Dad swims for FREE at the Courtice Community Complex, the Clarington Fitness Centre and the Newcastle & District Recreation Complex all day! 20 - Get into the swim of things at the Clarington Pubkctdtrary! Registration begins at all locations for this summ4&TD.Aeading Club —called Splash! All aquatic explorers can,attend one hour drop -in programs every weekatall branches of the Clarington Public Library; every child`who registers will receive a Splash Adventure Kit. www.clorington- library.on.co 23 - Colouring Contest entries due! 23 - Concerts in the Park at Rotary Park in Bowmanville. This week's band:'Rainstone' 23 - Orono Horticultural Society - 90 Years and Still Blooming! Flower Show/Wedding Floral Designs Orono United Church 7:00 PM 25 - Orono Outdoor Pool Open! On reduced schedule until June 30. 25 - Squash Clinic! Learn to play squash! Pre registration required at the Clarington Fitness Centre. 1- 4 PM, Cost: FREE! See page 11 for details. 25 - Lions Club of Bowmanville 16th Annual 'Rubber Duck Derby: Duck races are 3:00 PM & 3:45 PM at the Bowmanville Creek. Tickets are $5 /each.1 st Prize - $3,000, 2nd Prize - $1,500, 3rd Prize- $500! For more information contact Lion Linda Duffle at , 905 -623 -8780. 26 - Thai Yoga Massage at the Courtice Community Complex. l - 3 PM, Cost: FREE! See page 11 for details. 29 - Orono Celebrates Canada Library Lawn, Orono 5:30 PM. BBQ Music by Hard Tymes and Games 30 - Concerts in the Park.- Rotary Park, Bowmanville This week's band:'Little Peter and the Elegants' FOR A FULL LISTING OF Q i EVENTS PLEASE VISIT: Live It . . wwiv.'rfarrngtonnet 1. 1.. .... .......... Clarington REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A Report#: CSD- 010 -11 File #: Subject: Clarington Young Songwriters' Circle RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CSD- 010 -11 be received for information. Submitted by: JPC /SM /SM /Iw Reviewed by: do Xeph P. Caruana !aiirector, Community Services Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0830 12 -5 REPORT NO.: CSD- 010 -11 1.0 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 1.1 At the Council meeting of March 7, 2011 Council received correspondence from Mr. Ron Beer, President of Young Songwriters'. Mr. Beer was requesting space to start a songwriters' circle in the Municipality of Clarington. 1.2 At this meeting, Council referred this matter to the Community Services Department and the Firehouse Youth Centre. 1.3 Staff contacted Mr. Beer to discuss the songwriters' circle and determine the possibility of a partnership between Young Songwriters' and the Municipality of Clarington. 1.4 Young Songwriters' is an organization promoting cultural unity in the craft of songwriting and performing. The Young Songwriters' are working to construct and coordinate region -wide songwriting circles for youth and adults. Currently Mr. Beer is conducting songwriters' circles on a monthly basis in Oshawa, Whitby and Ajax. 1.5 Current plans would have the songwriters' meeting once a month in Clarington to learn the craft of songwriting and improve performance skills. 1.6 All residents 14 years of age and older would be welcome to attend these workshops free of charge. The only costs to participants would be for workbooks. 1.7 Participants that are interested would also be welcome to participate in the annual Durham Region Songwriters' Music Festival held in Whitby in January of each year. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 The Community Services Department and Firehouse Youth Centre staff discussed potential partnerships and space opportunities. The Firehouse Youth Centre supports the initiative, however, did not have a suitable time within the facility to commit to the group. Community Services staff also discussed this opportunity with the Visual Arts Centre and while very interested, timing during the summer months could not be co- ordinated between the two organizations. 2.2 Community Services staff visited the Songwriters' Circle in Whitby and believes a similar partnership program offered in Clarington would be successful. 2.3 The Community Services Department has found suitable space for the summer months on Sunday afternoons from 1:00pm to 3:00pm on June 12th , JUly 10th and August 14th at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex. The current format for this program will be a free drop -in with no registration required. The 12 -6 REPORT NO.: CSD- 010 -11 PAGE 3 Clarington Songwriters' Circle will continue on the second Sunday of the month throughout the fall. The success of the program will be evaluated at the end of the fall session and further plans for the program would be made at that time. 2.4 The Community Services Department will promote this opportunity to the youth and adults of Clarington through all no cost methods of communication (website, Facebook, Blog, Twitter). Programs offered during the fall session will be promoted in the Community Services Recreation and Leisure Guide. 12 -7 Clarjiwwn REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law#: N/A Report#: CLD- 013 -11 File #: Subject: 1St QUARTER PARKING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD- 013 -11 be received; and 2. THAT a copy of Report CLD- 013 -11 be forwarded to the Bowmanville Business Centre for their information. Submitted by: Reviewed by: P ti ar ' MO Franklin Wu, Municip Clerk Chief Administrative Officer »:717:7 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 13 -1 REPORT NO.: CLD- 013 -11 BACKGROUND PAGE 2 The following pertinent statistical information relates to Parking Enforcement activities for the months of January, February and March 2011 and is provided herein for the information of Committee and Council. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Parking Report for the 1 st Quarter of 2011 13 -2 PARKING ENFORCEMENT QUARTERLY REPORT #1 - 2011 ATTACHMENT #1 to Quarterly Parking Financial Report Tickets issued 13 -3 Quarter 1, Year to date Year to date Year to date 2011 2011 2010 1,502 00• 1,626 2,162 2,162 P.E. Officers 12 12 25 14 Police 0 0 0 0 Public Works 29 29 38 22 Group Four 9 9 3 6 Aspen S rin s 81 81 N/A N/A Paragon Security 2 2 N/A N/A 98 King Street West 4 4 4 9 ProSecurity 0 0 0 0 Fire Services 0 0 15 6 CLOCA 1 1 N/A N/A Brimacombe TOTAL 2,300 2,300 1 1,587 1,683 �.: „�i 3'il+* Jir,K 3 .:hnW .,'r;�ii�M.. 3:A4. lei •.,1','w"n, Y.i,.�e�f�«�a'.�Ei��: D �.��ti.�, e $20,971.50 $20,971.50 $17,808.50 $15,917.00 Meters $1,130.00 $1,130.00 $1,813.65 $514.00 Permits $24,877.00 $24,877.00 $21,358.00 $20,913.00 Fines $2,351.25 $2,351.25 $2,556.75 $2,970.00 MTO Char eback Ex ense $44,627.25 $44,627.25 $38,423.40 $34,374.00 TOTAL REVENUE , i �rt3s�'Y � , k t �a$S..' ✓ i1 -,F .3v KXk. � j �$� ?k t5 i y 1 k f �,7 . .� .S'y ' �, yk.i�» �''rw `yip" L.;e•+ <x�ek�. ?,`x: "` __ro^�.7 .. r}. f` .F,��irY r�eryr`.�, � � F �. • Zr r.`3v :r'+x.+"x ..."C .. �.s•:3..a .J -e - :h�P fr ,,,.1 x.:.ro ...W +„ .67,.�""' .,i ,. ,11ST APPEARANCES Total conducted 42 42 23 40 # Tickets disputed 47 47 24 45 # Tickets cancelled 40 40 20 35 # Requests for trial 5 5 2 2 # Tickets upheld 7 7 4 10 13 -3 Clarftwn REPORT CLERK'S DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law#: N/A Report#: CLD- 014 -11 File #: Subject: SAMUEL WILMOT NATURE AREA MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CLD- 014 -11 be received; 2. THAT that the Terms of Reference of the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee be amended to increase the membership to a minimum of eight individuals; 3. THAT the resignation of Shirley Minifie be received, with regret, and that she be thanked for her contribution to the Committee; 4. THAT Karin Murphy and Tim Lizotte be appointed to the Committee for a term concurrent with Council; and 5. THAT the Municipal Clerk place an advertisement seeking applications to fill the remaining vacancy on the Committee. Submitted by: Reviewed by: P ' L. B ri4CM Franklin tNu, Munici al Clerk Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905 - 623 -3379 13 -4 REPORT NO.: CLD- 014 -11 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND At the Council meeting of January 31, 2011, appointments were made to the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee. On May 16, a resignation was received from Shirley Minifie due to the fact that she is moving out of the area. When the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee was formed in 1998, Council adopted a Terms of Reference which set out the composition of the Committee as being: Chair Secretary Committee Members (6) Agency Members (3) Council Representative (1) Since at least 2002, the Committee has been operating under a revised Terms of Reference which states the Committee will be comprised of a minimum of eight individuals not including staff members or the Council representative. In 2004, the Committee had 11 citizen appointees and in 2007 there were 10 citizen appointees. The committee has requested that the vacant position be filled and that two other members be added to the committee, bringing the citizen representation to 10 members. Having more members will allow for the Committee to do more site work and raise public awareness through special events and other communication initiatives. Accordingly, the Terms of Reference of the Committee should be amended to reflect this change. The Municipal Clerk's Department has contacted two individuals whose applications are on file and they have both indicated an interest in being appointed to the Committee. CONCLUSION It is respectfully recommended that the Terms of Reference of the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee be amended to increase the membership to a minimum of eight individuals, that Shirley Minifie be thanked for her contribution to the Committee, that Karin Murphy and Tim Lizotte be appointed to the Committee and that the Municipal Clerk place an advertisement seeking applications to fill the vacancy on the Committee. Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Shirley Minifie Karin Murphy Tim Lizotte 13 -5 Clarftwn CORPORATE REPORT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: N/A Report#: COD - 019 -11 File #: Subject: CL2011 -7 BOWMANVILLE CREEK EROSION PROTECTION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report COD - 019 -11 be received; 2. THAT The Ontario Construction Company Limited, Niagara on the Lake, ON with a total bid in the amount of $269,047.33 (net HST rebate), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of Tender CL2011 -7, be awarded the contract for the Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection project; 3. THAT the funds required in the amount of $384,133.67.00 (which includes $269,047.33 tender, design, contract administration, contingencies and net HST costs) be drawn from the following accounts: and Bowmanville Creek Erosion Control Account # 110 -32- 340 - 83234 -7401 $330,000.00 Bridge & Culvert Repair Program Account # 110 -32- 330 - 83607- 7401(2010Budget) $33,133.67 Baseline Road Structure Account #110 -32- 330 - 83314 -7401 $21,000.00 Total Project Costs $384.133.67 14 -1 REPORT NO.: COD - 019 -11 PAGE 2 4. THAT the Mayor and the Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. r Submitted by: C , Marie Marano, H.B.Sc., C.M.O., Director of Corporate Services �'C`t Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., C.A., Director of Finance MM \JDB \km 14 -2 f Reviewed by: �.Z : ` ' L/Z' Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 REPORT NO.: COD - 019 -11 PAGE 3 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT 1.1 Tender specifications were provided by AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection project as required by the Engineering Department. 1.2 Tenders were advertised in the Daily Commercial News, as well as electronically on the Municipal and Ontario Public Buyer's Association websites. Subsequently, tenders were received and tabulated as per the letter from AECOM Canada Ltd., Schedule "A" attached. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 A total of eleven (11) submissions were received in response to the tender call and all were deemed compliant. 2.2 After further review and analysis by the Engineering Department, AECOM Canada Ltd. and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, The Ontario Construction Company Limited (OCC), Niagara on the Lake, ON, be recommended for the contract for the Bowmanville Creek Erosion Protection project. A copy of the recommending memos from the Department of Engineering and the consultant AECOM are attached as Schedule "A ". 2.3 Although OCC has not completed any projects for the Municipality of Clarington their references were checked and OCCL has completed a number of projects of similar scope and value for the Fram Development (Engineering by Shoreplan Engineering), Goderich Port Management Corp. (Engineering by B.M. Ross Engineering) and CAPREIT Partnership (Engineered by Bard & Associates). All references were satisfied with work completed by OCC. 14 -3 REPORT NO.: COD - 019 -11 PAGE 4 2.4 Queries with respect to department needs, specifications, etc., should be referred to the Director of Engineering. 3.0 FINANCIAL 3.1 The total project cost, including tender price of 269,047.33, design, contract administration, contingencies amounts to $384,133.67 (Net of HST Rebate). The detailed funding required for the project is outlined in the memo from Engineering Services and the letter from AECOM Canada Ltd., marked Schedule "A" and summarized below. 3.2 Funding for this project will be drawn from the following: Department and Account Number Engineering Department — Capital Budget Bowmanville Creek Erosion Control Account # 110 -32- 340 - 83234 -7401 $330,000.00 Bridge & Culvert Repair Program Account # 110 -32- 330 - 83607- 7401(2010Budget) $33,133.67 Baseline Road Structure Account #110 -32- 330 - 83314 -7401 $21,000.00 Total Project Costs $384133.67 14 -4 REPORT NO.: COD - 019 -11 PAGE 5 4. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 4.1 The Director of Finance has reviewed the funding requirements and concurs with the recommendation. 4.2 This report has been reviewed for recommendation by the Purchasing Manager, with the appropriate departments and circulated as follows: Concurrence: Director of Engineering Attachments: Schedule "A" — Memo from Engineering Services & Letter from AECOM Canada Ltd. 14 -5 SCHEDULE "A" Lending the {day MEMO TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Ron Albright, Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works DATE: May 20, 2011 RE: 2011 Erosion Control Works, Bowmanville CL2011 -07 The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the recommendation provided by AECOM Canada Ltd. ( "AECOM ") and offers the following comments. As part of the.Municipality of Clarington's ongoing efforts to address erosion issues within lands owned by the Municipality of Clarington, the Engineering Services department, with approval from Central Lake Ontario Conservation, have completed designs to address 3 existing erosion concerns as follows: Bowmanville Creek East Bank (roughly opposite 147 Queen Street) Bowmanville Creek East Bank at Rotary Park Pedestrian Bridge Darlington Creek at North End of Structure 99055 at Baseline Road The proposed works will address bank erosion issues at these locations and help to reduce sediment loading of the creek as well as protecting the Municipality's infrastructure as is the case with the Pedestrian Bridge and Structure 99055 works. Although the proposed works at the Rotary Park pedestrian bridge will address the immediate concern of the erosion compromising the walking path at the east abutment of the bridge there will be additional work required in the future to address additional erosion north of the bridge on the east bank. This will be designed and planned for as part of future budget deliberations. We concur with AECOM's recommendation to award the contract to The Ontario Construction Company Limited (OCC) in the amount of $264,394.00, exclusive of HST, or $269,047.33 net HST, to complete the erosion remedial works at the three locations outlined above. A detailed breakdown of Clarington's funding for the complete project costs is provided on the Cost Apportionment supporting AECOM's tender review letter. Due to past experiences on similar projects, a contingency amount of approximately 10% is carried forward. Therefore, including design and tender fees, construction, as well as contract administration fees, the Engineering Department advises the following breakdown for the above referenced project net of H.S.T.: 14 -6 SCHEDULE "A" 2011 Erosion Control Works. Bowmanville 2 A,iay 20, 2011 The unexpended budget amount from the Bridge and Culvert Repair Program will be used in a future tender this year to address additional structure needs. We recommend the report to Council move forward based on the above apportionments. Attached for your files is the recommendation provided by AECOM which includes a more detailed breakdown of estimated project costs. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, A�c R4 Albright, P. Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works RA /ra Attachment Cc: Will McCrae, P. Eng., Manager, Cobourg Office, AECOM Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance A.S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services 14 -7 Project Breakdown Total Project Value $384,133.67 Budget Amount Bowmanville Creek Erosion Control 110 -32- 340 - 83234 -7401 (2010 &2011) $330,000 Bridge and Culvert Repair Program 110 -32- 330 - 83607 -7401 (2010) $200,000 Baseline Road Structure $ 21,000 110 -32- 330 - 83314 -7401 (2011) Estimated Unexpended Budget $166,866.33 Additional Funding Required $0 The unexpended budget amount from the Bridge and Culvert Repair Program will be used in a future tender this year to address additional structure needs. We recommend the report to Council move forward based on the above apportionments. Attached for your files is the recommendation provided by AECOM which includes a more detailed breakdown of estimated project costs. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, A�c R4 Albright, P. Eng. Manager, Infrastructure and Capital Works RA /ra Attachment Cc: Will McCrae, P. Eng., Manager, Cobourg Office, AECOM Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance A.S. Cannella, Director of Engineering Services 14 -7 A=COM AECOM 513 Division Street 905 372 2121 tel Cobourg, ON, Canada K9A 5G6 905 372 3621 fax www.aecom.com SCHEDULE "A" _ .. _...._... - - - - - ...... _ ................ t 0X ....._ - -� �, ._ -- May 18, 2011 Mr. A. S. Cannella, C.E.T. Director, Engineering Services The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Sir: Project No: 12- 29677 -20 Regarding: 2011 Erosion Control Works, Contract No. CL2011 -07 (the "Contract ") Municipality of Clarington Tenders for the above project were opened at the Municipal Offices on Friday, May 13, 2011 at 2:15p.m. A list of the bids received is provided in the table below. BIDDER TOTAL BIQ TOTAL BID TOTAL BID (Excl HST) (Incl 13_% HST) (Net HST Rebate) , The Ontario construction Company Limited Niagara on the Lake, ON $ 264,394.00 $ 298,765.22 $ 269,047.33 R &M Construction Acton, ON $ 281,574.00 $ 318,178.62 $ 286,529.70 Dynex Construction Ltd. Concord, ON $ 318,856.00 $ 360,307.28 $ 324,467.87 407043 Ontario Limited o/c Hollandia Land & Environmental $ 323,055.00 $ 365,052.15 $ 328,740.77 Chelmford, ON Cedarspring Landscaping Group Limited Ancaster, ON $ 333,058.15 $ 376,355.71 $ 338,919.97 Drain Bros Excavating Ltd. Norwood, ON $ 336,695.95 $ 380,466.42 $ 342,621.80 Iron Trio Inc. Concord, ON $ 339,415.26 $ 383,539.24 $ 345,388.97 Hawkins Contracting Services Markham, ON $ 369,403.00 $ 417,425.39 $ 375,904.49 Continued on Page 2 CL2011 -07 Tender Award Leller.Doc 14 -8 ACOM SCHFDULE "A" Page 2 May 18, 2011 "calculation trror The Municipality of Clarington's Purchasing Department (the "Purchasing Department ") reviewed all bids to confirm compliance with the Clarington Purchasing By -Law. All bids were deemed compliant by the Purchasing Department. AECOM Canada Ltd. ( "AECOM ") has reviewed the two lowest bids and confirmed the bid values noted above. The Ontario Construction Company Limited (OCC) is the lowest bidder. As requested by the Purchasing Department, references were checked only for the lowest bidder. OCC has completed a number of projects of similar scope and value including work for the Fram Development (Engineering by Shoreplan Engineering), Goderich Port Management Corp. (Engineering by B.M Ross Engineering), and CAPREIT Partnership (Engineering by Bard & Associates). Engineering references stated that OCC has completed work to specification and to their satisfaction. With the low bid from OCC, and other associated project costs noted on the attached cost apportionment, the project is within budget. Should funding be available, it is our opinion, based on the input provided by the references contacted regarding performance on previous projects, that the bid in the amount of $264,394.00 (exclusive of HST) may be awarded to The Ontario Construction Company Limited of Niagara on the Lake, Ontario subject to all provisions of the Clarington Purchasing Bylaw being met. Bid Cheques or Bid Bonds shall be retained for OCC and R &M Construction, the second low bidder, until the Contract has been executed. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. a Will McCrae, P.Eng. Manager, Cobourg Office will.mccrae @aecom.com WM:pc Encl. cc: Mr Ron Albright, P:Eng Manager of tnfrasttucture andiGapital UVorks, Mi niapallty of Clay rfgtbn' CL2011 -07 Tender Award Le11er.Doc 14 -9 SCHEDULE "A" r o� N N P '- N `- W � N mr v m j N F U o X O N r N C P C y N o a C N G O r V E m o U u w U N E m 2 O J V N m C c A U n M v o U Q o Y °u 0 Z r ° � o N a A w U 0 U U d o a oJ o v a O u o v Q ` C ° L) W 6 y v c v o Q E m b a O 3 c E w j w a O z > ° U o 0 0 N 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 m o 0 m N v W N b0 o o N o 0 0 M D 0 0 N o 0 0 h 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 o o r of N P o o o O o 0 0 O 00 v v o d M S n N N N 'p N C > C yOj N m � O � ° Q 6 d O 0 O O N O O N ° O N b lM r b h N O N O ° O O O O O O t7 N r1 YI N p W N b O O b bm C N N M N OI O N N N N N h r�9 O N m 20 C I U O v q Q m M M m N N A U c - $ v d C 0 ° m O .Q Y o N aD a0 c; O N O O O y ` N b W N O N O O ~ O m © m m O P ! O O O O Q O U O h h IA N P P H Y P N O O W U > c M m N E ^ m W O 0 O O A H 0 ° N N N 0 O N O N M 0 O O N 0 D O O t7 N o O 0 O N P r 0OR 1 P r POP P Oi o O O O O o O O O b O D O O 0 c7 ° O r o O O N P P l0 m O ° N m N Ili N r b r v M m u c m N c v rn m m O g N C O y d d a o rn V� d h F c o Z y m N = Uxx E N N N d u N W 0 2 Fn O c >o ? o> > f d N y A v= a m ❑ 7 o N N o . C $ a c R b Q y v 3 m¢ E E w Ua z N A e o s a - 2 Fm - v u~o i o U m in r C E z c U¢ U m E u P w a o O m u 0 U c m u ~ N o U C u m ar'i 'O E Q d O E E N ° r a C a C a. 2 r a 0 O a` Q v c v .- m? N cc O v 0 d° a° Ti rn c y o> u a` v o O N o U Q C .� O O O N O O 2 c O1 C R ° O d F G d I1 a U 0 a O o� a E ° O U Q �° c ❑� cl 1° t a o 0 W E > O O O Q w d v U a O O r W a ❑ O r O ~ 0 a m n 14 -10 Clar*wn REPORT FINANCE DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: MAY 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law #: Report#: FND- 013 -11 File #: Subject: COMPLAINT BY RIZWAN DEAN WANCHO OF NFP GROUP CONSULTANTS UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: THAT Report FND- 013 -11 be received; 2. THAT the request of Rizwan Dean Wancho of NFP Group Consultants for an exemption from the Development Charge By -law based on the project on Lots 101 and 102, 134 and 136 Queen Street being designated an intensification project be denied; and 3. THAT NFP Group Consultants be advised of Council's decision. Submitted byj �t Reviewed by _G/L Nancy Taylor, B.B.A., C.A. Director of Finance/ NT /hjl Treasurer Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 15 -1 REPORT NO.: FND- 013 -11 BACKGROUND: PAGE 2 1.0 Mr. Rizwan Dean Wancho of NFP Group Consultants sent a letter to Council dated April 29, 2011 regarding development charges being applied to the redevelopment of Lots 101 and 102, 134 and 136 Queen Street, Bowmanville. At a meeting held on May 16, 2011, Council referred the letter to staff. A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment "A "). 1.1 Under By -Law 2010 -058, development charges are payable in respect of the development of residential and non - residential buildings or structures at the rates set out in Schedules 1" and "2" of the By -law, subject to certain exemptions set out in the By -Law. With respect to the building in question, it is "Residential" as the term "residential" is defined in subsection 1(1) of the By -Law. Accordingly, the residential development charge would be payable in respect of this development unless they are exempted from the development charge by an exemption provision contained in By -law 2010 -058. 1.2 Whether or not development charges are payable in respect of any development is determined in the first instance by the Chief Building Official when an application for a building permit is received. His determination is based on the characteristics of the development that is proposed, other evidence provided by the applicant to establish the use to which the development will be put, and the provisions of the Development Charges By -Law. 1.3 The Chief Building Official, in interpreting the By -Law, concluded that the building in question was residential with no exemption ability. In discussions with staff, the proponent was looking for a demolition credit as some years ago there was a building on the property. However, the credit available under subsection 22(2) of the By -Law is only available if a building permit is issued within five years of the demolition occurring. This is clearly not the case so this credit was not available. 1.4 In his letter to Council, the proponent is requesting an exemption for intensification projects in TownNillage Centres. This is addressed under subsection 20(11) of the By -Law. This exemption is only for multi - residential buildings of three stories or more. This is also clearly not the case so this partial exemption is also not available. 1.5 Section 20 of the Development Charges Act is attached for the information of Council (Attachment "B "). A person can only file a complaint on the grounds specified in S.20 (1)(a) to (c). They can complain that the amount was incorrectly determined, a credit should have applied, or that there was an error in the application of the By -Law. Mr. Wancho did not base his letter on these items. However, as noted above, staff did review the wording of the By -Law with respect to Mr. Wancho's request for an exemption. 15 -2 REPORT NO.: FND- 013 -11 PAGE 3 CONCLUSION: 2.0 As mentioned above, the proponent could not establish that there was an error in the application of the By -Law. As a result, development charges are levied under the By -Law. It is recommended that this decision be upheld. Council cannot provide relief to the proponent unless they wish to provide a grant separate from the development charges issue and Council would have to be cognizant of bonusing provisions under the Municipal Act. If Council wished to amend the By- Law to change the definition of intensification projects, an update to the background study would be required to assess the impact and the full public notification and public meeting process would be required. The proponent can appeal the decision of Council to the OMB, but they also would only assess whether the current By -Law has been correctly applied. Attachment "A ": Letter from NFP Group Consultants Attachment "B ": Section 20 of the Development Charges Act Interested parties: Rizwan Dean Wancho NFP Consultants 15 -3 15 . 4 Fax: 4.1.67299 -3037 nfpgrp @bellnetca `U. 7.Lawi-enc.e Ave; East, Suite is Scarborough, ON M1P 2S8 Tel: 416- 299 -0826 Attachment B Complaint to council of municipality 20• ! 1)A person required to pay a development charge, or the person's agent, may complain to the council of the municipality imposing the development charge that, (a) the amount of the development charge was incorrectly determined; (b) whether a credit is available to be used against the development charge, or the amount of the credit or the service with respect to which the credit was given, was incorrectly determined; or (c) there was an error in the application of the development charge by -law. 1997, c. 27, s. 20 (1). Time limit MA complaint may not be made under subsection (1) later than 90 days after the day the development charge, or any part of it, is payable. 1997, c. 27, s. 20 (2). Form of complaint fDThe complaint must be in writing, must state the complainant's name, the address where notice can be given to the complainant and the reasons for the complaint. 1997, c. 27, s. 20 (3). Hearing The council shall hold a hearing into the complaint and shall give the complainant an opportunity to make representations at the hearing. 1997, c. 27, s.20(4). Notice of hearing The clerk of the municipality shall mail a notice of the hearing to the complainant att.least 14 days before the hearing. 1997,*c. 27, s. 20 (5). Council's powers (OAfter hearing the evidence and submissions of the complainant, the council may dismiss the complaint or rectify any incorrect determination or error that was the subject of the complaint. 1997, c. 27, s. 20 (6). Notice of decision and time for appeal 21• (1)The clerk of the municipality shall mail to the complainant a notice of the council's decision, .and of the last day for appealing the decision, which shall be the day that is 40 days after the day the decision is made. 1997, c. 27, s. 21 (1). 15 -6 s Requirements of notice QThe notice required under this section must be mailed not later than 20 days after the day the council's decision is made. 1997, c. 27, s. 21 (2). Appeal of council's decision 22• MA complainant may appeal the decision of the council of the municipality to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the clerk of the municipality, on or before the last day for appealing the decision, a notice of appeal setting out the reasons for the appeal. 1997, c. 27, s. 22 (1). Additional ground (QA complainant may also appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if the council of the municipality does not deal with the complaint within 60 days after the complaint is made by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal. 1997, c. 27, s. 22 (2). 15 -7 • ar�n n Leading the Way REPORT MUNICIPAL SOLICITOR Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINSTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 30, 2011 Resolution #: By -law#: Report #: LGL- 006 -11 File #: L2030 -05 -11 Subject: 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle GRCA Permit No. 1089 dated June 30, 2010 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council as follows: 1. THAT Report LGL- 006 -11 be received for information; 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign an agreement with 1744856 Ontario Inc. substantially in the form of agreement attached to this Report (Attachment No. 9) in order to address some of the off -site impacts associated with the on -going fill activity at 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle; 3. THAT staff be directed to review Site Alteration By -law No. 2008 -114 and report back to Council with recommended amendments to more directly address the impacts of commercial fill operations; 4. THAT the following resolution passed by the Board of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority at its meeting on May 19, 2010 be endorsed: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority request Conservation Ontario engage the Provincial government to develop and implement legislation to effectively deal with large scale commercial fill operations, and FURTHER THAT the Full Authority forward this motion to the watershed municipalities, requesting the municipalities engage the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to also work towards addressing concerns regarding large commercial fill operations. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623 -3379 F (905)623 -0720 `lr-= REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 PAGE 2 5. THAT staff be directed to continue to participate in the Greater Toronto Countryside Mayors Alliance roundtable discussions dealing with the regulation of commercial fill operations; 6. THAT Council reaffirm its support for the efforts of John R. O'Toole MPP to see that the Province of Ontario takes all necessary steps to provide for the proper regulation of commercial fill operations as set out in his letters to the Minister of the Environment, Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing dated April 12, 2011; 7. THAT staff be directed .to participate in the Durham Region Works Department initiative to develop a model by -law that could be consistently applied across Durham Region to address the impacts of commercial fill operations; and 8. THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Minister of the Environment, Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, John R. O'Toole MPP, The Regional Municipality of Durham, all local municipalities in Durham Region, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Ted and Beth Meszaros, Sherry Ibbotson, Donna Middleton and Carmela Marshall. Submitted by: Andrewt. Allison, B. Comm., LL.B. Municipal Solicitor Reviewed by: Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer 16 -2 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 1.0 PURPOSE PAGE 3 1.1 This Report is intended to provide Council with some background information relating to the on -going activities at the property municipally known as 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle (the "Property "). 1.2 This Report is also intended to provide Council with some options to address the impacts of commercial fill operations, not only at the Property but elsewhere in the Municipality. 2.0 BACKGROUND The Property 2.1 1744856 Ontario Inc. (the "Owner ") owns the Property. It was purchased in May 2009. The Property and surrounding lands are shown in the Location Map attached to this Report (Attachment No. 1). The Property is approximately 36 ha in size. 2.2 Barklay Fieldstone Estates Limited, a corporation that is affiliated with the Owner, owns land immediately to the north of the Property (shown as 2505 Morgans Road on Attachment No. 1). 2.3 The Department of Highways Ontario (now MTO) is the registered owner of a piece of land contiguous to the Property on the east side of Morgans Road (see Attachment No. 1). There is an on -going dispute between the Owner and MTO regarding the rights and interests that each has in relation to this parcel. 2.4 The Property has two vehicle access points — one off of Regional Highway 2 and one off of Morgans Road. The Owner had constructed a third access onto Morgans Road north of the MTO property without Municipal permission. This access was removed by Municipal staff on March 14, 2011. There is also legal access to the Property through 2505 Morgans Road as shown in Attachment No. 1. 2.5 The Property is an abandoned aggregate pit. 2.6 The Property is zoned Agricultural and Environmental Protection. A provincially designated wetland complex is located within the area zoned Environmental Protection. The uses permitted as of right today in the Agricultural zone include one single detached dwelling, one additional single detached dwelling for a person employed on the lot, and a home occupation use. Non - residential uses include conservation and forestry, a farm, fur farms, riding and boarding stables, a seasonal farm produce sales outlet, and private kennels. The permitted uses in the Environmental Protection zone include greenbelt park, conservation, forestry, bird sanctuaries, wildlife reserves or other similar uses which provide for the preservation of the natural environment, a farm exclusive of any buildings or structures, and flood and erosion control works. A more 16 -3 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 PAGE 4 detailed description of the land use designations applicable to the Property and possible future land uses are set out in Attachment No. 2. GRCA Permit 2.7 Ontario Regulation 168/06 (Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses) regulates the placing and dumping of fill in areas under the jurisdiction of Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority ( "GRCA "). This regulation was passed under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. 2.8 The entire Property is within an area regulated by GRCA under Ontario Regulation 168/06. Accordingly, Clarington's Site Alteration By -law No. 2008 -114 does not and cannot apply to the Property (subsection 142(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and section 3.4 of By -law No. 2008 -114). Clarington therefore has no legal ability to regulate the placing or dumping of fill on the Property. 2.9 On June 30, 2010, GRCA issued a permit (the "Permit ") under Ontario Regulation 168/06 (Attachment No. 3). The Permit will expire on June 30, 2011. 2.10 The Permit requires certification that all imported materials meet MOE Table 2 standards, that a final grading plan be submitted, that sediment and erosion controls be installed, and that stockpile areas which had been identified as having exceeded Table 2 levels be removed or relocated. 2.11 On May 3, 2011, the Owner applied for a renewal of the Permit. GRCA is in the process of reviewing this application. 3.0 COMMERCIAL FILL ISSUES 3.1 GRCA staff have expressed a concern regarding the extent of their powers to regulate fill activity on the Property. Their concerns are set out in a staff report dated May 19, 2011 (Attachment No. 4). Sections 3.1 through 3.19 below describe some of the steps that have been taken recently by public officials and public agencies to address the concerns of GRCA and other conservation authorities, municipalities, and the general public regarding the regulation of commercial fill operations. CLOCA 3.2 On April 10, 2010, the Board of Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority ( "CLOCK) approved a large fill protocol. This protocol was CLOCA's first attempt at establishing a guideline document to ensure that its interests could be met when reviewing fill proposals. CLOCA was one of the first conservation authorities to put in place such a protocol. While implementing the protocol over the last year, CLOCA has had many discussions with various stakeholders (municipal partners, contractors, other conservation authorities and the Province) about ongoing issues around fill sites and 16 -4 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 PAGE 5 strengths and weaknesses of the various regulatory tools available. CLOCA has recently started an internal review of its protocol to strengthen certain components in order to address potential issues of fill sites, particularly as they relate to concerns regarding contamination and pollution. John O'Toole MPP 3.3 On April 4, 2011, John O'Toole MPP raised the issue of commercial fill activity on Morgans Road during question period in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and followed up with letters dated April 12, 2011 to the Minister of the Environment, Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing. Council endorsed these letters on May 2, 2011 (Resolution #C- 212 -11). Ministry of the Environment 3.4 In April 2010, MOE staff visited the Property and obtained representative soil samples of two fill piles located at the southeast end of the Property. 3.5 Sample results indicated an exceedance of the Ministry's Table 2 Soil Criteria (Agricultural /Residential) for a sample from the most southerly pile. These results were forwarded to the GRCA on June 22, 2010 for its consideration. 3.6 On April 6, 2011, MOE issued an Order_(Number 3333- 8FN29D) respecting the Property. The Order requires additional, more stringent controls on the materials being deposited at the site and management of the site including an environmental site assessment with soil and groundwater sampling, auditing of incoming soils and the use of qualified individuals to manage the site. The Order also requires the Owner to disclose any business relationships amongst the parties involved in the site activities. A copy of the Provincial Officer's Order is attached to this Report (Attachment No. 5). 3.7 By letter dated April 13, 2011, the Owner requested that the MOE Director review the Provincial Officer's Order. In a Director's Order issued April 15, 2011, the original Order was amended. A copy of the Director's Order is attached to this Report (Attachment No. 6). The Director's Order recognized the jurisdictional limitations of GRCA and Clarington. 3.8 In the Director's Order, the Owner was given additional time (to May 9, 2011) to comply with some aspects of the original Order. The Owner was also required to prepare a communications plan. 3.9 A copy of the procedure prepared by the Owner in response to item 5 of the original Order ( "Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures ") is attached to this Report (Attachment No. 7). 3.10 On April 28, 2011, untreated, drinking water well sampling was conducted by MOE staff at three private residences located in the immediate vicinity of the Property, all of which were located on Morgans Road. The samples were analyzed for metals, general 16 -5 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 PAGE 6 chemistry, PAH's, VOC's, PHC's, chlorides and carbonates. Municipal staff do not know the results of the analysis. 3.11 We have been advised that on April 29, 2011, the Owner filed an appeal of the Director's Order with the Environmental Review Tribunal. Municipal staff have not been provided with a copy of the appeal. 3.12 We have been advised that on April 29, 2011, the Owner submitted a draft communications plan to the MOE as required by new item 5 of the Director's Order, but we have not been provided with a copy of the plan. 3.13 We have been advised that the Owner has provided MOE with the reports required by items 2 and 3 of the Director's Order, but we have not been provided copies. 3.14 Ministry of the Environment ( "MOE ") staff have advised Municipal staff that they recognize and appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by all of the different levels of government, and are working on new protocols and regulatory standards for conservation authorities. Durham Region Works Committee 3.15 On April 13, 2011, in response to concerns raised by.the Mayor and Mayor Mercier of Scugog, Durham Region Works Committee directed Regional staff to work with the lower tier municipalities to create a model by- law that could be consistently applied across Durham Region to address the impacts of commercial fill operations. Greater Toronto Countryside Mayors Alliance 3.16 On March 3, 2011 and May 12, 2011, the Greater Toronto Countryside Mayors Alliance organized roundtable discussions with representatives of Durham area municipalities, conservation authorities and several Provincial Ministries to discuss "commercial fill and fill -in pits ". Minutes from those discussions are attached to this Report (Attachment No. 8). Scugog 3.17 In March of this year, there was heightened public concern regarding the source of the fill material that was being deposited at the Property and the quality of that fill. Part of the concern arose as a result of recent fill activity on Lakeridge Road in the Township of Scugog. Scugog was, and still is, dealing with a legal situation respecting its site alteration by -law. The major difference between the Morgans Road site and the site in Scugog is jurisdictional. In Clarington, the fill permit was issued by GRCA. In Scugog, the fill permit that was issued (and revoked) under' Scugog's site alteration by -law because the site in Scugog was not in an area regulated by a conservation authority. 16 -6 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 PAGE 7 3.18 On March 12, 2011, Scugog obtained an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the owner (2241960 Ontario Inc. operating as Earthworx Industries) from depositing fill pending the outcome of judicial review application filed by Earthworx to challenge various orders issued by Scugog under its site alteration by -law and under the Building Code Act. The position of Earthworx was that its property was being used for aeronautical purposes (a federally regulated matter) and therefore constitutionally a municipal by- law could not apply to the activities on the site. The application was heard in Divisional Court on April 4, 2011. " 3.19 In a decision released on May 18, 2011, the Divisional Court agreed with Scugog on every issue. It ruled that Earthworx Industries "is not engaged in the activity of aeronautics at this time; rather it is operating a commercial landfill site" and that such landfill activity "is subject to valid provincial and Township regulation." It also held that even if this conclusion was wrong (i.e. that Earthworx Industries was engaged in an aeronautical activity), "the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity does not prevent the application of the fill by- laws ". This means that even if Earthworx Industries wants to construct a heliport, hangar and /or runway in the future, Scugog's site alteration by -law will still apply to the site. Finally, the court agreed with Scugog that the judicial review application should not deal with Building Code orders because there is another statutory appeal mechanism (section 25 of the Building Code Act) for those orders. 4.0 CLARINGTON'S RESPONSE 4.1 On March 28, 2011 Clarington Council passing the following resolution ( #C- 149 -11): THAT the owner of the property (1744856 Ontario Inc.) be requested give Clarington and GRCA permission to take: (a) shallow groundwater samples down gradient of the fill material and wetlands to establish background water quality concentrations for use in evaluating future groundwater impacts, and (b) random soil samples at times /locations of their choosing, with reasonable notice to the owner so that its consultant can be present. THAT the owner of the property (1744856 Ontario Inc.) be requested keep and make available for inspection upon request by Clarington a log of every truck that dumps materials onto the property which identifies the source of the materials deposited on the property. THAT the owner be required to enter into an agreement with Clarington to address issues with respect to the damage caused to Morgans Road by the trucks leaving the property. 16 -7 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 Regulatory Activities PAGE 8 4.2 As a result of complaints from residents, municipal law enforcement officers have attended the Property and the surrounding area on numerous occasions. Over the past several weeks, staff have visited the Property at least twice every weekday and on Saturday mornings unless the weather was such that there was no trucking activity. 4.3 Clarington has the ability to regulate traffic on roads under its jurisdiction through Traffic By -law 91 -58. Clarington has jurisdiction over Morgans Road. 4.4 The Regional Municipality of Durham has jurisdiction over Regional Highway 2 in the vicinity of the Property. Clarington has no jurisdiction over any part of Regional Highway 2. 4.5 Section 19 of Traffic By -law 91 -58 permits Clarington to regulate "heavy traffic" and to restrict loads for specified periods of time. Signs have been posted on Morgans Road advising that half load restrictions are in place on Morgans Road between Durham Highway 2 and Concession Road 3. Staff intend to maintain this restriction if and so long as the Permit is in place. 4.6 No charges have been laid by Municipal staff either under Traffic By -law 91 -58, Noise By -law No. 2007 -071 or the Highway Traffic Act because no infractions have been observed by the officers at the times that they have been at the Property. 4.7 MTO and Durham Regional Police have the ability to regulate Highway Traffic Act matters. In response to complaints from residents and at the request of Clarington councillors, MTO and DRPS officers have been patrolling Morgans Road and Regional Highway 2. Trucks coming from the Property have been ticketed for a variety of Highway Traffic Act offences. 5.0 GOING FORWARD Morgans Road Agreement 5.1 Consistent with Council Resolution #C- 149 -11 (see section 4.1 of this Report), staff have prepared an agreement that is intended to address some of the off -site impacts associated with the operations at the Property. The form of agreement (without attachments) is attached to this Report (Attachment No. 9). Amongst other things, the agreement deals with the following matters: (a) Number and Location of Entrances Consistent with Clarington's Policy for Entrances and Traffic By -law No. 91- 58, any truck carrying fill will be required to enter the Property off of Regional Highway 2 access and exit the Property using Morgans Road. 16 -8 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 (b) Truck Routing PAGE 9 The Owner has been requested to ensure that all trucks coming into and leaving the Property do not travel through Newcastle Village. (c) Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control The Owner will be required to adhere to all of the requirements of the "Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures" filed with the Ministry of the Environment on April 15, 2011. The meaning of several sections of the Procedure will be clarified. The Owner has been requested to agree to further restrict its hours of operation on weekdays and on Saturdays as compared to the hours set out in the Noise By -law (which.allows construction activity on weekdays and Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and from 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sundays). (d) Load Restrictions Half load restrictions are to remain in place on Morgans Road. (e) Road Repair • The Owner has been requested to pay for a culvert and necessary ditching at the current access onto Morgans Road to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. The Owner has been requested to construct upgrades to Morgans Road from Durham Highway 2 to the north side of the existing entrance to the Property (approximately 250 metres north) to the satisfaction of Clarington's Director of Engineering Services. (f) Performance Guarantee • The Owner has been requested to provide Clarington with a performance guarantee in the amount of the $54,285 as security for road rehabilitation work. (g) Cross Default The Owner has been requested to agree that default under the road agreement is default under the Permit. 5.2 The agreement does not address soil quality or other matters addressed either by GRCA in the Permit or by MOE in the Director's Order. 16 -9 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 PAGE 10 5.3 As of this date (May 26, 2011), the owner has not provided a formal response to the Municipality's request to enter into the agreement, but has indicated that it will be providing one. Site Alteration By -law No. 2008 -114 5.4 Not unlike many municipal site alteration by -laws, Clarington's Site Alteration By -law No. 2008 -114 was not written in anticipation of large scale commercial fill operations similar to what has been observed at the Property. 5.5 As stated in section 2.8 of this Report, Clarington's Site Alteration By -law does not and cannot apply to the Property. If it did, the Municipality would have had the ability to regulate many of the on -site and off -site impacts associated with the fill operation as noted below: • Fill quality (sections 4.1(f), 5.2(e) and (f), 6.2 and 6.3 (testing)) • Haul routes (sections 4.1(e), 5.2 (c)(xiii) and (xviii), and 5.3) • Trucking schedules (sections 5.2 (c)(xviii) and 5.3) • Noise (sections 4.1 (c), 5.2 (c)(xviii) and 5.3) • Source of the fill material (section 5.2(e)) • Morgans Road infrastructure impacts (sections 4.1 (e) and 5.3) • Mud tracking and dust control (sections 5.2(c)(xvii), 5.4 and 6.1) 5.6 Having observed all of what has happened at the Property, staff are of the opinion that Site Alteration By -law No. 2008 -114 should be reviewed to determine whether it needs to be revised to more directly address the impacts associated with commercial fill operations. Specifically, the by -law should be reviewed to consider possible amendments to address the following matters: (a) Public meeting or public liaison committee requirements for applications that exceed a specified volume of fill. Currently, the Director of Engineering has the authority to issue permits under the by -law without any requirement for formal public involvement. While formal public involvement may not be required for smaller fill activities, permits for larger scale fill activity should go through a public process. 16 -10 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 (b) Fees PAGE 11 The current fee prescribed by Council for a site alteration permit is $250 for 250M3 or less (including $100 application fee) and $500 for more than 250M3 (including the $100 application fee), with a $25 surcharge per 1,000 m3. Many municipalities impose significantly higher fees, particularly in relation to commercial fill operations. (c) Standards and Protocols More rigorous standards and protocols to regulate fill quality (similar to the MNR's "Off -site Fill Acceptance Protocol" developed for use in the rehabilitation of aggregate pit and quarry operations - Attachment No. 10) may be appropriate. (d) Permit Duration The current by -law states that all site alteration permits expire after 90 days. In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide for longer permit terms. (e) Source Restrictions Whether it is appropriate to restrict or prohibit the placement or depositing of fill that comes from areas outside of the Municipality needs to be considered. (f) Commercial Operations There may be reasons to distinguishing between land owners that are operating a commercial fill site from construction companies or developers who are looking to find a place to deposit fill from their own development activity. (g) Regulating Hours of Operation While the current by -law contains provisions that allow the Director of Engineering to regulate hours of operation, it may be appropriate to establish baseline hours of operation that are different from the hours set out in the Noise By -law. 5.7 Staff are of the opinion that the issues described in section 3.6 should be investigated further and the results of such investigation reported to Council for its consideration. 16 -11 REPORT NO.: LGL- 006 -11 6.0 DEPRTMENTAL INPUT PAGE 12 6.1 The Director of Engineering Services, Director of Planning Services, Municipal Clerk, Director of Emergency & Fire Services, and Director of Operations concur with the recommendations of this report. Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: Attachment 8: Attachment 9: Attachment 10: 16 -12 Location Map Property Designations GRCA Permit GRCA Staff Report dated May 19, 2011 Provincial Officer's Order dated April 6, 2011 Director's Order dated April 15, 2011 Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures Minutes from GTCMA roundtable discussions Draft Morgans Road Agreement MNR "Off -Site Fill Acceptance Protocol" 1. 31 IR W,2 Law 41 Llrlt"e 7, T� W.- - Llrlt"e Property Designations The Greenbelt Plan ATTACHMENT NO.2 TC REPORT LGL- 006 -1: The Greenbelt Plan indicates that the Property is within the Protected Countryside and is part of a Natural Heritage System. A full range of existing and new agricultural, agricultural - related and secondary uses and normal farm practices are permitted. This would include farm - related commercial and farm - related industrial uses that are small scale and directly related to the farm operation, home occupations, home industries, and uses that produce value -added agricultural products from the farm. Activities related to the use of renewable resources such as forestry, fisheries and wildlife management are permitted as are non - renewable resource activities, such as mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits and quarries. The rural area policies support recreational, tourism, institutional and resource -based commercial /industrial uses. New multiple units or multiple lots for residential dwellings are not permitted. New lots for any use that would create or extend or promote strip development are not permitted. Durham Regional Official Plan The Property is designated Major Open Space Area within the Greenlands System. The predominant use of lands in the Major Open Space Areas is conservation, and a full range of agricultural, agricultural - related and secondary uses. The establishment of limited non- agricultural uses which are in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Greenbelt Plan may be considered. The Property appears to contain key natural heritage and hydrologic features and be part of the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. Development or site alteration is not permitted in key natural heritage and /or hydrologic features, including any associated vegetation protection zone. Limited exceptions such as forest, fish or wildlife management, conservation and flood or erosion control projects, infrastructure, minor recreational uses, agriculture and aggregate extraction may be permitted. Clarington Official Plan The Property is designated Green Space and Environmental Protection Area. No development is permitted in the Environmental Protection Area except low- intensity recreation and uses related to forest, fish and wildlife management or erosion control and stormwater management. Lands designated Green Space are to be used primarily for conservation and active or passive recreational uses. Agriculture, farm - related uses, home -based occupations, limited home industries, farm - related commercial /industrial uses are also permitted. Golf courses may be considered by amendment. 16 -14 Former Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84 -63 The Property is zoned "Agricultural (A)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" under Zoning By -law 84 -63. The Agricultural zoning permits one single detached dwelling, one additional single detached dwelling for a person employed on the lot, provided the lot is a minimum of 20 hectares, and a home occupation use. Non - residential uses include conservation and forestry, a farm, fur farms, riding and boarding stables, a seasonal farm produce sales outlet, and private kennels. Residential uses are prohibited in the Environmental Protection zone. The permitted non- residential uses include greenbelt park, conservation, forestry, bird sanctuaries, wildlife reserves or other similar uses which provide for the preservation of the natural environment, a farm exclusive of any buildings or structures, and flood. and erosion control works. Permitted Uses and Required Amendments The residential uses permitted as of right under the Agricultural zone and the Greenbelt Plan include one single detached dwelling, one additional single detached dwelling for a person employed on the lot, and a home occupation use. Non - residential uses include conservation and forestry, a farm, fur farms, riding and boarding stables, a seasonal farm produce sales outlet, and private kennels. The permitted uses in the Environmental Protection zone, which contains a provincially significant wetland, include greenbelt park, conservation, forestry, bird sanctuaries, wildlife reserves or other similar uses which provide for the preservation of the natural environment, a farm exclusive of any buildings or structures, and flood and erosion control works. The Clarington Official Plan permits limited home industries and farm related commercial /industrial uses in the Green Space designation. An amendment to the Zoning By- law would be required to permit these uses on the property. A golf course may be considered on the Agricultural portion by amendment to the Official Plan and a rezoning would be required. Home industry uses in the Agricultural zone require an amendment to the Zoning By -law. No development is permitted in the Environmental Protection Area designation of the Clarington Official Plan except low- intensity recreation and uses related to forest, fish and wildlife management or erosion control and stormwater management. The rural policies of the Greenbelt Plan permits tourism, institutional and resource -based commercial /industrial uses outside of the provincially significant wetland complex. An amendment to the Clarington Official Plan and a Zoning Bylaw amendment would be required to have these uses on the property. 16 -15 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TO - REPORT LGL- 006 -11 �- _ Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Ganar'as ka Box 328, Port Hope, Ontario UA 3W4 (905) 885 — 8173 FAX (905) 885 -9824 CONSERVATION e-mail: info @grca.on.ca No:1089 PERMIT Development, Interference with Wbtland`s, Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 168106) ISSiON HAS BEEN GRANTED TO: Owner: Ad'dress::•; Phone No: Location: Part'Lot, 16;. Concession 2 — Municipality of Clarington Morgans Road (east side, 100 metres north of Highway 2) To vndeijake the4oltowing work: Tem�orarj -stockpiling- of- fillmaterial for future use on -site, within the designated areas Indicated on the attached plan; During the period of: June 30th, 2010 to ' June 301h, 2011 and at midnight of the date last mentioned after which this permit becomes null and void; Sub' ct to the following conditions: 1.. hat prior to any.fll being placed on site the GRCA be provided with certification from a qualified soils engineer that the imported material meets MOE Guidelines Table 2 (Potable Water Designation). 2: Y iat within one month of the issuance of this permit the owner prepare and sdbrrtti'a'final grading plan for`the'stockpiled material; acce; fable to the GRCA which includes, phasing, stabilization arid r,d vegetation details. 03. That prior to any on -site works (i.e. grading, fill placement, excavation) silt fencing be installed as. shown on the attached plan(s), and maintained until the area h'as-be'en adequately re- vegetated, to pfevent the rele'as`e'of sediment from the''ikrk''ar'eas. 4. That prior to any fill placement the GRCA be contacted to inspect the sediment and erosion controls'on site, in addition to barrier fencing. 5. That the recently placed fill material labeled "Existing Stockpile Areas" be removed fro mm the site, or relocated to, the proposed stockpile ,area if it is delnailstrated the material meets MBE Gwidp Ines. Table 2 (Potable Water Designation). ' 6. That no other grading, excavation, or fillpla.cement occur on. site, except as indicated on the attached plan, and described in Condition 5-of this permit. 7. That all areas of exposed soils be re- vegetated in 6,fim"ely fashion. * see-reverse side. for general .con.ditions COPIES TO: Enforcement Officer: a BUILDING INSPECTOR 0' PROPERTY OWNER Signing Officer: o/ AGENT 1 OTHER:CtH1�iracr�_ Date of Issue: June 30. 2010 16 -16 'Ganaraska CONSERVATION Geneal bon°diti.ons 1. That all works are subject to provincial, federal and municipal statues, regulations, and by -laws. 2. That >wls +perrnit,tloes.not.confer: upon- you., any:r ightto :ccc�l,p:y;;d.evelop;.ocilood lands bwried by otherpersons or agencies without.pe.�missiori :::,:• :.t- 3. That the applicant maintains and complies with-the local drainage requirements of the Municipality. 4. That nothing herein authorizes any person to.carry...on. any:.wo[k or. undertaking. which may result in the harmful alteration., disruption:ordestruetiornofsh fiaaitat or any fishery, Note: It is the responsibility of the owner and . their agent (s) /contractors-to,take all reasonable steps to minimize any potential hazards and risks that may occur during the proposed works. Note: It is the• responsibility of the owner andfor their agents to carry out the works.in accordance:w�th the,above conditions. Failure to; -do.-so-imay resul_tin action.tal<enrin accordance-with the provisions undd'r;5ection 28 of'the .Conseruaiiion Authnrlties Act. Caution: The G.R.C.A: a s umes no liability for. any losses or damagesassociated with these works or that may occur as a result of failure. to ;catrY-out the above noted conditions. - Notiction• ee Se 28 of the- cOnservation.Aljthorities Act, Chaptbr C27, RSO 9990 provides the d116wrn9-l5d66ItIes: (16j Every.pellson Ao coritravene §•a• re'gulatioh made under slibsectlon: (1 J is guilty ofAh offer -60, hd on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not. mgr :ttt'an three months. (17) In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law, the court, upon making a conviction under subsectlon;(96)'May ord`erthe:pdibri•cdh5ictedto, dC) remove; at that.persort' ;:expense, any..develoPment, within. such reasonable;tirne-as the;c4Urt orders: and rehabilitate any watercourse or wetland in the manner and within the time the court•orders. (20) If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection (17), the authority having jurisdiction may, in the ease ofa`devel'opment, havd-itremoved arid; lh the`ea''se"of.a Watercourse 6f wetfind-, have ii rehabilitated. (21) The person convicted Is- liable forttte cost of a. removal or rehabilitation under subsection and the amount is recoverable by the sdtfioritv'bVacfron•iri 16 -17 ATTACHMENT NO.4 TO REPORT LGL- 006 -17. STAFF REPORT — May 19, 2011 TO: Chair and members of the Full Authority Re: Large Commercial Fill Operations The following staff report provides background information regarding large commercial fill operations and the applicability of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority regulation (O.Reg. 168/06) to deal these works. Additionally, staff has prepared a draft resolution for Board consideration, following the motion from the April Full Authority meeting. The motion attempts to capture the essence of the discussion and concerns raised by the Board at the previous meeting. Background 1. Conservation Authority Act Regulation The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) has been given the ability to regulate development within a number of areas within its jurisdiction. The sections of the Conservation Authorities Act that provide for this regulation are listed below: Excerpts from: Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.27 Regulations by authority re area under its jurisdiction 28. (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction, (c) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development; Definitions (25) In this section, "development" means, (c) site, grading, or (d) the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere; 2. Areas Subject to Conservation Authority Regulation as defined in the Act The sections of the Conservation Authorities Act that describe the areas that this regulation can be applied to are listed below: Minister's approval of development regulations (5) The Minister shall not approve a regulation made under clause (1) (c) unless the regulation applies only to areas that are, 16 -18 May 19, 2011 — Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 2 (a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazards; (b) river or stream valleys; (c) hazardous lands; (d) wetlands; or (e) other areas where, in the opinion of the Minister, development should be prohibited or regulated or should require the permission of the authority. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12. 3. Areas and activities that can -be regulated as described by Regulation As noted above the Conservation Authorities Act allows the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority to make a regulation. Excerpts from the regulation provide details of the regulated area and the things that can be addressed within this area. Excerpts from: Ontario Regulation 168/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses. Development prohibited 2. (1) Subject to section 3, no person shall undertake development, or permit another person to undertake development in or on the areas within the jurisdiction of the Authority that are, (d) wetlands; or (e) other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland, including areas within 120 metres of all provincially significant wetlands and wetlands greater than 2 hectares in size, and areas within 30 metres of wetlands less than 2 hectares, but not including those where development has been approved pursuant to an application made under the Planning Act or other public planning or regulatory process. 4. Relationship Between Municipal Fill. By -Law and Conservation Authority Regulations The Municipal Act allows municipalities to make by -laws regarding the regulating of site alteration. Excerpts from the Act are noted below. You will note that Section 142, subsection 8 states that if a regulation made under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act is in effect, the Municipal By -law is of no force or effect. Excerpts from the Municipal Act are provided below: Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, CHAPTER 25 Site alteration Definition 142. (1) In this section, "topsoil" means those horizons in a soil profile, commonly known as the "O" and the "A" horizons, containing organic material and 16 -19 May 19, 2011 — Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 3 includes deposits of partially decomposed organic matter such as peat. 2001, c. 25, s. 142(l). Powers of local municipality (2) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a local municipality may, (a) prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill; (b) prohibit or regulate the removal of topsoil; (c) prohibit or regulate the alteration of the grade of the land; (d) require that a permit be obtained for the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil or the alteration of the grade of the land; and (e) impose conditions to a permit, including requiring the preparation of plans acceptable to the municipality relating to grading, filling or dumping, the removal of topsoil and the rehabilitation of the site. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 76 (1). By -law ceases to have effect: (8) If a regulation is made under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act respecting the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land in any area of the municipality, a by -law passed under this section is of no effect in respect of that area. 2001, c. 25, s. 142 (8). 5. What a Conservation Authority can ask for in a permit application As noted above the Conservation Authorities Act allows the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority to make a regulation. Excerpts from the regulation provide details on what a Conservation Authority can ask for when receiving a permit application to undertake development, (e.g. place fill): Excerpts from: Ontario Regulation 168/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act (Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority's Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. Application for permission 4. A signed application for permission to undertake development shall be filed with the Authority and shall contain the following information: 1. Four copies of a plan of the area showing the type and location of the development. 2. The proposed use of the buildings and structures following completion of the development. 3. The start and completion dates of the development. 4. The elevations of existing buildings, if any, and grades and the proposed elevations of buildings and grades after development. 5. Drainage details before and after development. 6. A complete description of the type of fill proposed to be placed or dumped. O. Reg. 168/06, s. 4. 16 -20 May 19, 2011 — Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 4 Concerns The following concerns have become- evident in relation large fill operations that are regulated by the Conservation Authority regulation: 1. The municipality, .GRCA board members, GRCA staff and the public have expressed concerns with a number of conditions included in Conservation Authority permitting requirements for large commercial fill operations; 2. As described above the Conservation Authorities Act and regulation defines what can and cannot be addressed when a Conservation Authority considers an application to place fill; 3. The Municipal Act clearly removes the ability of a municipality to regulate an area over which a Conservation Authority has a regulation; 4. The Conservation Authority regulation contains wording regarding the things that a Conservation Authority can require of an applicant and this wording is vague; 5. If an application for fill is proposed in an "other area" limited criteria can be used when assessing the application; 6. The Conservation Authorities regulation was not intended, nor does it have the capability to address the significant social and economic impact of large commercial fill operations on the neighbouring communities; 7. The Ministry of the Environment has stated that the regulation of fill sites is outside of its mandate; and 8. In Conclusion, the Conservation Authority regulation was not developed with large commercial fill operations in mind. Given these issues, it is clear that the regulations developed under the Conservation Authorities Act do not adequately regulate large commercial fill operations. During its Board meeting of April 2011, the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Full Board requested that 'staff prepare a report for the May Full Authority meeting to provide background information regarding large commercial fill operations. Additionally, staff was asked to prepare a recommended resolution to be forwarded to several agencies and Conservation Ontario outlining concerns that were brought forward regarding this matter. A recommended resolution has been provided below: RECOMMENDED MOTION: WHEREAS Conservation Authority regulations in Ontario apply to `other areas" (within 120 metres) of wetlands, and WHEREAS it appears the only consideration in assessing an application for permission is hydrologic impact to a wetland; and WHEREAS the section Section 142(8) of the Municipal Act exempts a landowner 16 -21 May 19, 2011 — Staff Report: Large Commercial Fill Operations Page 5 of the requirements of a Municipality's site alteration by -law, if a Conservation Authority has a regulation in effect; WHEREAS the Conservation Authority regulations requires an applicant to submit "A complete description of the type of fill proposed to be placed or dumped "; and WHEREAS it is beyond the resource capacity and scope of CA regulations to effectively deal with, large scale commercial fill operations; primarily with respect to the sources and quality of material they import; . WHEREAS it is the position of the MOE that the regulation of fill sites; or filling activity is not addressable through its legislation; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority request Conservation Ontario engage the Provincial government to develop and implement legislation to effectively deal with large scale commercial fill operations, and FURTHER THAT the Full Authority forward this motion to the watershed municipalities, requesting the municipalities engage the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to also work towards addressing concerns regarding large commercial fill operations Prepared By: Mark Peaco k, P. Eng. Greg ells Director, Watershed Services Manager, Planning & Regulations Recommended by: Linda J. Lalibe e, CGA CAO /Secretary Treasurer 16 -22 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 TO APR -06 -2011 15:21 YORK DURHAM DISTRICT OFF. REPORT LG L- 006 -11 Ontario Ministry of the Environment Mlnlstbre de IVnvironnement Provincial Officer's Order Emdronmom Protection Act, RA.0.1990, CA 19 (EPA) ontarto Witter tteeowres Act. RAM. 1990, C. 0.40 (OWRA) Peetietdas Act, R.S.0.1ti10, e. P11 (PA) Sate DrinWne WaterAst, 8.0.2002, c.32 (SOWA) Nutrient Management Act, 20014 5.0.2002, e.4 (NNA) To: 1744856 Ontario Inc. 96 Cawkei's Cove Rd Port Perry Scugog, Ontario, L91, I R6 Canada Richard Rondeau 96 Cawkees, Cove Rd Port Perry Scugog, Ontario, L9L 1 R6 Canada Ordor Number 3333-SFN290 Incident Report No. " 73.SFMN3T Site: 2513 Morgans Rd Newcastle, Part Lot 16, Concession 2 (Clarke Twp.) Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham Pursuant to my authority under EPA Section 157. 1, I order you to do the following: Work Ordered Item No.1 Compliance Date 2011/04/15 (YMNWW) After April 15, 2011 at 07 :00 hours, cease accepting any material at the Site until: a) One or more Qualified Person(s) have been retained to carry out the work described in GRCA Permit No. 1089 and this Order and there has been submitted to the undersigned Provincial Officer written documentation confirming the name, contact information and qualifications of the; retained Qualified Person(s). b) There is put in place a procedure whereby the Qualified Person(s) have reviewed written documentation for each source site and has confirmed in writing that the material being received is acceptable for use at the Site and that there are appropriate soil management activities at each source site prior to delivery of material to the Site to ensure the material being delivered to the Site meets Table 2 criteria. The written documentation and written confirmation shall be available at the Site, for review by a Provincial Officer. Page 1 • NUMBER 3333- OFN290 16 -23 APR -06 -2011 1522 YORK DURHAM DISTRICT OFF. 905 42? 5602 P.03 c) There is an on -site, independent Qualified Persons) to confirm in writing that the material being received is acceptable for use at the Site. The written documentation and written confirmation shall be available at the Site for review by a Provincial Officer. The Qualified Person(s) shall be responsible for monitoring all vehicle activities depositing at the Site, including documenting the vehicle identity for all vehicles depositing material at the Site, details of the approved source of the material, and the date and time the material was deposited. d) There is a procedure in place that is acceptable to the undersigned Provincial Officer whereby each source site material can be segregated and managed at the Site in conjunction with the confirmatory audit sampling procedures set out below. e) The Qualified Person(s) shall collect weekly audit soil samples from trucks that represent each source site that has been accepted to ship soil to the Site. These soil samples shall be analysed for metals, soluble chlorides, volatile organic compounds, petroleurn hydrocarbons, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and semi - volatile organic compounds. Copies of these analysis results shall be maintained on the Site aid be made available to Ministry staff upon request. If any audit sample results indicate levels above Table 2 criteria, the undersigned Provincial Officer shall be notified within 24 hours and advised of the action(s) being taken and by when the soils above Table 2 will be removed from the Site. Item No. 2 Compliance Date 2011 / 109 (YYYYIM DD) By 16:00 hours on April 29, 2011, submit to the undersigned Provincial Officer, a copy o report from the Qualified Person(s) regarding the nature and sources of the material that has already been deposited at the Site prior to April 15, 2011. This report shall also include a description of any relationships between the parties involved at the source sites, the excavation and trucking activities, and all the parties involved at the Site including, where corporations are involved, any relationships with their officers, directors, and shareholders. Item No. S Compliance Date 2011/04/29 (YYYYNWW) By 16:00 hours on April 29, 2011, submit to the undersigned Provincial Officer one or more reports on any environmental site assessment and soil work done at the Site, and a plan for additional environmental site assessments. The site assessment will include, at a minimum: (a) a site soil and fill characterization program including test pitting and borcboles as appropriate to determine the concentration and vertical and horizontal extent of any contaminant in the fill received at the Site and underlying native soils, and (b) a groundwater characterization program including intrusive investigations to characterize the depth to groundwater, groundwater flow direction and a survey of on and off groundwater uses and/or the relation to surface water features for all groundwater aquifers at the Site that may be impacted by activities at the Site. Page 2 - NUMBER 3333.OFN29D 16 -24 f~'R-0b-2011 1522 YORK DURFtRM DISTRICT OFF. 305 427 5602 P.04 ltmn No. 4 Compliance Oats 2011/04/15 (YYVYnua~mnt Hy 16:00 hours on April 1 S, 201 1, submit to the undersigned Frovincial Officer a plan for appropriate security measures at the Site and implement the measures by April 29, 2011. Item No, 6 Compllanae Date 201 l/04/15 {YYYYlMM/OD) By 16:00 hours on April 15, 2011, submit to the undersigned Provincial Otlf3cer, procedures in place relating to managing any noise end dust from activities at the Site and truck tratflc to and from the Site and ensure these procedures are implemented. A. While this Order is in effect, a copy or copies of this order shall be posted in a conspicuous place. 1B. While this Order is in effect, report in writing, to the District or Area office, any significant changes ofoperation, emission, ovmership, tenancy or other legal status of dse facility or operation. This Order is being issued for the reasons set out in the annexed.ProvinciaJ Oflxccrs Report which forms part of this Order. Issued at Ajsuc~~this 6th day of April, 2011. ~i~ Stev~rd Sedge No: 1184 York Durham District Office Tel; Pape 3 • NUMI3<;R 3333-8FN26D 16-25 APR-06-2011 i5t22 YORK Di>I~AM DISTRICT OFF. 905 42? 5602 P.05 pppEAL1REVIEW INFORMATION REQ1Jti;$T FOR i{iL+VIEW You may requgt that this order be reviewed by the Director. Yaur requeal musl be made in writing (or orally with written oonftrtnaaion) within seven days of service oithis order mid sa-t by mail or thx to the Director at the address below. In the wrhten request or written eonfirmaden you must, s specify the pottiorts of this order that you wish io be reviewed; ~ include any submissions to be considered by die Director with respect to Issuance of the order w you or eny other person and with rgpeet to the conknu of the order; a apply fbr a stay of this order, if neaaary; and provide an address for service by one of the following means: 1. mail Z. fax The Director may confirm, alter or rcvolcc this order. If ibis order is rcvokod by the Director, you will be notified in writing. If this order Is oonflm-ed or amended by order ofdre Dirxtot, she Dlreaars order will be saved upon you. Tlu Director's order will include lnstruaions far requiring a hearing baforo trio Eavironmental Review Tribunal. DEEMED CONFIRMATION OF THIS ORDER Ifyou 0o not receive ore) of written notice o[the Director's derision within seven days of reccipl of your roquat, this order is deemed to be oonflrmcd by ocdor of the Director and deemed to be served upon you. You raay rcquiro s hearing be[ora the Environmental Review Ttibunol it, within I S days of servioe oldie confirming order deemed to have been made by the Ditt:etor, you scrra written natitx of your eppca) on the Envlronmcatal Review Tribune! and the Discolor. Your notice muse :terse the pordons othee order for which a hearing is rCquirod and the grotutds on which you intend to rely at the hearing. Except by leave of the EnvironmenW Review Tribune! ,you are not entitled to appeal a portion of the order or to rely on grounds of appeal that arc not stated in rho notice requiring the hearing. Unless stayed by the Bnvironrrtenud Review Tribunal ,the order is effeetlvo tYom the date of aervioe, Writtea notice requlrUtg a hearing must be served personally err by mall upoa: Tha Seq~y uid Director (Provincial Officer Orders) Environrnerttal Review Tribunal Ministry of the Eaviroameat 633 Hay Stteee. 13th Floor York Durham District Otttea - Toronto ON Sth Floor MSt3 Ifi! 230 WaCaey Rd S . AjexON LlS71S Pex:(903)42T•3602 Tel: (905)427.3600 Where service ie tt-ade by mail, it is deemed to be mode on the flfM day afla rile date of trtelling en0 the tirDE far reegviring o hearing is not cxeended by choosing sen+ice by maU. Further information on the Environmental Review Tribunal's requirements fotaa appeal Can bo-obtained directly from the Tribunal by: Tel: (4l6) 314.4600 Fax: (416) 314.4506 www.ert~govon•ta FOR XOUR INFORMATION • Unless stayed by the Dhisctoe or the Environmental Review Tribund , this order is c!S'ective from the date of service. Noa-compliance with the requirements of this order consthutes an offense. • The requirements olthis order are minimum requirements only an0 do not roliere you IFom complying with rho Cullowing: • WY apPtitxtible federal legislation; • any applicable proviaeio! ragtriremanw that are not eddrossed in the order; and • any applioabla municlpel 1nw. • The requirements of this order are severabb. I! any requirement of fhb order or the application of say requirement to any eircrarutartee is held fovaltd, the application of each rcqulrentatt to other circurttsesneos and the remainder of the order are sot afftxted. • Further orders may be issued In accoMartce with the tegtaladon a! dreumswtoes require. • The procedures tp request a review by the Director and other information provided above are Intended as a guide. The legislation should be eonaulted for additional details and accurate reference. Page 4 -NUMBER 3333-8FNZ80 16-26 APR-06-2011 15x22 YORK D~HAM DISTRICT OFF. 905 42'7 5602 P.06 ~Orrtario Ministry o! tho Environmont Ministate de 1'Enwronnement Provincial officer's Report Order Ntrmber 3333-8FN29D 1744656 Ontario Inc. 96 Cawker's Cove Rd Port Perry Scugog, Ontario, L9L 1 R6 Canada Richard Rondeau 96 Cawkcr's Cave Rd Port Perry Scugog, Ontario, L9L l R6 Canada Site 2513 Morgans Rd Newcastle, Part Lot 16, Concession 2 (Clarke Twp.) Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham Ob9ervations On 2011/03/02, I v[sited the above site(s) and made the following observations: 1. Ant6ority to Issae Order i have authority as a Provincial Officer to issue orders under the Environmental Protection Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. E, 19) as amended (EPA) to fitrther the purposo of the EPA, namely "to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural environment". This Order is issued pursuant to subsection 157.1 (1) ofthe EPA. Under this provision, an order may be issued to any person who owns of has management or control of an undertaking or property if a Provincial Officer reasonably believes that the requircrnents specified in the order are necessary or advisable so es to (a) prevent or reduce the risk of a discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment from an undertaking or a property or (b) to prevent, decrease or eliminate an adverse effect that may result from the presence or discharge of a contaminant in, on or under the property. Psye 1 -NUMBER 3333-BFN29D 16-27 APR-06-2011 1522 YORK DURHAM DISTRICT OFF. 905 42? 5602 P.0? Set out below is a brief description of the reasons for the Ordec and the circumstances on which the reasons arc based. 2. DeAnitians For the purposes of this Order, the following terms shall have the meanings described below, "Clarington" means the Municipality of Claringtoa. "EPA" means the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.0.1990, c. E. 19, as amended. "GAGA" meaa4 the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. "Ministry" means the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. "Order" means this Provincial Officer Order No. 3333-8FN29D, as it may be amended. "Provincial Officer" means the undersigned provincial officer or any other provincial officer designated under the EFA to act. "Qualified Person" means a person who has obtained the approgriate education and training and demonstrated the experience and expertise in the areas relating to the work required to be carried oui by this Order. "Site" the property municipally known as 2513 Morgans Road, Newcastle, ON, L1B 1L9. 3. Site Descrlptioa The Site is a fomner gravel extraction pit, approximately 100 acres in site. It is located in a rural salting on the east side of Morgans Road in the Municipality of Clarington. The area in the vicinity of the Site is agricultural and vacant fields with sparse residential. The Site is located approximately 5 kilometres east of the community of Newcastle, and three kilometres west of the community of Newtonville. The Site has frontage on both rho east side of Morgans Road and a very small portion, which amounts to an access driveway, on the worth side of Durham Regional Road 2. There are residences located to the west of the Site, and north and south of the Site. Enclosed within the central part of the Site is a designated provincially significant wetland. Resident in the vicinity of the Site rely on groundwater as their source of drinking water. 4. Ps~rrtlea Involved whir the 51te 1744856 Ontario Inc. has been the owner of the Sita since May 1, 2009. Richard Rondeau completed an application as an agent for the owner and the QRCA issued "Development, Interference with Wetlands, Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulations 168/06) Permit No. l 089 in the name of Rick Rondeau who is the person in management and control of the Site. Pegs 2 -NUMBER 39338PN2g0 16-28 APR-86-2011 1522 YQRK DIA~F[RM DISTRICT ~F . 90S 427 5602 P . 08 The Site is regulated by the GRCA because of the presence of the wetland. Although Clarington has issued a bylaw regarding the placement of fill in the municipality, it does not apply to the Site because of the GRCA involvement. Clarington bas jurisdiction over the use of and conditions regarding Morgans Road. The Ministry has not issued any control documents concerning the Site prior to the issuance of this Order. S. Summary of Events Leading Up to the Order The following outlines my involvement at the Site and the key events that have occun+ed. On Apri! 6, 2010, the GRCA fast contacted the Ministry and provided information regarding the Site and their involvement. The following sets out my understanding of the facts which have been recelved from GRCA: (a) Filling started on or about March t3, 2010. C3RCA and/or Clarington contacted Richard Rondeau and advised that fill should not be placed on the Site until the GRCA had issued a fil! permit for the management of the existing fill and any new fill. (b) On March 23, 2010, Richard Rondeau, as agent, submitted an application for a permit "to stockpile clean fill materials in designated areas", (c) The GRCA delayed issuance of the permit until such tithe as they had an opportunity to review the implications of the fill that had already been placed at the Site possibly being contaminated. (d) On June 22, 2010, the GRCA received sample analysis results from me indicating an exceedance of F2 and of F3 hydrocarlwns when measured against the Ministry's Table 2 Soil Criteria (Agricultural /Residential) for a sample obtained from the most southerly pile at the Site. (e) On dune 30, 2010, the GRCA issued to Richard Rondeau, Permit No, 1089 regarding the Site, a copy of which is attached hereto, and forms a part of the Ot+der. (f) On October l8, 2010, the GRCA advised me that trucking fill onto the Site has been recently ongoing, and the previous stockpiles had not all bcen removed or relocated The GRCA have not been given all pertinent information, as required by Permit No. 1089 and they were considering next steps, regarding their options. (g} In March 2011, the GRCA received a copy of the final grading plan referred to in Condition #Z of Permit No.1089 (a copy of which is attached, and fornns past of this Order). Page 3 . NUMBER 3333•aFN29D 16-29 APR-06-2011 1522 YORK DURHAM D 15TR I CT OFF , 905 427 5602 P. 09 (h) On March 2, 2011, the GRCA received and provided to the Ministry, a 26-page fax "Soil Report" from Stantec Consulting Ltd. regarding 25 Queens Quay East, Toronto (Pier 27). (i) On March 8, 2011, the GRCA was provided a copy of a letter from V.A. Wood Associates Limited Consulting Geoteehnical Engineers with respect to Condition #1 of Permit No. 1489. (j) On March 30, 2011, the CIRCA advised me that, on Friday, March 25, 2011, 511 was also being shipped to rho Site from Direct Line Environmental located on Toy~Avenue is Pickering. The following outlines the Ministry involvement at the Site: On Apri115, 2011 Provincial Ot~icer Kim Lendvay and mysetf attended the Site and observed a large amount of what appeared to be freshly-deposited soil in the south central area of the Site. The two piles were each approximately l 5 feet high by 150 feet long by 40 feet wide. 'When disturbed or moved, the top portion of the soil had a moderau hydrocarbon-tike odour. Representative samples of the two piles were taken and were stint for atralysis at the Ministry laboratory. On June 1, 2010, I received the sample results, which indicated an exceedance of F2 and of F3 when measured against the Ministry's Table Z(Residential /Agricultural) criteria for F2 and F3 hydrocarbons. Later in June, I contacted the GRCA and notified them of these results. During the awnmer and fall of 2010, 1 was in contact with GRCA regarding the Site. On March 2, 2011, while working in the Newcastle area of Claringtvn, I observed a large number of soil "dump" trucks travelling eastbound and westbound on Durham Regional Road 2, within 2 kilometres of Morgans Road. I drove north along Morgans Road and observed nwnerous dump trucks depositing what appeared to be fill in an area approximately 500 metres north of the area of the Site where fill was observed to be deposited on April 1 S, 2010. I spoke to people at the Site who advised me that they were coordinating the filling aotivities and that the fill originated at the Pier 27 site in Toronto. The Ministry has concerns over the quality of fill originating at Pier 27 and being deposited at other sites located in the York Durham District. The Toronto District Office of the Mitistry attended the Pier 27 site to obtain information regarding fill destinations from that site. On March 18.2011, the Pier 27 Site Superintendent submitted a spreadsheet to the Ministry which indicated that soil had been transported to the Site in March of 20l l . The total amount of soil transported to the Site in March was listed as 9099 cubic metres. Since March l S, 2011 Ministry staff at the York Durham District Office have received several telephone calls from area residents inquiring about the filling activities ongoing at the Site. The residents' main concern were that of the quality of their drinking water and if it could be affected Page 4 -NUMBER 3333~9FN29D 16-30 Po~R-06-2011 15 ~ 23 YORK D1R21-WM D 1 STR [ CT OFF , 905 427 5602 P.10 by the quality of fill being brought into the Site. Also, the residents stated they had believed the Site was currently zoned by Clarington for agricultural uses, and they were concerned regarding the potential future land use. 6. ~rdec Requlremeots The following outlines the requirements of the Order and the reasons for such requirement: Although Clariagton and the GRCA have legislation which controls filling activities at the Site, there are jurisdictional concerns over certain areas of the Site and what the GRCA has the authority to regulate, The Ministry has experience in controlling filling activities at other sites and has concerns regarding the quality of fill being deposited. Although Permit No. 1089 does provide some environmental controls, I believe that this is a situation which requires the Ministry to become involved and impose more detailed and stringent controls as they have done at other fill sites and ensure that all areas of the Site are managed appropriately. As indicated above, there is insufficient information available for tae to detearmine whether or not the operations at the Site may be causing an adverse effect that may result fibre the presence or discharge of a contaminant in, on or under the Site. Tire presence of materials that exceed the Ministry's Table 2 criteria (residentiaVagricultural)fer the contaminants identified in Work Ordered Item No, 1 (e) is an indication of potential adverse effect. Any such material should be removed. The requirements of this Order are in addition to and do not relieve Richard Rondeau or 1744856 Ontario Inc, from complying with any applicable order, notice, statute, regulation, municipal, provincial or federal law, including any requirements imposed by the GRCA or Chuangton. Work Ordered Item No. 1 is necessary as a preventative measure, I am not confident that the current documentation is satisfactory to confirm that acceptable material is being received at the Site. Consequently ao material should be received at the Site until the issues are addressed. I believe that the use of Qualified Person(s) is required to ensure that Richard Rondeau and 1744856 Ontario Inc., both jointly and severally, are not causing or permitting an adverse effect that may result from the presence or discharge of a contaminant in, on or under the Site. Procedures are required at the Site, and must include some quality control over. the materials being deposited at the Site, so as to ensure there is no risk to the envirorunent. I will review the procedures and discuss them with Richard Rondeau. I reasonably believe thatmaterial should only be accepted at the Site if proper procedures are in place and implemented appropriately. Work Ordered Ite-n No. 2 is necessary so that the Ministry is aware of all of the materials that have been deposited at the Site. The Ministry requires the relationship information in order to review our involvement with other similar fill sites in the'itork Durham District and to ensure our approach is consistent. Work Ordered Item Na. 3 is necessary to ensure that a Qualified Person is involved to provide a proper environmental site assessment so that the wnditions of the Site are understood and are Paps 6 • NUMBER 3333.9FN28D 16-31 APR-06-2011 1523 YORK DURHAM D 15TR I CT OFF . 905 42'7 5602 P .11 being managed properly. This plan will be reviewed by the Ministry and it is expected that this environmental site assessment will continence is the spring of 2011. Work Ordered Item No. 4 is necessary to provide sufficient controls to ensure no illegal waste disposal occurs at the Site and that all Belling activity is controlled. Work Ordered 11em No. S c+egarding noise, dust attd truck traffic, is regulated by Clarington and others, but I roquire this information so as to ensure that these potential enussions ere also pmpcrly managed. Offence(s) swpeome Wolationlsl-O[+heoetel~ I-et • R~gulafEon • 9aadon, Daalptlon tGonenl O(fine~} Steve Elford Provincial Officer Badge Number: 1184 Date: 2011 /04/06 District Office: York Durham District Ot~ice Page 8 - NUMBER 3333.8FN29D TOTAL P.11 16-32 ~~ Ganaraska CONSERVATION Ganaraaka Region r:r,nnervation Authority E3ox 328, Pori 11c~1,a, Ontario LtA 3wa (905) 885 - 81':1 1=AX (805) 885.0824 C-nlall" IntO~;~iCa.071.L'3 ~No:1089 PERMIT Development, Intorferenco with Wetlands, Alteration to Shorollnes and Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 188106) HAS Owner: Rick Rondos Address: 96 Cawkar's Phone No: (9061427.031 Location: Part Lot 16, Concession 2 -Municipality of Clarington Morgans Road (east side, 100 metres north of Highway 2) To undertake the foltowing work: Temporary stockpiling of fill material far future use an-site, within the designated areas indicated on the attached plan; During the period of: June 30'", 2010 to June 30"', 2011 and at midnight of the date last mentioned after which this permit becomes null and void; Subject to the foltowing conditions: 1. That prior to any fill being placed on site the GRCA be provided wish cettificallan from a qualified soils engineer that the imported material meets MOE Guidelines Table 2 (Potable Water Designation). 2. That within one month of the issuance of this permit the owner prepare and submit a final grading plan for the stockpiled material, acceptable to the GRCA which includes, phasing, stabilization and re-vegetation details 3. That prior to any on-silo works (i.e. grading, till placerent, excavation) silt fencing be installed as shown on the attached plan(s), and maintained unfit the area has been adequately re-vegetated, to prevent the release of sediment from the work areas. 4. That prior to any fill placement the GRCA be contacted to inspcr:t IITe sediment and erosion controls on site, in addition to barrier fencing. 5. That the recently placed fill material labeled "Existing Stockpile Areas" be removed from the site, or relocated to the proposed stockpile area If rt is demonstrated the material meets MOE Guidelines Table 2 (Potable Water Designation). 6. That no other grading, excavation, or fill placement occur an site, except as indicated on Iha attached plan, end described in Condition 5 of this permit. 7. That all areas of exposed soils be re•vegetated in a timely fashion 'see reverse aide far general conditions COPIES TO ' Enrorcomant Ofilcon - ~- r r~l ~, :.I BUILDING INSPECTOR ~ , k>( PROPERTY OWNER 8lpnlnp Orllcor _ _ _ a AGENT ss' OTHERS.~~h.. ~.,,.~ ~{,,~ •,}__. Date of issue: Juno 70.2010 s ~'.° ~ ~" ~:~~ ~~.__ 16-3.3 ~~ Ganaraska CONSEItVATiON General Conditions 1. That all works are subject to provincial, federal and municipal statues, regulations, and by-laws. 2. Thal this permit does not confer upon you any right to occupy, develop, or flood lands owned by other persons or agencies without permission. 3. That the applicant maintains and complies with the local drainage requirements of the Municipality. 4. That nothing herein authorizes any person to carryon any work or undertaking, which may result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat or any fishery. Note: It is the responsibility of the owner and their agent(s)/contractors to take all reasonable steps to minimize any potential hazards and risks that may occur during the proposed works. Note: It is the responsibility of the owner and/or their agents to carry out the works in accordance with the above conditions. Failure to do so may result in adion taken in accordance with the provisions under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Caution: The G.R.C.A. assumes no liability for any losses or damages associated with these works or that may occur as a result of failure to carry out the above noted conditions. flsflta: Section 28 or the Conservation Authorities Act, Chapter C27, RSO 1990 provides the following penattles: (18) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under subsection (1) Is guilty of an offence and on conviWon is liable t0 a fine or not more than 510,000 or to a term of impriaortmeM of not more than three months. (17) In addition fo any other remedy or penally provided by law, the court, upon making a conviction under subsedion (18) may order the person oonvlcted to, c) remove, at that person's expense, any development within such reasonable time as the court orders: and d) rehabilitate any watercourse or wetland In the manner and within the time the court orders. (20) If a person does not campy with an order made under subsection (17), the authority having jurisdiction may, in the ease of a development, have B romoved and, in the tees of a waleroouree or wetland, have ft rehabilitated. (21) The person convicted f9 liable ror the cost of a removal or rehabilitation under subsection and the amount is 16-34 a~rnrrrcai gwop pasranrq slaun dGPS (t/- 1.5 rn) and l.4nirlry of tmlw~i Rrsove.r (uo'. zow) BaN ~~+aq. prov~Me Dy i'nt Bo1r SorulLOn hc. (3000). Cra-ntrnrurd bosrd an YhBtry a' !iclual Rrsov[rz (I7L`r) rnd differential global pw~l+'oni+q ryatem (dGF'S +/- 2m). IUD 8J, ln4 2on~ f 7, Legend - - 50 m Wogand Eiufler Extort of Br,rm •`~ Watland __•-' Proposal Double Row Silt Fence --- Prcposed Snow Fence ~~ ~~ 1 ~ 4 " ~~ ~'` 1 '~ ~ " - + ~ ~ , ~. ,; C*~" 16-35 16-36 ~,'i, ~ g1k ~a ' ~ J ~ ,~ ~~ ~y,. ~ ~- /~~' ~ r` ) 4.> yr" , .~ c ~a .. •' '~ ~f . , 5 fy , 7 t ~ ~' ~; ~ ' z, J I i W ,. 7~ t ~ •, t ~ y, y ~ y ~ ~, 01 ~..~....f ~w u* ~6 ,~ X~,k~~ • " .. • • '.„a ~. ~- s" y 5 :~ '. - ,' +~ L, 4 a s ~ fly UneofSoction , : ~ ~ ~„ 1 --- Proposed Rost•Cevelapment Contour (0.5 m interval) ~~ ~ -/`• ~ _ ~ ~' ~~~ ,, t -'°: Worland Buffer (30 m) :', ~ ~ . ~ «' ~Imit of Fill Placement with ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ '~ 'a-~f " " Sediment Conlrola la be Erected ~.~ ' ° , ~ 4^- ~ ` a ~+• • * ~ ~ - -_- Proposed Chaln Unk Fence ~ ~ * ~ "`.,~~~ "„~ 0. * ~. - Weiland Boundary ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .• ~~ ,,~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~k Proposed Vegetation Rehab Area ' ,~~,. ~, '' ~ ` ,: f "~*° a,~,,,..,. t ~- ~ • x'~ ~~~ Property Boundary ~u °`» jt!~ „~-c;}.~„ a, ; ,t . , _ Stomwator Collacllon Area ~~ ~ ~ ' r,;{ , ~ ~ °t ~ ~~ ~ ` ~, ~ " f` ` (expeeted to netureMy vegetate) * ~ ~? ~. t .,,,1 f ~" a~ ~~ ~ ; ~., y~ 4 `~ ' ~ • . , T `.~ ~ `.) w ~ 1% . Proposed Fill Area , . ~ r ` , s : ~ Araa l0 be Graded Ustrtg ~ r ~ ~ :a=r , ~ ` ~ ""# r ~ h,Msy ~' ,~{ Ext etl n g~j ertals (minimal fill r 1 - w r ~ a '~` ~ t11g a Q u + ~ ~. ~, IlaHt' r4a• lrao A'D~~hd Ly u„~rry d 7luunl Woi~f l~nO Irth1fl~Opp Gl'Ntl LL'IWR Ir 0.«+r'a iMrYr. MfA ": L "'r°"'r'""""Yf'°°'«s<<.r."'°,:ro,a Newcastle Plt Filling Permit `~ ~^~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ^ ~~~ ""'""''""'"'°""^'""""`°""'"°°"° ..,~. wear.w, R.. P.«a 7:.... f•v.~.,u Pnw i. Part of Lot 16 Goncossion 2 v~"° r-~e~ I scab +;a ooa Municipality of Clarington 1a•t347 : , (Former Clarke Township) owe; 0 2®0 m February 2011 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 TO REPORT LGL-006-11 ' lr-- Director's Order Section 157.3 Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990 Section 16.4 Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990 Section 26.3 Pestlcldes Act, R.S.O. 1990 Safe Drinking Water Act, S.O.2002, c.32 (SDWA) Section 32 Nutrient Management Act, 2002, S.O.2002 Ministry of the Environment Ministere de I'Environnement Order Number 3333-8FN29D-1 Incident Report No. 5573-8FMH37 To: 1744856 Ontario Inc. 96 Cawker's Cove Rd Port Perry Scugog, Ontario, L9L 1R6 Canada Richard Rondeau 96 Cawker's Cove Rd Port Perry Scugog, Ontario, L9L 1R6 Canada Site: 4148 Regional Highway #2 RR #8, Newcastle Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham Pursuant to my authority under EPA Section 157.3(5), I order you to do the following: Response to Request I have reviewed the request for review and stay dated April 13, 2011 and clarified on April 14, 2011 from legal counsel for the parties ordered, namely 1744856 Ontario Inc. and to Richard Rondeau (the "Review Request"). The Review Request related to the Provincial Officer's Order Number 3333-8FN29D ("Order") issued by Provincial Officer Steve Elford on Apri16, 2011. The Order is a preventative measures order issued pursuant to subsection 157.1 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19 (EPA). The Review Request asks that the Director, review all of the Items of the Order, and revoke the Order, or alternatively amend it in accordance with some proposed modifications. I am issuing this Director's order as the acting District Manager in the absence of Dave Fu>;nerton, to whom the Review Request was originally addressed. In addition to reviewing the Review Request, I have reviewed the Order including the reasons for the Order. I have also discussed the Order with the issuing officer, Dave Fumerton and legal counsel for the Ministry. I shall respond to each of the key points raised in the Review Request below in the "Reasons for Response" portion'of this Director's Order. Page 1 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D 16-37 Clause (b) of subsection 157.3(5) of the EPA provides that the Director may, by order, revoke, confirm or alter an order of a provincial officer. Subsection 157.3(6) provides that for the purposes of subsection 157.3(5) the Director may substitute his or her own opinion for that of the provincial officer. I have decided that the Order should not be revoked. I have agreed with a number of the wording amendments and a date change suggested in the Review Request. Because this Director's order is being issued today, there is no need for me to consider a stay. I am also of the opinion that a communication plan would be a beneficial addition to the Order. For convenience and ease of reference, I hereby set out my Director's Order, in its entirety, and use, by means of capitalization, the defined terms set out in the Provincial Officer's Report or in this order Work Ordered Item No. 1 Compliance Date ,~2011/0~/15 ;,°~'~~ After April 15, 2011 at 07:00 hours, cease accepting any material at the Site that o' from any source, other than Pier 27 or the soil reconditioning facility located at Toy Avenue, Pickering, until: a) One or more Qualified Person(s) has/have been retained to carry out the work described in conditions 1, 5 and 6 of the GRCA Permit No. 1089 and this Director's order and there has been submitted to the undersigned Director written documentation confirming the name, contact information and qualifications of the retained Qualified Person(s). b) There is put in place a procedure whereby the Qualified Person(s) has /have reviewed available written documentation for each source site and confirmed in writing that the material being received is acceptable for use at the Site and that there is documentation supporting that there are appropriate soil management activities at each source site prior to delivery of material to the Site to ensure-the material being delivered to the Site meets Table 2 criteria. The written documentation and written confirmation shall be available at the Site, for review by a Provincial Officer. c) There is an on-site, independent Qualified Person(s), or an independent inspector instructed by the Qualified Person(s) and reporting thereto, to confirm in writing that the material being received is acceptable for use at the Site. The written documentation and written confirmation shall be available at the Site for review by a Provincial Officer. The Qualified Person(s) or the independent inspector shall be responsible for monitoring all vehicle activities at the Site, including documenting the vehicle identity for all vehicles depositing material at the Site; details of the approved source of the material, and the date, time and location where, material was deposited and / or managed. d) There is.put in place, a procedure that is acceptable to the undersigned Director whereby each source site material can be segregated and deposited into separate areas and managed at the Site Page 2 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D 16-38 in conjunction with the confirmatory audit sampling procedures set out below. e) There is put in place, a procedure whereby the Qualified Person(s), or an independent inspector reporting thereto, shall collect weekly audit soil samples from trucks that represent each source site that has been accepted to ship soil to the Site. These soil samples shall be analysed for metals, soluble chlorides, volatile organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and semi-volatile organic compounds. Copies of these analysis results shall be maintained on the Site and be made available to Ministry staff upon request. If any audit sample results indicate levels above Table 2 criteria, the undersigned Director shall be notified within 24 hours and advised of the action(s) being taken and by when the soils above Table 2 will be removed from the Site. The provisions of subparagraphs (d) and (e) shall apply, after April 15, 2011, to all materials received at the Site including the Pier 27 and Toy Avenue materials. The foregoing provisions have no expiration time periods indicated, and shall continue in full force and effect, until such time as a Director revokes or alters the requirements. The Site owner and the Permit holder may, at any time, submit to the Director, an application, based on a recommendation from the Qualified Person, for a revocation or alteration of the provisions. The Director shall alter this order following receipt of such an application, even where the Director may not approve or accept the submission made in order to provide for a right of appeal of such a decision. ,~ „ ~~~ . ItemNo. 2 Compliance Date +2011/O~iO~)~ f By 16:00 hours on May 9, 2011, submit to the undersigned Director, a copy of a rep ~ ` thz Qualified Person(s) regarding the nature and sources of the material that has already been deposited at the Site prior to the date of the report. This report shall also include a description of any business relationships between the parties involved at the source sites, the excavation and trucking activities, and all the parties involved at the Site including, where corporations are involved, any business relationships with their officers, directors, and shareholders. ItemNo. 3 Compliance Date ~ 'J11/O~/U~) ~ ~~' t,~.. _ By 16:00 hours on May 9, 2011, submit to the undersigned Director one or morc rep ~e`tC~any environmental site assessment and soil work done at the Site, and, a plan prepared by the Qualified Person(s), for additional environmental site assessment(s) and the date for completion of those assessment(s). The additional environmental site assessment(s) will include, at a minimum: (a) a site soil and fill characterization program including test pitting and boreholes as appropriate to determine the concentration and vertical and horizontal extent of any contaminant in the fill received at the Site and, if determined by the Qualified Person to be necessary, a program to assess underlying native soils, and Page 3 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D 16-39 (b) a groundwater monitoring program including intrusive investigations to characterize the depth to groundwater, groundwater flow direction, a groundwater sampling program and a survey of on-Site and off-Site groundwater uses and/or the relation to surface water features for all groundwater aquifers at the Site that may be impacted by activities at the Site. ~:~.~~ Item No. 4 Compliance Date ,.~, ~U1 1 /(?~ il~ ~''4~'F ~ °~r... ~ ~ Vin' By 16:00 hours on April 15, 2011, submit to the undersigned Director, the following. w , ^ ` (a) a report confirming appropriate security measures at the Site and ensure the measures continue to be implemented, and '(b) written confirmation of procedures and legal requirements in place relating to managing any ,~~~` noise and dust from activities at the Site and truck traffic to and from the Site and ensure these procedures continue to be implemented and legal requirements followed. Item No. 5 Compliance Date 2011/04/29 By 16:00 hours on Apri129, 2011, submit to the undersigned Director a communications plan with timelines for implementation, in order to advise all interested parties, concerning the activities being undertaken at the Site in relation to this order. r=':=~` REQUEST FOR HEARING You may require a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal if, within 15 days of service of this order, you serve written notice of your appeal on the Environmental Review Tribunal and the Director. Your notice must state the portions of the order for which a hearing is required and the grounds on which you intend to rely at the hearing. Except by leave of the Environmental Review Tribunal, you are not entitled to appeal a portion of the order or to rely on grounds of appeal that are not stated in the notice requiring the hearing. Unless stayed by the Environmental Review Tribunal, the order is effective from the date of service. Written notice requiring a hearing must be served personally or by mail upon: The Secretary and Director Environmental Review Tribunal Ministry of the Environment 655 Bay Street, 15th Floor 5th Floor Toronto ON 230 Westney Rd S MSG lE5 Ajax ON L1S 7J5 Fax: (905)427-5602 Where service is made by mail, the service shall be deemed to be made on the fifth day after the date of mailing and the time for requiring a hearing is not extended by choosing service by mail. FOR YOUR INFORMATION The procedures to request a hearing and other information provided above are intended as a guide. The legislation should be consulted for additional details and accurate reference. Reasons for Response Richard Rondeau: Page 4 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D 16-40 I disagree that there is "no basis for inclusion of Richard Rondeau in the Order". As indicated in the Provincial Officer's Report, Mr. Rondeau personally applied for, and was issued, the GRCA permit No. 1089. Consequently, I am of the opinion that Mr. Rondeau is a person responsible for managing or controlling the Site, and is therefore an appropriate person against whom a preventative measures order should be issued. Site Ownership and Description: As noted in the April 14, 2011 clarification letter, 1744856 Ontario Inc. is the owner of the Site. It should be noted that the municipal address for the Site was incorrectly stated in the Order as "2513 Morgans Road, Newcastle, Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham". Clarington has advised that there is no Morgans Road address for the Site, but that the municipal assessment records describe the Site's address as 4148 Regional Highway 2, R.R. #8, Newcastle. The legal description of the Site is "PT LT 16 CON 2 CLARKS AS IN D463967 EXCEPT PT 1 1OR2193; S/T N9921; CLARINGTON (PIN 26668-0065 (LT)). I have amended the Site address above accordingly. I have also noted that the "property plan" and the "final grading plan" that were attached to the Order as part of the GRCA permit material indicate that the Site is generally in the shape of a rectangle. The land registry office records indicate that, in fact, a portion of the rectangle adjacent to Morgans Road, beginning just to the north of the vehicle roadway onto Morgans Road, to just below the "proposed fill area", is owned by the Crown (Ontario Ministry of Transportation). The owner of the Site is claiming rights over this property (including, in particular, the right to access and use the roadway) and has been in discussion with Crown legal counsel concerning this property. I understand that there has been, and will be, no deposit or stockpiling of fill on this parcel of land. Basis for the Order: I am of the opinion that the Order and this Director's order are necessary and appropriate in these circumstances. I agree that 1744856 Ontario Inc. has indicated a level of cooperation in dealing with this matter. However, given the broad public interest in this Site and in filling operations, generally, I believe it is important to have the Ministry issue a control document which outlines, formally, its expectations and requirements. The Order is the appropriate document to do so and also provides appeal procedures, if necessary. It is important to recognize that the Order is not a contravention order; but rather a preventative measures order. The Ministry has not been provided with sufficient information required at this time to properly assess the environmental status of the Site. Furthermor i"n~~ ~`s' ~cflrAte=F~t #~, O d '__ '_., ~ The involvement of the Ministry and the issuance of the rder and this Director's order supplement their requirements and provide for an improvement in the understanding of the Site and its operations. I do not agree with all of the Review Request background and factual information. Although the meeting on Monday, April 11, 2011 was the first opportunity for Mr. Shawn Page 5 -NUMBER 3333-SFN29D 16-41 Rondeau, the son of Richard Rondeau, to discuss the matter with Ministry staff, Provincial Officer Steve Elford did attend at the Site on Monday, March 2, 2011 and spoke with Mr. Jody Churchill who was managing the Site operations and was well aware of the Ministry's concerns. Previous to that, the Ministry's concerns are reflected, in a general way, in the GRCA Permit No. 1089. `Clarington counsel has advised me that the statement made on Page 3 of the Review Request, "Prior to accepting any fill at the site, our client was advised by Clarington that a permit was not required to accept fill." is not completely correct. The advice provided by the Clarington official was that no permit was required from Clarington because the Site was being regulated by the GRCA and a permit would be required from them. I do not agree "there is no evidence of an adverse effect or the potential for an adverse effect from fill deposited on-site under the terms of the Permit...there is no basis for an Order". The sample taken by the Ministry in April 2010, which showed a minor exceedance of Table 2, was taken to assist the GRCA. GRCA did issue their control document, Permit No. 1089, which did deal specifically with requirements regarding the area of the Site which was sampled (see Condition 5 on the Permit). No further sampling, however, was conducted by either the Permit holder or the Site owner, to confirm that the balance of the material, which had been deposited at the Site, and has since been relocated, did, in fact, meet the requirements of Permit Condition 5. Although the Site owner did receive some sample results from its engineering consultant, who in turn was relying on information received from the Pier 27 consultant, I have concerns regarding this information. The amount of the sampling was not sufficient and how the sample information relates to the material that was, in fact, deposited at the Site is not clear. As indicated in the Review Request, the report being submitted to satisfy Work Ordered Item No. 2 regarding the nature and sources of the material deposited at the Site will provide further information in this regard. It is important to note that I now understand filling occurred at the Site in March 2010 (from Toy Avenue, before the Permit), in September 2010 (from Bowmanville) and then in March 2011 (from Pier 27 and Toy Avenue), and that, in all cases, the GRCA was not provided with the sample results from these source sites prior to the filling activities taking place. If the new soil analysis reports being submitted by the Qualified Person indicate specific exceedances of Table 2 criteria, appropriate actions will be required to be taken. In summary, a basis for the Ministry's concern is a lack of appropriate information regarding the source sites' material and the public concern regarding potential impact to private drinking water wells. I believe the requirements of this Director's order are necessary or advisable so as, as stated in Section 157.1 of the EPA: " (a) to prevent or reduce the risk of a discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment from the undertaking or project; or (b) to prevent, decrease or eliminate an adverse effect that may result from Page 6 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D 16-42 (i). the discharge of a contaminant from the undertaking, or (ii) the presence or discharge of a contaminant in, on or under the property." Work Ordered Items: The following specifically comments on the Work Ordered Items: I have required the submission of materials to myself, instead of "the undersigned Provincial Officer" in the various sections where this was noted in the Order and the Review Request proposed amendments. Since I am issuing this Director's Order, it is appropriate to have the submissions sent directly to me. Item No. 1: I have agreed with a number of the proposed amendments in Item No. 1. The following sets out the reasons for the key areas involved: I have received on April 14, 2011, information required by Item No. 1 (a) of the Order, confirming that Decomissioning Consulting Services Limited has been retained as the Qualified Person for the purposes of the Order. The Ministry does not require the Site to cease accepting material from Pier 27 and / or the soil reconditioning facility at Toy Avenue, Pickering, as the Qualified Person will be, as of April 15, 2011, supervising the on-site soil management activities and providing a report by May 9, 2011 to me regarding these source sites. Although I have agreed to the wording changes in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Item No. 1, I see the role of the Qualified Person as being critical "to ensure the material being delivered to the Site meets Table 2 criteria." I have agreed in sub-paragraph (c) of Item No. 1 to add "an independent inspector instructed by the Qualified Person and reporting thereto". I have not, however, agreed to any two-week time period limitation for this requirement, as requested. Until the May 9, 2011 report is submitted by the Qualified Person, such a decision cannot be made. This independent audit requirement is a requirement at other fill site operations where the Ministry is involved in York Durham District. I have, however, provided provisions that address a possible revocation or alteration of the Item No. 1 requirements. This addition will also provide appeal rights if the Site owner and / or Permit holder and the Qualified Person do not agree with a decision by the Director made in the future. This provision is often inserted in orders or certificates of property use to address these time limitation concerns. Item No. 2: Page 7 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D 16-43 ,~ ~~ I h reed to change the compliance date for the submission of the nature and sources of fill rt from Apri129, 2011 to May 9, 2011 to allow the Qualified Person time to complete an propriate detailed report for our review. Item No. 3: I have also agreed to change the co for the submission of any environmental site assessment reviews. It is my view that a groundwater monitoring program is particularly important at this Site to understand the groundwater flow regime in the area wherein the community relies on groundwater as the source of drinking water, and any possible adverse impacts, either off-site or moving within the Site, or as has been suggested, possibly moving onto the Site from a nearby former landfilling operation. Items No. 4 and No. 5: Items No. 4 and No. 5 of the Order have been.mer~ed into my Director's Order Item No. 4, as they both have the same compliance date. t~*r~`` ' I understand that there are security measures currently in place for the Site, and therefore have amended the requirement to submit a report, rather than a plan. I have added "legal requirements" to the procedures in place with respect to the report on the management of noise and dust from activities at the Site and truck traffic to and from the Situ . fe~tCrs' in ~fzfther ttet~`7 at a atcr date. New Item No. 5: I have added a new provision requiring a the submission of a proposed communication plan in order that the activities being undertaken at the Site can be properly conveyed by the Site owner and Permit holder to all interested parties. Measures that I have seen being used effectively elsewhere to provide proactive and open information include newsletters, websites, open houses and meetings and presentations. I will review the submitted plan and provide comments thereon and the next steps, Attachments This Notice constitutes part of Order Number 3333-8FN29D, issued on 06/04/2011. Issued at Ajax this 15th day of April, 2011: ~-~- Page 8 -NUMBER 3333-8FN29D 16-44 /~ I I HbIIiVIG1Y 1 1~1 V. i ~ v REPORT LGL-006-11 121 Granton Drive Unit 11 Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L46 3N4 __~ ,,.. - -- , . , ~. z DECOMMISSIONING CONSULTING SERVICES LIMITED Tel: (905) 882-5984 - Fax: (905) 882-8962 E-mail: engineers@dcsltd.ca .701229 Web Site: http://www.dcsltd.ca 15 Apri12011 Ministry of the Environment Central Region 230 Westney Road S. 5`h Floor Ajax, On L1S 7J5 Attention: Mr. Steve Elford Senior Environmental Officer, York Durham District Office Re: Compliance With Provincial Officer's Order Number 3333-8FN29D Item 5 2513 Morgans Road, Newcastle, Ontario Dear sirs: We are pleased to provide, herewith, the dust and noise management procedures that we have prepared on behalf of I74485b Ontario Inc. to be applied at the above referenced property. The attached procedures document, entitled Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures, 2513 Morgans Road, Clarington, Ontario are being submitted to comply with the provisions of Provincial Officers Order Number 3333-SFN29D, dated 6 April 2011 (as may be amended), specifically Item 5 which states: By 16:00 hours on April I5, 2011, submit to the undersigned Provincial Officer, procedures in place relating to managing any noise and dust from activities at the Site and truck traffic to and from the Site and ensure these procedures are implemented. We trust that the enclosed is suitable for your current purposes. Should you have any questions or should you require additional or more detailed information, please do not hesitate to call the writer at any time: Yours very truly, G CONSULTING SERVICES LIMITED R,~Gafman, P.Eng. Senior Principal encs Specialists in Property Assessments and Environmental Audits, Site Remediation and Decommissioning, Geotechnical Engineering, Hydrogeology, Waste and Wastewater Management and Industrial Hygiene 16-46 DUST, SOIL TRACKING AND NOISE CONTROL PROCEDURES 2513 Morgans Road, Clarington, Ontario 1.0 INTRODUCTION The procedures documented herein are to be applied at the site to manage dust and noise generated during soil stockpiling, grading, compaction and earth moving works and trucking activities. 2.0 SITE INFORMATION The site is located at 2513 Morgans Road, in the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional Municipality of Durham. The site fronts the east side of Morgans Road and the north side of Durham Regional Road 2. Site access/egress is from the north side of Durham Regional Road 2 and the east side of Morgans Road. Residences are located to the west of the site as well as north and south of the site. 3.0 DUST CONTROL The potential sources of airborne particulate (dust) at the site include the processes involved in; 1. the soil stockpiling process; 2. soil grading works; 3. movement of vehicles and equipment within the work area; 4. movement of haulage trucks on public roads; and 5. the tipping of soil imported to the site. In addition to the above processes, wind blown particulate from exposed soils in roadways, and in existing and future fill placement areas can also occur. Control measures shall be maintained for the entire duration of the work to ensure that the generation of dust from the earth moving works and other activities on and off-site is minimized. The Contractor will be required to implement all necessary control measures to minimize dust generated during: Dust, Soil Tracking And Noise Control Procedures 1513 Morgans Raad, Clnrington, ON 70!224 -April 2011 DDS 16-47 • construction and or maintenance of access roads and soil tracking control pads; • movement of haulage vehicles and other equipment across the site; • tipping imported fill; • stockpiling imported fill; • site grading works; and • windy periods in dry conditions. The potential health risks associated with the inhalation of dust are anticipated to be very low. Precautions are, however, to be taken to avoid or minimize the generation of dust. Dust control measures shall include: i) instructions of workers in dust control methods; ii) adjustment of the rate at which fill is imported to the site, as required, to minimize dust emissions; iii} enforcement of a construction site speed limit as required to minimize dust emissions; iv) maintaining site access roads in good condition and if necessary surfacing with a granular fill; v) use of water, as necessary, to wet all exposed soil. including road surfaces on the site sufficient to prevent dust from becoming airborne by wind or vehicular action; vi) ensuring tarpaulins are in place across the boxes of all loaded haulage vehicles entering the property to prevent dust from becoming airbonle by wind action; vii) cleaning of the municipal/regional roads to a minimum distance of 50 m in either direction of any and all access/egress gates to the property using wet methods to Dttsl, So7I Tracking And Naise Conhal Procedures 2513 Morgans Road, Ciarington, ON 701229 -April 2011 2 DCS 16-48 prevent dust on the road surfaces from becoming airborne by wind or vehicular action, as required; viii) monitoring dust emissions visually, and by sampling if required at the property boundary and taking action to suppress dust as observed to be necessary; ix) monitoring wind and weather conditions and temporarily adjusting or ceasing earth moving works and/or soil import rates for as long as such controls are determined to be necessary; and x) responding to dust complaints from the public and taking action as necessary to further control dust. Road dust generated from on-site traffic shall be controlled through the application of water spray, as required and where necessary. Road dust generated on adjacent thoroughfares used by vehicles departing from the site shall be controlled through the regular wet sweeping of tramscable surfaces. The Contractor shall supply and have available at all times a power street sweeper equipped with water sprayers to removed tracked soil and suppress dust, a water truck with spray bar and cannon or other suitable discharge device and other suitable dust suppression equipment to control and prevent dusting from the Works as needed. In addition, the Contractor will be required to maintain an adequate water supply for the site. The application of water to control or prevent dust from being generated on and migrating from the site, will take precedence over all other work activity. Dry sweeping of roadways will not be tolerated. 4.0 SOIL TRACKING CONTROL While dust generation from the on-site earthworks and haulage comprises the principal concern for off-site impacts, secondary dust associated with access and egress to and from the site by haulage vehicles onto the municipal roadways will also have to be addressed. The concern in this regard relates to the loss of soil, mud, dust or debris onto municipal roadways adjacent to the site from the wheels, axles, truck frames, and truck boxes of haulage vehicles picked up while traversing across the on-site access roads. Tracked materials on municipal roadways and other surfaces comprise a secondary source for the generation of dust resulting from vehicular and wind action across affected roadway surfaces: Dust, So11 Tracking And Noise Control Procedures 1513 Morgans Roam Clarington, ON 701229 -April 20] 1 3 DCS 16-49 The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent the tracking of soil, dust, mud and debris wastes onto municipal roadways. All haulage vehicles and equipment floats shall be cleaned and controlled through Soil Tracking Control Zones, equipped with a Soil Tracking Control Pad and monitoring station to be installed by the contractor at all site egress points in operation. The Contractor shall clean all debris, soil and dust deposits adhering to the vehicles on the Control Pad before departing from the site to the satisfaction of the Engineer. 4.1 SOIL TRACKING CONTitOL PADSIZOfYES A Soil Tracking ControP Pad is to be constructed at each Soil Tracking Control Zone. The Soil Tracking Control Pad shall comprise a minimum 15 m long x 10.0 m wide x 500 mm thick pad of 20 mm diameter clear stone placed above non-woven geotextle and excavated into the ground surface to be level with the surrounding ground surface. The Pads shall be large enough to accommodate the largest equipment to be used on the site to perform a complete washdown as maybe necessary and based on by monitoring and inspection findings. All vehicles departing the site shall report to the soil tracking control pad/zone where the Contractor shall visually inspect the vehicles and immediately clean all soil, mud, debris and dust deposits adhering to their tires, wheels, undercarriage, body, and box prior to their departure from the site onto municipal roadways to the satisfaction of the Engineer. The Contractor shall provide and maintain at each Soil Tracking Control Zone suitable tools, including brooms, bnishes, shovels, water supply and power washer, as required to remove dust, mud, soil and debris adhering to haulage vehicle exiting the site. No other vehicles used by contractor's or subcontractors' forces or suppliers shall depart from the site for any reason whatsoever without being cleaned across a Soil Tracking Control Pad and without the express permission of the Inspector. In the event that adhered materials persist on the vehicle surfaces despite sweeping, the affected equipment will be subject to power washing on the Soil Tracking Control Pad. The Contractor shall also maintain the decontamination pad, including repairs to approaches, removal of soil build-up, and collection and disposal of washwater for the duration of the work and shall remove or replace the Soil Tracking Control Pad whenever necessary to control off-site tracking. The municipal/regional road pavements shall be swept using a power sweeper equipped with water sprayers, supplied by the Contractor, to a minimum distance of 50 m to either side of each Dust, Soil Tracking A»d Nolse Control Procedures 2513 Morgans Road, Clarirrgton, ON 701229 - Apri1201 I DCS 4 16-50 site egress gate, and along which haulage and service vehicles having access to the work site have travelled. The roads shall be swept as required to permit the removal of visible debris or tracked soil and not less than once at the end of each working day that vehicles may access the property. Dry sweeping of the roadways, will not be accepted. A departure log noting inspection results and any truck cleaning activity found to be necessary for all vehicles that have had access to the site shall be maintained by the Contractor and shall be made available for inspection on demand by the Engineer, the Owner, and MOE, GRCA and Municipality of Clarington Staff. 4.2 INSPECTION AND TESTING Air quality will be monitored on an on-going basis by the Inspector on site, using visible dust as the principal criterion. If determined to be necessary, following the receipt of complaints from neighbours or Municipal, GRCA, Region or Prvvinicial Government regulatory authority staff a boundary survey using mini-volume air samplers should be conducted to establish working levels for total suspended particulate (TSP) material in air. The results of the gravimetric analysis for TSP will be compared to the MOE 24-hour Ambient Air Quality Criterion far TSP in air of 120 µg/m3. The planned and implemented dust control activities will be refined as necessary. If visual observations and or the boundary air monitoring results indicate that the dust control activities being implemented by the Contractor are insufficient to control the generation and migration of dust from the site, additional dust suppressant applications shall be implemented and further boundary air monitoring work may also be undertaken during the course of the earthworks on- site at the direction of the Engineer. Boundary air monitoring work would be conducted if warranted to establish both background and earthworks generated TSP concentrations in air at the site. Boundary air sampling will thus be carried out during active earthmoving/importing fill works and during inactive periods at the site to permit accurate determination of earthworks related dust concentrations to be established. Each sampling event will take place over twa days comprising two 24-hour monitoring periods. Each boundary air monitoring period will be completed using two mini-volume air samplers, one situated at the upwind boundary of the site and one situated at the .downwind boundary of the site. In order to establish the general background concentrations of TSP in ambient air at the site, one monitoring period will be conducted at a time when no work activities are being undertaken. To establish the site earthworks generated TSP concentrations in air, the second Drret, Soil Trac~Fi~rg Artd Noise Cor:trot Pracedrrres 2513 Morgans Road, Clarington, ON 701229 -April 2011 DCS 16-51 monitoring period will be completed during the coarse of active site soil importing, stockpiling and grading work. Samples will be taken and analyzed for total suspended particulate and reported immediately to the Engineer upon receipt. Should the Engineer determine that the dust control measures implemented by the Contractor are ineffective or that weather conditions (wind and dry conditions} are such that control of dust emissions is impractical, the Contractor will be ordered to stop or modify any operation that is aggravating the condition and/or to take appropriate mitigative action, including increasing the application of dust suppressant. S.Q LONGTERM DUST CONTROL Upon completion of soil import and stockpiling operations on the site, and in the event that soil stockpiles are to remain in place prior to final site grading work, exposed soil stockpiles are to be vegetated to prevent the on-going generation of windborne particulate. The vegetation process can be completed via natural seeding processes if this can occur within a reasonable time frame. If natural seeding processes are determiried to be ineffective, hydro-seeding or other suitable seeding process will need to be implemented and completed on the site. 6.Q NOISE CONTROL The site is situated within the Municipality of Clazington and all work completed on-site is subject to and to be completed in accordance with The Corporation of the Municipality of Clazirigton Noise By-law 2007-071. To control noise generated at the site as part of the earthmoving works, the following measures shall be implemented as required; • Limit earthmoving/construction works to the time periods from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday to comply with The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Noise By-law 20(}7-071 (Section 3.3a}. • Should there be a need to undertake construction outside of the hours allowed in the applicable noise by-law, the client or its Agents on behalf of the Contractor, will seek any required exemptions and permits directly from the Municipality in advance for any such work. If an exemption cannot be obtained, then construction will only proceed in accordance with the requirements of the by-law. Dtrsf, Soil Tracking And Noise Control Prrscedraes 2513 Morgans Rorsd, Clarln,~ton, ON 701229 -April 201 I DCS 6 16-52 • The Contractor shall comply with all applicable requirements of the contract and local noise by-law. • All construction equipment used, including earthmoving equipment, haulage vehicles etc.. shall be in good repair and properly maintained to limit noise emissions. AlI equipment shall be operated with effective engine muffling devices that are in good working order. • As required install temporary hoarding in order to provide acoustical screening to control noise from earthworks activities that is found to affect neighbouring residents. • The .separation distance between the construction staging areas acid nearby receptors should be maximized to the greatest extent possible to reduce noise impacts to off-site receptors. • To the extent possible, design the on-site access roads/haul routes in such a. manner to limit the need for heavy trucks to reverse and use "back-up beepers". • Onsite access roads/haul routes shall be well-maintained to prevent pot-holes and ruts to avoid the loud noises caused by haulage vehicles and other equipment travelling over uneven road surfaces. • Enforcement of a construction site speed limit in order to control excessive noise caused by haulage vehicles revving their engines or braking heavily. • Reducing truck tailgate noise by requiring that the tailgates of all trucks be kept in the closed and lacked position whenever haulage vehicles need to travel any significant distance on-site. In addition, ensure that the practice of "tailgate banging" be avoided as a means of releasing trapped dirt from the boxes of the haulage vehicles. • A complaints protocol should be established for receiving, investigating and addressing construction noise complaints received from the public. Duct, .Soil Tracking And Nolse Control Procedures 2513 Morgans Road, Clarington, ON 701229 - Apri (20l 1 7 DCS 16-53 • Receipt of any noise complaint will require that an inspection be implemented to verify that the general noise control measures are in effect and are being enforced. • In the presence of persistent noise complaints, all construction equipment should be verified to comply with MOE Noise Pollution Control publication 115 (NPC- 115). • In the presence of persistent complaints and subject to the results of a field investigation, alternative noise control measures may be required, where reasonably available. In selecting appropriate noise control and mitigation measures, due consideration may be given to the technical, administrative and economic feasibility of the various alternatives. Dust, Soil Tracking And Noise Control Frocedures 2513 Morgans Road, Clarington, ON 701229 -April20ll DCS 8 16-54 ATTACHMENT N0.8 T( REPORT LGL-006-1: MINUTES -ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON FILL MARCH 3, 2011- 9:00 A.M. UXBRIDGE TOWNSHIP Attendees: List attached Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor began the discussion by stating that Uxbridge Township has 471icensed pits with the majority being on the Oak Ridges Moraine. We understand the need for fill placement but where are the checks and balances if we allow fill to come in? The concern is that there is no level of comfort with the operators and we do not have the resources or expertise to monitor operations. Ingrid Svelnis (CAO Uxbridge) -Uxbridge has been working on a fill bylaw for the last 3 years. Uxbridge is getting pressure not only on pits but also rolling land. Township is resistant because there is no guarantee that they will stop if there are problems because of the amount of money to be made from it. Mayor Chuck Mercier, Scugog -The fill operation (Earthworks) at Highway 21/23 was supposed to set an example. They have been bringing in fi117 days a week (1 million tons now and likely to hit 2 million -when complete). Unfortunately the owner took the stance that he was not governed by municipal rules, only federal ones as it was an "Aerodome". This isn't just a Scugog problem. It is also a Provincial and National issue. It is great that everyone has come together to look at it from different perspectives. For the Scugog site, there are 3 main issues: 1. Quality of. Life (Environmental) Issues - it has been 306 days of dumping. Over 1 million tons of fill going in. Lakeridge Road (Hwy 23) is falling apart from (possibly) the weight of the trucks. 2. Safety Issues -Need for a proper traffic flow (trucks exiting and entering). Durham 23 is a main road and a well used one. Although there have been no serious accidents, there have been lots of complaints (delays, noise, etc.) 3. Building is part of an Aerodome -They are trying to erect a building without permits. There was no discussion on this - no proper planning. Need provincial legislation to help us; not for anti-commercial fill but for managing commercial fill. Alez Georgieff (Region) -The Durham Regional Official Plan incorporates the provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and contains rigorous policies for environmental protection. The concerns being expressed regarding fill operations are indicative of aprovince-wide problem. The Town of Caledon has been dealing with fill-related issues for some time and may be a resource for best practices. Traditionally, site alteration has not been considered a "use of land" from a. planning standpoint. In late January, the Regional Chair wrote to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) requesting that they engage the Province to address the concerns of municipalities across the Province regarding fill. AMO staff has acknowledged receipt of the letter but specific action steps are not known at this time. Rob Messervey (Kawartha Conservation) -They looked at several by-laws including the draft from Uxbridge and pulled together a Draft Model Fill By-law to be used as a frame of reference. Lakeridge is not a regulated area. Conservation Authority can only deal with regulated areas. They have another issue that they are looking at -slurry (drawn from trenches) with sludge, being dumped. The issue -putting a stop-work order on the site. MOE has good protocols in place. Conservation Authority being pushed to do well testing to see if there are problems. • What to test for at adjacent sites? • Is there an onus on the owner to do any testing? 16-55 Roundtable Discussion on Fill March 3, 2011 Peter Waring (Kawartha Conservation) -Legislation is in place but not much for when they don't comply. Legislative Tool Kit needs enhancement. Chris Darling (CLOCA) -The challenge in determining if large fill sites are a change in land use that can be dealt with under the Planning Act is that most permit applications for large fill sites indicated that they are for "agricultural purposes". CLOCA has established a large fill protocol which includes requirements for pre and post elevation, inspections and confirmation that the fill is clean. Applications must document origin of soil, if origin site was subject to P.A. (Planning Act) approval, and must meet MOE Table 1 or 2 requirements. This works great...when the filler is reputable. Challenge is arguing whether it is a change of land use. Pickering/Whitby/Oshawa are all looking at their by-law in the last 6 months. There is a desire for municipalities to work together. Also protocol and regulations make it difficult to bid competitively on large projects. Rob Baldwin (LSRCA) - LSRCA is looking at internal policies. They are in the final stages of the Lake Simcoe Plan which does contain some references to fill. Conservation Authority will have the power to issue astop-work order. Carolyn Woodland (TRCA) -TRCA has had quite a few issues. Peel and Caledon have both struggled with implementation activities. Had residential site problems. Even with a site plan exercise, there were still problems. People even dumping in remote areas. Unless someone sees them, we can't do anything. Townships will need to have a fill strategy on where fill will be disposed of on big tenders. Nick Saccone (TRCA) -Has dealt with a number of operators over the years solving erosion issues. Fill can be a resource and a source of revenue in some cases. Requires protocol development and monitoring the process closely. Tom Farrell (MNR) -The requirement for rehabilitation of gravel pits is a 3:1 sloping and ground cover. Ten sites in Uxbridge are possible rehabilitation sites. Sites are required to stockpile topsoil and overburden. If they do not have a sufficient stockpile to properly slope, they need to import it and follow MNR protocol. They must specify the types of material: soil (must be Table 1 standard -difficult to meet), rock, brick and concrete. Should strive for a ticket system: • Ticket goes from originating site to the trucker • Requires inspection before entering site (checked against a list) • Copy kept by both trucker and the site Most bad cases are solely money-driven and they don't care about the repercussions. "Surrendering a License" -Licensee has completed the rehabilitation. Municipalities are notified. MNR wants 18 months (a few seasons) to ensure that vegetation is growing, etc. and to make sure that it is stabilized. It is also important to know what the plan is for the end use of the property.' Other method to surrender a license is a municipality agrees to work with owner to finish off the rehabilitation or other and MNR would agree to allow the license be surrendered. John O'Toole (MPP) -This is an important topic. No one wants to inherit liabilities of consequences. 10:15 BREAK Page 2 16-56 Roundtable Discussion on Fill March 3, 2011 Greg Sones (MOE) -Has had talks with MPP O'Toole. For the last 6-7 months, MOE has been in discussion with the Residential & Civil Construction Association. Stakeholder Review has been established for soil management. Industry and stakeholder consensus is being sought in order to determine the best way to manage fill. They are looking at Municipal procurement practices and model procurement strategy established by AMO and also looking at greater emphasis to be placed on the requirements of a "qualified professional". Stakeholders could include today's participants. MOE will work directly with the municipalities. Re. Scugog issue - MOE has also been told by Earthworks that they have no jurisdiction but Earthworks is "voluntarily" co-operating with the MOE right now. There are a number of orders issued related to that site. MOE required that groundwater testing take place. There have been no concerns with the samples to date. Adjacent properties will be approached for samples. Bore holes (50 metres apart) were a requirement and they have the results. Some exceeded the standards so now the bore holes must be 25 metres. They want additional audit samples of loads which can only come from the site by the authorized soil management analyst. Lessons learned -they will be charting some operational guidelines learned from the Earthworks issue. Mayor Mercier -Thanked MOE for being on-site in Scugog. Another issue is Public Trust. There were over 200 attendees at their last meeting. Communication is key. We need a Public Communication Strategy. Active environmental groups are visiting the site. Went to Good Roads at ROMA and spoke to the Minister. Minister says that the operator must adhere to provincial laws. Mayor Mercier requested a letter stipulating this to show a united front. Scugog will not participate in Earthworks' Advisory Committee until they comply with municipal laws. Bev Hendry (CAO -Scugog) - it makes it look like a planning permit means nothing. MPP O'Toole -Expectations must be provincial. Each municipality cannot have different rules. The local permit was the problem. They ignored it. Victor Doyle (MMAH) - he has not been as involved as others in attendance. The Municipal Act gives townships the authority for their own by-laws. Site alterations and peat extraction weren't considered "use of land". Scugog's requirements did not address environmental issues. Bore-hole requirements, etc. are too late. We need to know what is going in prior to it being dumped. There needs to be some kind of cost recovery. MPAC (change of taxes) is a possibility.. Diane Ploss (MMAH) -Applying fees and charges may be an option for cost recovery. Rob Messervey -the Planning Act has broader opportunities and greater tools for the municipalities. Debbie Leroux (Clerk -Uxbridge) -Our municipal process -Although the by-law is not ready yet, it would involve a planning process for anything over 1,000 cubic metres (fees per load, fees for restoration if an issue, registration fee, charge operators for any additional studies that are required). Ingrid Svelnis - We would be looking at "end use". If there is not environmental benefit, perhaps we shouldn't be interested. Conservation Authorities would be involved at the restoration stage. Page 3 16-57 Roundtable Discussion on Fill March 3, 2011 Alez Georgieff-The $64,000 question to be addressed is the linkages between the Municipal Act, the ORMCP Act, the Greenbelt Act and the Planning Act. Changes to legislation may be required. MPP O'Toole -perhaps look at the Niagara Escarpment Act. Mayor Mercier -The soil is not coming from our township. It is coming from Toronto and they are reaping all the benefit. We need help. We can't afford to fight this. This is a provincial issue. Operators are watching us with great interest to see the result. Paul Foster (Region -Roads): 1. Need to set an example of our own fill. Ensure contract obligations are met 2. Well-head protection zoning needs to be considered 3. Access Control By-laws should be required for any new access required for a site 4. Weight restrictions - a 2-month window There is power to limit activity. General Comments o Victor Doyle: We can do everything we want because of the Planning & Municipal Acts. o Tom Farrell: We already have the powers under the Municipal Act. If we want more then we need to be more specific about what we want. o Weigh stations should be required o Better monitoring for weight restrictions o Planning protocol needs to be more defined o Peat should be included/added o Determine strategic locations for fill o Further discussion on how we deal with our own soil o Focus on policies, regulations, policing and penalties Negt Steps (suggestions): • bring up at the next AMO conference • should consider peat and fill together as both have similar challenges • confirm deficiencies and gaps • enhancements -done collectively with Conservation Authorities • plan a second session and include: o GTCMA o municipalities that are opposed and ones currently running fill operations o invite some of the generators of fill Meeting adjourned 12:30 p.m. Page 4 16-58 m c ~ o ~ w o cu o •~ ~ o ~ c a~ ~ N v~ v 2 ~ ~ o ~ ° ~ ~ o ° L ° m ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ c ,~ D ~ c ~ o tq ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ m ~ c c c Z ~ o c ~ ° m to ~ °~ a~ ~ ~ ~ p c ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ° rnv) ~ ~ v ~ E ++ m o m c 'o c c ~. cu c c ca ~ O a ~ C ~ ? ~ 0 o a ots o .~ aci o ~~ O ~° ~ p a~ ° ~ y rn c~~ c ~ N Q L ~ •C O C ' n C L. fO C C~~ ,U ~ i y O N N ~ C 'U ~~` ~ ~ o Q ° a. ... ~ ¢ ` a a~ ~ o ~ ° ~ `o ~ .S ~ E U ° rn .° r L~ m ~a m tea. ~ o.«,U c ~ ~~ o•ww E oQ ~~ camp N ~ U c ~ ~ : r c~ •o ~ Z v ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i ° o ,a •~ O m a~ ~ ~ ~ m ca ~ ~ ~~~ O V O~ ~_ ~~ C~ N E D- O O O~ V Y J N~ N N fC tON~ L. •~ ~ •~ 3 ~ ~ -> >+ C N N r°`r O •~ ~ ~ O oCo O Z' ~ ~ ~ ~ N C N N ~ ~ ~ N N N '~ p Rf ~, O ,w°+ ~ ` (/1 C O ;O ~ ~ U ~ ~ 'C L O O N L cC 'O O ~ •> ~ O °~ ° °°~ppa co c~° aim o c ca2.~ ~UC~cn~~~ ~ °~C7- •~ ~ .4? ~ •~ rn > ° .~ c E ~ a°i x ~ ° ° '~ > ~ > >+ T ~ ~ Z ° L cca -v y L o m o o a~ m .~ O .~ o ~? ~ ~ •c ca ca .~ c~ - a~ m c~ rn a~ a~ ° .~ •c c •c LL U~d~~~m>J~H(nC~QmdUZ~Qm~~S~m~~mQY C O O ° ^ E .N U U ~ ~. ~. ~... v ~ ~ a 222 ~~~~~ C ~L°, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 L L L L Q ¢ ~ o 0 0~~ Q Q Q Q 'C ~ _o 0 222ZZW c c c c N co ca o c c c~~ p o 0 0 0 ~ :«. ~ c~ c~ c~ ~ O ° `~ ° ~ ~ v°i ~ ~ a~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ m aZi ~ ~ L U c c U O oo ~~~ a°i y~ o 0 0 0 ~ o°° c ~,U Q Q Q a~ m o U U U U •cia ca o ~+. aan~~> o 0 0 0 0 o aaggaQ.aaa y° Z Z•rn° cv •~•~•~ c`a cLo c E E E•rn'o~•a~•a>> ~~~st~~~:cs O~ ~~~~ •_ •_ •~ y e w ~ r o a~ o N o o c c c c c c c c c 0 0 o a~ ~ c g g g Z Z~ °° ° a~ a~ ,~ ,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YUU c~ o~Ev-.w~~~.w~~0 c c c c o °HF-I-I-HHHHI- ° ca m U o ca o 0 0 0 o O '~- '~- '~ co w c~ ce a s -~ L L B ~ L o 0 o m m a~ a~ m a~ m a~ a~ ~a~~cn -°~ Z'Z`Z`Z'Z'Z'c c c o 0 o•o.c~ o~rnrnrnv~a~a~rnrn o° a~° N v y v i n .o 0 o c c c c~ ~ a v ;a a a a v a ;a c 3 3Ya'c~•c•c•c.c.~.~ rn•rn•rno 0 0 0 3 3~~~~~~~~~ m ca c~ ° ~ •- a~ a~ a~ o 0 0 0 0 o x x x x x x x x x U Y Y J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I- H H H I- I- 2 > > > 2 2 > > 2 16-59 MINUTES OF THE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON COMMERCIAL FILL AND FILL-IN PITS THURSDAY, MAY 12T", 2011 COUNCIL CHAMBERS UXBRIDGE, ONTARIO Minutes of the Roundtable Discussion on Commercial Fill and Fill-in Pits on Thursday, May 12'", 2011 at Council Chambers, Township of Uxbridge Present: Mayor Virginia Hackson, Councillor John Eaton, Wayne Hunt, Town of East Gwillimbury, Mayor Adrian Foster, Tony Cannella, Municipality of Clarington, Mayor Robert Grossi, Joe Costanza, Town of Georgina, Mayor David Ryan, Bob Starr, City of Pickering, Mayor Wayne Emmerson, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Mayor Terry Clayton, Deputy Mayor Debbie Ann Bath, Joe Bonura, Township of Brock, Mayor Chuck Mercier, Ian Roger, Township of Scugog, Glenn Blakely, Richard Lloyd, Town of Caledon, Councillor Ron Simpson, Gavin Watson, Barry Russell, Debbie Korolnek, Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury, Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor, Councillor Bev Northeast, Councillor Jacob Mantle, Ingrid Svelnis, Debbie Leroux, Brian Pigozzo, Township of Uxbridge, Steven Strong, Ministry of Natural Resources, Greg Sones, Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Dave Fumerton, Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Laura Rupprecht, Scribe 1. Mayor Gerri Lynn O'Connor called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. and introductions were made. 2. Mayor O'Connor turned the meeting over to Ingrid Svelnis, CAO, Township of Uxbridge for a brief background on events leading up to today's meeting. 3. Ms. Svelnis suggested that a representative from each municipality advise whether or not they allow commercial fill and fill-in pits as well as share some of the pros and cons they may have experienced. Debbie Korolnek, Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury explained that they presently have a Site Alteration By-law but that it does not distinguish between commercial and non-commercial fill. Ms. Korolnek advised that the Township has not experienced any concerns until quite recently and provided an explanation of such events. Councillor Ron Simpson of Bradford West Gwillimbury advised that the by-law was passed in 2004 but is in need of amendment. 16-60 COMMERCIAL FILL ROUND 2 TABLE MEETING MINUTES MAY 12T", 2011 Mayor Virginia Hackson, Town of East Gwillimbury explained that they presently have a fill by-law which is under review. Mayor Hackson advised that they have experienced more negatives than positives. Wayne Hunt, General Manager of Community Programs & Infrastructure explained that they are presently only filling aggregate extraction areas and that it is a very detailed process. Mr. Hunt advised that truck routes and volumes are a concern and explained their fill quality and ground water monitoring process. Mayor Robert Grossi, Township of Georgina advised that they do have a current fill by-law in place and that truck volumes are a concern. Joe Costanza continued the discussion by how their by-law tries to deal with truck volumes. Mr. Costanza explained that anything over 250 cubic metres requires an agreement with the Township. Weekly reports and ground water monitoring is a requirement. Filling in residential areas requires Table 1 soil and anything over 2,000 cubic metres requires Table 2 soil. The Township's fee is $.60 cents a cubic metre. Glenn Blakely, Manager of By-law Enforcement, Town of Caledon, advised that they have had a fill by-law for a number of years. Presently they allow fill only in agricultural areas. They have set fees of $1.42 per load to cover road damages and $1.00 per load to place fill. Joe Bonura, Chief, Building Official, Township of Brock explained that they have one fill by-law which addresses fill amounts under 500 cubic metres and one for fill amounts over 500 cubic metres. Mr. Bonura advised that any fill requests of over 500 cubic metres must go to Council for a public meeting. Mr. Bonura explained that fill quality is always a concern and that a fee a requirement for security deposit is in place. Mayor David Ryan, City of Pickering advised that they passed their fill by-law in 2002 which works in conjunction with their zoning by-law. Bob Starr, Manager of Development Control advised that their by-law permits top soil on agricultural lands only, unless otherwise stated. Mr. Starr explained that they have had some issues with contaminated soil in the past but that they have no large operations presently on the go. Mayor Chuck Mercier, Township of Scugog advised that they presently have a fill by- law and provided an update on the problems associated with a current fill operation on Lakeridge Road. lap Roger explained that the Township of Scugog's by-law is similar to that of the Township of Uxbridge in that any requests of fill over 500 cubic metres must have Council's approval. Mayor Adrian Foster, Municipality of Clarington spoke to a current issue in their municipality involving a fill permit issued by a conservation authority and is therefore outside of the municipality's jurisdiction. Tony Capella, Director of Engineering 16-61 COMMERCIAL FILL ROUND 3 TABLE MEETING MINUTES MAY 12T", 2011 Services spoke to their current site alteration by-law including fee structure and operation controls. Mr. Canella explained that they have control over their entire operation including truck routes and soil inspections. Mr. Canella also expressed his concerns with conservation authorities issuing fill permits which undermine the municipality's site alteration by-law. Greg Sones, Ministry of the Environment and Energy explained that there is currently no provincial legislation that regulates soil quality used for infilling purposes other than it can not be hazardous waste and it can not impact water quality off site. Mayor Wayne Emmerson, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville explained that the Town currently has a fill by-law in place and is home to several ongoing fill operations. Mayor Emmerson explained the permitting process advising that they use a staging approach and undertake strict monitoring. The Town currently imposes a fee of .50 cents per cubic metre which will be increased to $1.00 per cubic metre in the near future. Mayor Emmerson suggested that commercial filling of pits can work as long as municipalities take complete control of the process. Mayor Gerri-Lynn O'Connor, Township of Uxbridge spoke to the need for better communication between municipalities, the various ministries as well as conservation authorities with respect to the filling of pits. Abetter working relationship between these agencies must be established. Municipal roads as well as residents can be severely affected by commercial filling operations and yet the municipality has little control. Debbie Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge provided some background on the Township of Uxbridge Fill Committee and the Township's current site alteration by- law. Ms. Leroux explained that there are no commercial fill operations in Uxbridge at this time however the Township is feeling pressure from local pit owners to allow filling in pits. The meeting recessed at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:40 a.m. Councillor Jacob Mantle read a statement from the Honourable John O'Toole, MPP who was not able to attend the meeting. Mr. O'Toole expressed his concerns with respect to commercial fill and advised that he will continue to work with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment and all stakeholders to ensure the protection of people, property and the environment. Stephen Strong, Ministry of Natural Resources advised that his ministry regulates licenced aggregate pits and explained some of their protocol procedures. Mr. Strong suggested that not all pits need to be filled and that the pits that are rehabilitated are done with a 3:1 slope. 16-62 COMMERCIAL FILL ROUND 4 TABLE MEETING MINUTES MAY 12T", 2011 Councillor Bev Northeast, Township of Uxbridge reiterated Mr. Strong's suggestion that not all pits need to be filled. Councillor Northeast stressed the importance and benefits of allowing pits to rehabilitate themselves naturally. Greg Sones, Ministry of the Environment spoke to the benefits of reused soil. At the same time Mr. Sones emphasized the importance of the generating sites knowing where the fill is going and the receiving site should have a qualified professional prepare a soil management plan. Mr. Sones recommended ground water monitoring, good record keeping, signage and regular audits for both generating and receiving sites. Mr. Sones also recommended that operations have a good contingency plan should any problems arise. Mr. Sones advised that the ministry is currently meeting with agencies and stakeholder working groups and staff are looking at developing a "best practice" policy. Dave Fumerton, Ministry of the Environment spoke further to the Township of Scugog and Municipality of Clarington fill operations as it is in unique situations such as this that the MOE get involved. Greg Sones, MOE advised that the Ministry has `emergency' power to stop work on an operation however the circumstances are limited in which to do so. Next Steps Mayor Foster spoke to his concerns with Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) approved sites. Mayor Emmerson recommended establishing a fill process and partnering with the. MNR with respect to fill. operations. Ron Simpson, Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury suggested that all municipalities establish one fill by-law, endorsed by all the agencies. Joe Bonura, Township of Brock spoke to a commercial fill by-law meeting at the Region Durham on June 15, 2011. Mayor O'Connor suggested that each municipality dedicate one staff person to participate in a working group with other municipalities to establish a common commercial fill by-law. Greg Sones advised that the a Ministry of the Environment staff person could be available to attend that meeting. Adlournment Mayor O'Connor adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m. 16-63 AI IA(.ttMtrvl IVU. y iv REPORT LGL-006-11 ROAD AGREEMENT BETWEEN: -and- WHEREAS: THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITYOF CLARINGTON ("Clarington") 1744856 ONTARIO INC. (the "Owner") D~PAFT (a) The Owner owns the property municipally known as 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle which is legally described as part of Lot 16, Concession 2, Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham (the "Property"). (b) Barklay Fieldstone Estates Limited, a corporation that is affiliated with the Owner, owns the property immediately to the north of the Property shown on Schedule "A" (Location Map) as "Additional Lands Controlled by the Owner". (c) The Property has two vehicle access points -one off of Regional Highway 2 and the other off of Morgans Road as shown in Schedule "A". (d) Access to the Property is also available through the Additional Lands Controlled by the Owner. (e) Clarington has jurisdiction over Morgans Road. (f) The Regional Municipality of Durham has jurisdiction over Regional Highway 2 in the vicinity of the Property. (g) The entire Property is within an area regulated by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority ("GRCA"). (h) GRCA issued a permit under Ontario Regulation 168/06 on June 30, 2010 (the "Permit") in relation to the Property. (i) The Permit will expire on June 30, 2011. Q) The Owner has applied for a renewal of the Permit. 16-64 Page 2 (k) Clarington and the Owner wish to enter into this Agreement in order to clarify the rights and responsibilities of the Owner in relation to the Property, including those obligations imposed on the Owner under Provincial Officer Order Number 3333- 8FN29D of the Ministry of the Environment issued April 6, 2011 as modified by the Director's Order issued April 15, 2011. NOW THEREFORE Clarington and the Owner agree as follows: PART 1 -VEHICLE ACCESS Number and Location Consistent with Clarington's Policy for Entrances, vehicular access to the Property shall be restricted to those locations described in recital (c) to this Agreement. 2. No trucks shall access the Property through the Additional Lands Controlled by the Owner. 3. Any truck carrying any amount of fill shall obtain access to the Property via the Regional Highway 2 access only. The Morgans Road access shall only be used by trucks if they are exiting the Property without any fill. . Truck Routing 4. The Owner shall ensure that all trucks coming into and leaving do not travel through Newcastle Village. PART 2 -OFF-SITE IMPACTS Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control 5. The Owner shall adhere to all of the requirements of the "Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures" filed with the Ministry of the Environment on April 15, 2011. For purposes of this Agreement, that Procedure shall be deemed to be amended as set out in Schedule "B" to this Agreement (Amendments to the Dust, Soil Tracking and Noise Control Procedures). Load Restrictions 6. The Owner acknowledges that under section 19(3) of Clarington's Traffic By-law 91-58, half load restrictions are in place on Morgans Road between Durham Highway 2 and Concession Road 3 from January 1 to December 31 in each and every year. 16-65 Page 3 Road Repair 7. Clarington shall install, at the Owner's expense, a culvert at the Owner's current access onto Morgans Road. 8. Prior to June 15, 2011, the Owner shall construct upgrades to Morgans Road from Durham Highway 2 to the north side of the existing entrance to the Property (approximately 250 metres north) to the satisfaction of Clarington's Director of Engineering Services. Upgrades shall include: • pulverize the existing surface over the full width of the existing road platform and grade the base with a 2-3% crossfall from centreline. • add 150 mm Granular `A' over entire width of road platform. • lay 50 mm HL8 binder course • ditch where required to drain the pavement structure and provide positive grade to an outlet. Performance Guarantee 9. The Owner shall provide Clarington with a performance guarantee, in the form of an unconditional and irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a chartered Canadian Bank to be used by Clarington as security for the Owner's obligations under section 8 of this Agreement. The amount of the performance guarantee shall be $54,285 calculated in accordance with Schedule "C" (COST ESTIMATE). PART 3 -DEFAULT AND REMEDIES Permit Condition 10. The Owner shall not object to GRCA making it a condition of the Permit or any renewal of the Permit that the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be complied with and that default under this Agreement shall be default under the Permit. Remedies 11. Subject to section 12, if the Owner is in default of any provision of this Agreement, Clarington may, (a) enter upon the Property and do all such things as are required to remedy the default and charge the cost of such work to the Owner together with an 25% 16-66 Page 4 of such cost for overhead (to be construed as a liquidated amount, not a penalty); (b) draw upon the performance guarantee; (c) declare Morgans Road a "No Heavy Trucks" under Clarington's Traffic By- law 91-58 for whatever period of time it deems appropriate; and/or (d) designate Morgan's Road as "Heavy Traffic Prohibited" under Clarington's Traffic By-law 91-58. 12. With respect. section 5 only, the Owner shall not be deemed to be in default unless Clarington has notified the Owner of the particulars of the default and given the Owner a reasonable period of time to cure the default. PART 4 -GENERAL PROVISIONS Successors and Assigns 13. This Agreement shall not be assigned by the Owner without the prior approval of Clarington. 14. This Agreement enures to the benefit of and binds the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Term of Agreement 15. The. term of this Agreement shall coincide with the term of the Permit, including any renewal of the Permit. 16. Part 3 of this Agreement (Default and Remedies) shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Non-waiver 17. Waiver ornon-enforcement by either party of a term or condition of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or anon-enforcement of any other term or condition of this Agreement or any subsequent breach of the same or similar term or condition. Changes to Agreement 18. Changes to this Agreement shall only be made by agreement in writing by both parties. 16-67 Page 5 Notice 19. (1) Any notice to the Owner under section 13 shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: 1744856 ONTARIO INC. 96 Cawker's Cove Road Port Perry Scugog, Ontario L9L 1 R6 Attention: Richard Rondeau Facsimile: 905-427-0265 (2) Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person, sent by registered mail or sent by facsimile transmission during normal business hours on a business day. (3) Each notice sent shall be deemed to have been received on the day that it is delivered, on the third business day after it is mailed, or on the same day that it is sent by facsimile transmission or on the first business day thereafter if the day on which it was sent by facsimile transmission was not a business day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Clarington and the Owner have signed this Agreement. Dated at Clarington this _ day of May, 2011. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk 1744856 ONTARIO INC. Richard Rondeau [title] 16-68 ATTACHMENT N0.10 TO REPORT LGL-006-11 MNR AURORA DISTRICT OFF-SITE FILL ACCEPTANCE PROTOCOL This Protocol has been developed for use in the rehabilitation of aggregate pit and quarry operations. Definitions For purposes of this Protocol, the following shall have the meanings described below: "Acceptable has the meaning set out in Part Il following FiIP' "EPA" means the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as may be amended "Generating The location from which acceptable fill material Location" originates "Site" means the relevant properties licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act "MNR" means the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources "ProtocoP' means this Off-Site Fill Acceptance Protocol, as may be amended from time to time "Qualified means a Qualified Person as defined in O.Reg. ProfessionaP' 153/04 (Environmental Protection Act) as may be amended "Reviewing means a Qualified Professional retained by the ProfessionaP' Licensee as required by this Protocol, and who is a professional geoscientist or professional engineer experienced in environmental site assessment and peer review "Licensee" means the person or company and its successors and assigns to whom the Aggregate Resources Act licence is issued "Table 1 means the standards set out in Table 1 of the "Soil, Standards" Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV1 of the Environmental Protection Act" published by the MOE and dated March 9, 2004, as 1 16-69 (a) Name of the owner of the Generating Location and the representative of the Generating Location authorized to sign any bill of lading or other documentation relating to shipments of Acceptable Fill to the Site. (b) One or more reports, prepared by a Qualified Professional from the Generating Location), to include the following information: i A description of the Generating Location. and its history, including the location, past and present uses of the land, and current activities. ii A description of the material to be shipped to the Site, including the processes involved in its generation. iii Where some or all of the material to be deposited is soil/earth, a record of the results of a comprehensive soil testing program for the Generating Location, including a description of the sampling locations, sample collection procedures, and parameters analysed. An explanation or rationale for the selection of the sampling locations and the parameters for testing must be included. iv A statement from a Qualified Professional stating that in his/her opinion the material satisfies the requirements of the Protocol and is suitable for placement at the Site. v .The anticipated volume of material to be shipped to the Site. vi An estimated time frame in which the material will be shipped. 4. Copies of any application, together with the related report or reports, will be forwarded to the Licensee and the Reviewing Professional. 5. The application will be reviewed by the Reviewing Professional to determine whether the material proposed for shipment is suitable for acceptance. The Reviewing Professional will consider the results of the sampling program, including but not limited to, whether the sampling locations and number of samples are representative of the material proposed to be shipped, whether the test results. include the full range of parameters of potential concern relating to the Generating Location and whether a 16-70 3 ^ the name of the hauling company ^ license plate number and truck identifier (if one exists) ^ the date and time of the shipment, Each bill of lading will be signed by an authorized representative of the Generating Location. 4. The gatekeeper will cross-reference the information on the bill of lading against the master list which will include truck ticket numbers issued by project. 5. Untested/undocumented loads or loads with no bill of lading will not be accepted under any circumstances. 6. The gatekeeper, who must be trained for such purposes, will complete a visual inspection of each load prior to permitting access to the Site. Loads containing unacceptable material or exhibiting evidence of possible chemical impact (e.g., unusual odours or staining) will not be permitted access to the Site. Repeated situations of material being rejected by the gatekeeper from a particular Generating Location will give rise to an investigation. An investigation report will be prepared within 30 days, giving a full account of the reasons the quality control system on the part of the Generating Location failed and the corrective actions taken and a copy shall be provided to MNR. The report will be retained by the Licensee at the Site, or at some other secure place. 7. Once the gatekeeper approves the load for acceptance at the Site, he/she will sign the bill of lading, and direct the driver to a specific dumping location at the Site. The assigned location will be noted on the bill of lading. 8. A daily summary log will be maintained for loads shipped to the Site, including rejected loads. The log entry will include: - Date - Daily total # of trucks entering the property - Daily total # of trucks accepted - Daily total # of trucks rejected (and reasons for rejection) - For each Generating Location: i. Identification number for each Bill of Lading received on that date, ii. Location fill was placed on the locational tracking grid. 5 16-71 the parameters to be analyzed, the standards to be used for comparison purposes, the reporting requirements, and any confirmatory sampling requirements should the results indicate any exceedance of a standard established for a parameter of concern, and any further response requirements. 3. As far as is practicable, existing groundwater monitoring wells will be utilized for the purposes of any groundwater monitoring program. 4. Groundwater samples will be collected by or on behalf of the Licensee under the supervision of the Reviewing Professional and delivered to an accredited laboratory to be tested. Results of the testing will be provided to MNR upon request. Any changes to groundwater quality (i.e., from background condition) will be reported to MNR immediately. VIII. Guidelines for Topsoil All requests to import Topsoil for rehabilitation purposes shall include the following: - A demonstrated need to import Topsoil for rehabilitation purposes - An area identified on a drawing or sketch as to where Topsoil is to be placed and/or stockpiled on the Site for rehabilitation purposes - Name of the owner of the Generating Location and the representative of the Generating Location authorized to sign any bill of lading or other documentation relating to shipments of Topsoil to the Site. - A description of the Generating Location and its history, including the location, past and present uses of the land, and current activities. - The volume of Topsoil anticipated to be received - An anticipated time frame in which the Topsoil will be shipped - A maximum depth of Topsoil to be used as top dressing as shown on the approved site plan or as approved by MNR 2. All requests to import Topsoil shall be subject to the conditions as set out in Part IV #6-9 and Part VI of this Protocol. 3. To the extent possible Topsoil will be used immediately as final cover. Topsoil stockpiles should be as minimal as possible and are to be used progressively in rehabilitation efforts. 16-72 7 November 21 2007 SAMPLE BILL OF LADING No: 0000001 Name and Location of Generating Location: ~ Date Shipped: ~ Time Shipped: ~ Haulage Company: Truck Number: Licence Plate: ~S~gnature of Authorized Personnel,at~Generatmgv s Location _ r Date Received: Time Received: ANY UNSIGNED OR INCOMPLETE FORMS WILL RESULT IN REFUSAL OF LOAD AT THE RECEIVING LOCATION. WHITE COPY -RECEIVING SITE YELLOW COPY -HAULAGE COMPANY' PINK COPY -GENERATING LOCATION 9 16-73 November 21 2007 Sample Master List: Bills of Lading Generating Location #1 (Name and Location) Bill of Ladin # Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekee er Initial 0001 Se t 2, 2007 0002 Se t 2, 2007 0003 Se t 2, 2007 0004 Se t 2, 2007 0005 Se t 2, 2007 0006 Se t 2, 2007 0007 Se t 2, 2007 ' 0008 Se t 2, 2007 0025 Oct. 5, 2007 0026 Oct. 5, 2007 0027 Oct. 5, 2007 0028 Oct. 5, 2007 Generating Location #2 (Name and Location) Bill of Ladin # Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekee er Initial 0017 Se t 6, 2007 0018 Se t 6, 2007 0019 Se t 6, 2007 0020 Se t 6, 2007 0021 Se t 6, 2007 Generating Location #3 (Name and Location) Bill of Ladin # Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekee er Initial 0017 Se t 6, 2007 0018 Se t 6, 2007 0019 Se t 6, 2007 0020 Se t 6, 2007 0021 Se t 6, 2007 0022 Se t 6, 2007 0023 Se t 6, 2007 0024 Se t 6, 2007 Date of Last Update: Signature of Authorized Personnel at Receiving Site: 16-74 11 Unfinished Business 1 ~. ~ Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 9, 2011 Resolution #: Q ~A--3~f q- I - By-law #: Report #: PSD-041-11 File #: PLN 37.4 Subject: COURTICE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT - 2011 CAPITAL FUNDS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT PSD-041-11 be received; 2 THAT Option 1, the development of the parkette at the northwest corner of Trulls and Highway 2, be approved as the Courtice Community Improvement Project identified in the Capital budget; and 3. THAT Staff be authorized to proceed with the design, tendering and construction of the Courtice Community Improvement project for 2011. Submitted by: ~ Reviewed by: David rome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer FL/df 2 May 2011 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)6239 ~8-~ REPORT NO.: PSD-041-11 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The capital budget includes monies in the amount of $100,000 for a capital project along Highway 2 in Courtice as a community improvement project. Council requested a list of options for the selection of an appropriate project. 2.0 POTENTIAL PROJECTS OPTION 1 The suggestion from Staff was to fund the development of the parkette at the northwest corner of Trulls and Highway 2 as a beautification feature along the corridor that could, in future, also serve as a trailhead for trails along Black Creek. Attachment 1 is a photo of a similar project that was included in the Courtice Main Street Master Development Plan Report that was adopted by Council in September of 2010. OPTION 2 Included in the 2001, Courtice Corridor Study was the suggestion of the development of a lookout/seating area on top of the box culvert on the north side of Highway 2 at Farewell Creek. While no visualizations or cost estimates were included in the study this area was identified as a "gateway" from the west. The Municipality installed an entry feature in 2006 at a cost of approximately $92,000 which now serves as the entry to Courtice rather than development of a seating area atop the box culvert which was deemed to be too exposed and noisy for use as a seating area. Attachment 2 is a picture of the box culvert and Courtice Entry Feature. OPTION 3 Another recommendation of the 2001 study was to include banner poles along Highway 2,'which would add to the streetscape and announce the Courtice Main Street Area. A banner pole (Attachment 3) was installed on the median in 2002 as part of the roadway operation improvements carried out by the Region. The banner pole and arms were paid for by Clarington. Typically in "downtown" areas the banners are the responsibility of the BIA; Courtice does not have a BIA and the banner installed was to support the troops. Additional banner brackets could be added to existing poles and banners installed. The recommendation for the installation of banners was repeated in the Courtice Main Street Corridor Master Development Plan Report. Should Council wish the CIP funds to be used for the implementation of a banner program, it will have implications for the use of CIP funds in Orono, Bowmanville and Newcastle, where to date the banners have been funded by the BIA's. 18-2 REPORT NO.: PSD-041-11 PAGE 3 OPTION 4 The installation of a staircase leading from Highway 2 down to Old Kingston Road would improve access (Attachment 4) to the future park that will be established on this site (once valleyland dedications are received to expand the trail system). As part of this project, Staff would also recommend improvements to the park site such as decorative fence along the driveway and a formalized pedestrian entrance. While this area is envisioned as a future park and trailhead area Staff are reluctant to recommend full development at this time until the trail connections can be made. This project is out of view of most residents and vehicles passing along Highway 2. 3.0 COMMENTS 3.1 Other potential projects have been reviewed by the Managers of Park Development and Special Projects such as whether the trailhead and trail extensions could be developed north and south along Farewell Creek; however, the steep valley slopes and lack of Municipal ownership of specific parcels limits this option. Overall, along the Courtice Highway 2 corridor there are at this time, limited opportunities for improvements as Municipal ownership and the topography of the Municipally owned sites are challenging. 3.2 To date the types of community improvement works that have been carried out in Courtice have addressed gaps in streetscape development (e.g. tree planting) and identification of the trailhead that was acquired at 71 Old Kingston Road. Report PSD-006-11 outlined the works that have occurred utilizing the community improvement funding. 3.3 No grant program exists for Courtice merchants at this time as no formal Community Improvement Plan has been written or adopted. To provide financial incentives such as grants or loans to private property owners from taxation monies a Community Improvement Plan is required as set out in the Planning Act and Municipal Act. 3.4 Council has requested that a Courtice Community Improvement Plan be prepared similar to the Plans that exist for Bowmanville, Orono and Newcastle. A Courtice CIP study is scheduled as part of the 2012 work program of the Planning Services Department and would build on the September 2010 approved Courtice Main Street Master Development Plan Report. The next step for the Courtice Main Street Master area is the preparation of a Secondary Plan, which is part of the 2011 work program for Planning Services and is currently underway. Advancing the CIP study would shift staff resources from the preparation of the Secondary Plan which is one of the special projects of the Official Plan Review. 18-3 REPORT NO.: PSD-041-11 4.0 CONCLUSIONS PAGE 4 4.1 Staff have reviewed the various options available for capital development along the Courtice Main Street and recommend that the parkette on the northwest corner of Trulls and Highway 2 be undertaken for the funding identified in the 2011 Capital budget. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid Attachments: Attachment 1: Option 1: Concept for the parkette at northwest corner Trulls and Highway 2 Attachment 2: Option 2: Box culvert and Courtice Entry Feature Attachment 3: Option 3: Banner Pole Concepts Attachment 4: Option 4: Potential stairway access point and park at 71 Old Kingston Road 18-4 Attachment 1 -Option To Report PSD-041-1 PARKETTE CONCEPT 18-5 Attachment 2 -Option 2 To Report PSD-041-11 18-6 BOX CULVERT WEST GATEWAY Attachment 3 -Option 3 To Report PSD-041-11 *~~~I ONLY EXISTING BANNER POLE AND BRACKETS POTENTIAL 1 A!`ATIAAIC CAD 18-7 Attachment 4 -Option 4 To Report PSD-041-11 PARK STAIR 18-8 HANDOUTS/C IRCULATIONS GPA ~~ ~ Leading tlae Way MEMO CLERK'S DEPARTMENT To: Mayor Foster and Members of Council From: Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk Date; May 27, 2011 Subject: GENERAL PURPOSE & ADMIN[STRATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA -- MAY 34, 2411 -- UPDATE Please be advised of the following amendments to the GPA agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, May 30, 2011: 6. 8 e) 16. EncL DELEGATIONS See attached Final List. - Attachment #T PLANNING SERV[CES REPORT Memo from Faye Langmaid, Regarding Report PSD-052-11, Durham-York Energy From Waste Project Clarington Comments On Certificate Of Approval Application (Air) {Memo and Attachment #2 of Report PSD-052-11 - previously circulated to Mayor and Members of Council on May 26, 2011 }Attachment #2 SOLICITOR'S DEPARTMENT REPORTS Attachment #10 of Report LGL-OOS-11 was missing some pages, see replacement - Aftachmenf #3 cc: F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads CORPORATION 01= THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506 Attachment #'I of Update Memo FINAL LIST OF DELEGATIONS GPA Mee#ing: May 30, 2411 (a) Glenn Genge and Patricia Stephenson, Regarding Report PSD-048-11, Request for Extension of Draft Approval West Side of Rudell Road, Newcastle (b) Ted Watson, Regarding Report PSD-051-11, Amendments to Sign By-law 2009-123 (c) Kelvin Whalen, Vice-President, Kaitlin Group Ltd., Regarding Report PSD-049-11, Former Boys Training School and Prisoner of War Camp 2020 Lambs Road, Bowmanvilie (d) Martha Rutherford Conrad, Executive Director of Clarington Museums and Archives, Regarding Report PSD-049-11, Former Boys Training School and Prisoner of War Gamp 2020 Lambs Road, Bowmanville (e) Robert Hann, President, Holloway Developments Limited and Valiant Rental Properties Limited, Regarding Report EGD-022-11, Provision of Consulting Engineering Services North Scugog Court, West Scugog Lane to Concession Rd. 3, Bowmanville {f) Melanie Blakely, Regarding Report EGD-023-11, Hampton Skateboard Park {g) Jean Rickard, Newcastle Historical Society, Regarding Report EGD-021-11, Joseph Atkinson Park {h) Jeany Barrett, Newcastle Historical Society, Regarding Report EGD-021-11, Joseph Atkinson Park {i) Linda Gasser, Regarding Report PSD-052-11, Durham-York Energy From Waste Project Clarington Comments On Certificate Of Approval Application (Airj Q) Wendy Bracken, Regarding Report PSD-052-11, Durham-York Energy From Waste Project Clarington Comments On Certificate Of Approval Application (Air) {k) Clark Morawe#z, Regarding Report PSD-049-11, Former Boys Training School and Prisoner of War Camp 2020 Lambs-Road, Bowmanville Attachment #1 of Update Memo Final List o~ Delegates Page 2 (I) Margery Freethy, Newcastle Historical Society, Regarding Report EGD-021-11, Joseph Atkinson Park {m} Louis ,Bertrand, Regarding Report PSD-052-11, Durham-York Energy From Waste Project Clarington Comments On Certificate Of Approval Application (Air) PLANNING SERVICE FROM: Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects DATE: May 26, 2011 SUBJECT. PEER REVIEW OF DURHAMIYORK ENERGY CENTRE ESDM REPORT STAFF REPORT PSD-052-11 UNDER SEPARATE COVER ATTACHMENT FILE NO.. PLN 33.3.'10 Peer review is a process used in many professional disciplines for checking work undertaken by a professional in a specific field by other independent professionals working in the same fieid {peers), Generally, the goal of all peer review processes is to verify whether the work meets specific criteria or follows accepted practices and, most importantly, to provide suggestions for improving the quality of the work, Peer review comments are generally submitted in writing to the study author, who in turn provides a written response either agreeing or disagreeing with the peer review comment, this is called dispasitioning. In undertaking any study or peer review, professional judgement is being exercised, the consultants collectively are trying to ensure that accurate informationiresults and robust methodologies are followed. The dispositioned comments from the proponent and the regulator had nat been received finalized early this week. Initially, Staff contemplated delaying the submission of the Peer Review and Staff Report to Council, as communicated in a letter to MOE and the Region, and copied to Mayor anc~ members of Council, on May 24, 2011. The letter prompted MOE to respond to questions from SENES regarding data they had provided to the proponent, who in turn used the.data iri the air modeling dispersion exercise. Please find attached the Preliminary Peer Review Report {Attachment 2 to Staff Report PSD- 052-11)fnr the Durham York Energy Centre ESDM Report (Certificate of Approval -Air Appkication}. On page 1.1 of the peer review report, SENES has outlined the contact they have had with the proponent`s consultant and MOE. . Because the Energy from Waste facility has an EA Approval posting to the Environmental Bill of Rights {EBR) website is at the discretion of MOE, Section 2.4 of Report PSD-052-11 indicated that the C of A would not be posted to the website. However; MOE has posted the EA and allowed 45 days for comment. Public comments on the C of A which has been posted to the EBR are due on June 5~~. cc; Mayor and Members of Council Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Dept, Heads CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, ~OWMANVILLE, ONTARfO L1C 3A6 'r 905-623-3379 TF 1-800-563-1195 F 905-623-0830 Preliminary Report PEER REVIEW OF THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE ESDM REPORT Prepared for: The Municipality of Clarington Prepared by: ~EN1JS Consultants Limited 121 Grantor Drive, Unit 12 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N~ May 2011 i'rinted on Recycled Paper CFo~ntaining Post-Consumer Fibre `~ Peer Revreiv ofDYECES`DMReport EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SENES Consultants Limited was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to provide a Peer Review of the Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling {ESDM) Report that was submitted by Golder Associates (on behalf of Covanta Energy) in support of the Basic Comprehensive CofA (Air) for the Durham-York Energy Cenh•e. The purpose of the review was to assess whether the ESDM Report was completed in a reasonably comprehensive manner, using an approach that was consistent with standard practices and protocols, and was consistent with the conditions of the EA Approval. The information provided in the EA itself, the EA Approval and the ESDM Report (in addition to supporting electronic files) was reviewed in terms of completeness, accuracy and the overall approach of the assessment, This was done in effort to determine whether the assessment was comprehensive, was consistent with what was completed in support of the EA, and if any differences were noted, whether these would fundamentally change the overall conclusions of the report. The review was completed in three parts, including: (a) the approach used in the Air Quality Assessment completed in support of the EA, and conditions of the EA Approval; {b) the emission inventozy; and (c} the air dispersion modelling, including {i} the meteorological data that was used in the assessment, and (ii) the model configuration. The overall conclusion of the review is that the ESDM Report was reasonably well done, in a manner consistent with industry standard protocols and practices as well as Ontario Ministry of the Environment requirements far emissions inventories and air dispersion ,modelling assessments. However, some potential issues were identified, which led to the development of various recommendations. These are as follows: EAAppt•ovr~l and Related Coridrtio~zs The EA Approval outlines requirements for the installation of a continuous emissions monitoring system and specifies conditions on how these systems are to be used operationally. It also specifies that the timing and frequency of monitoring is to be outlined in the conditions of the CofA {Air). It is recommended that the Municipality request a copy of the DRAFT CofA (Air) for review to ensure that these conditions are acceptable to the Municipality. In addition, some of the parametez•s may be monitored via source testing rather than continuous emissions monitors. It is recommended that the facility b~ required to conduct source testing of the Main Stack on an annual basis, on a waste stream of typical waste composition. It is also recommended that the proponent be required to update the ESDM Repast to demonstrate 350302 - 26 May 2011 ES-1 SENES Consultants Limited Peer Revietiz~ of DYEC ESDMRepof•t continued compliance with O•Reg.419 POI (Point of Impingement) limits should the testing indicate that the measured emission rates are higher than those used in the current ESDM Report. The proposed operational monitoring system will include a dioxins and furans sampling device. The EA indicates that time integrated samples would be collected on approximately a monthly basis, followed by laboratory analysis, which would result in a time lag of one or two weeks before the laboratory results are available, As a result, it is unclear how this will be used as an operational monitor. It is therefore recommended that the fiequencylduration of sample collection be shortened if the data is intended to be used foz• operational control. In addition, there has been no provision for continuous sampling for mercury, as is encouraged in MOE Guideline A-7. As such, it will likely be sampled as part of the expected annual source testing campaign. However, given that there is no pre-sorting of the waste, it is likely that some mercury will enter the waste stream. It is therefore recommended that a time integrated, contiguous mercury sampling system be considered for installation at the facility. Emissions The emissions inventory for the Durham York Energy Centre used a combination of emissions testing data provided by the Proponent (Covanta Energy}, U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors and the EPA FIRE database, data from the MOE Peel Human Health Risk Assessment (Peel HHRA), manufacturer's specifications and the York Durham (YD) generic risk assessment. As mentioned earlier in this report, the DYEC has applied for a Basic Comprehensive CofA. A Basic Comprehensive CofA provides limited operational flexibility, allowing a proponent to operate within a maximum operating envelope which permits changes to be made to a facility {i.e. the addition of a new pieces of equipment, changes to process materials, modifications to air pollution control systems, etc.} without applying for an amendment to the CofA. It is recommended that the limited operational flexibility conditions far the DYECs Basic Comprehensive CofA be reviewedfrenewed on a maximum 5 year interval, and that the submission materials be provided to the Municipality of Clarington for review and comment prior to issuagce of the renewal. A discrepancy was identified with the manner in which particulate emissions were estimated in the EA in comparison to the ESDM Report. The ESDM Report addresses filterable and total particulate matter separately, whereas the particulate emission rate used in the EA was Hated in the ESDM Report to be "filterable particulate matter" only (i.e., the EA did not account far condensable particulate). However, this distinction was not indicated in the EA documentation. As a result of these differences the PM2.5 emission rate used in the EA is lower than would be expected, as only the filterable portion was included. The ESDM Report used a PM2,5 emission rate that is based on total PM~•5 {filterable -~ condensable), and as such is more than a factor of 2 350342 -26 May 2411 ES-2 SENES Consultants Limited ~ee~• Rel~ie~v of DYEC ESDM times higher than that used in the EA. However, background (non-facility) PM2.5 concentrations accounted for a major fraction of the resulting PM2.~ concentrations in the EA. The facility related emissions contributed only a very small portion of the overall concentrations, Thus, the inclusion of total PM2•~ (filterable + condensable) would not have fundamentally changed the conclusions of the EA. Regardless, this may lead to the perception that the EA was not sufficiently conservative. The Air Emissions Operational Requirement listed in Schedule 1 of the EA Approval applies to Particulate Matter, and does not specify whether it is for total or filterable particulate matter. The air dispersion modelling and subsequent risk calculations completed in the EA were based on a PM2.5 emission rate that is equivalent to the Operational Requirement of 9 mglRm3. It is therefore recommended that the Municipality request that the EA Operational Requirement of 9 mglRm3 be applied to filterable PM {as is typically required) in addition tv Total PMi.s (filterable + condensable) if this is technically feasible from an operational perspective. If this is not feasible, it is recommended that the risk calculations related to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that were completed for the EA be revised arzd submitted as an addendum to the ESDM Report such that the calculations are consistent with the modelled emission rates and predicted concentrations presented in the ESDM Report. Some potential issues were also identified with the source data and basis of the emission rates for a number of other contaminants that were assessed in the ESDM Report. The emission rates provided in the ESDM Report for many contaminants were based on "engineering calculations", based on data provided by Covanta. The calculations were based an a measured in-stack concentration from another facility, and applied to the Durham York Energy Centre using the expected stack conditions {flow rate, temperature, etc} at the future facility. It would be expected that these data were collected from a facility of a similar size and similar technology (in terms of process system -firing grate, etc). However, the ESDM Report does not clearly indicate whether the reference facility was similar in nature in terms of the size, basic incineration approach, installed air pollution control equipment and process conditions under which the test data were collected (waste firing rate, etc). Thus it is not clear whether the concentrations are representative of the conditions that would be expected at the Durham York Energy Center. Therefore, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data are representative and meet criteria for "above average" quality or ret•un the analysis using the mast conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors). The emission 1•ates for many of the metal compounds were estimated based on information provided by Covanta Energy (with the issues identified above) as well as data from the MOE Peel HHRA (which is presumably the Algonquin Power facility located in Brampton, Ontario}. 350302 - 26 May 201 t ES-~ sEIdES Consultants LimiEcd Peer Revietil~ of DYEC ESDM Report The Algonquin Power facility is of a similar size to that of the Durham York Energy Centre; however, the ESDM Report does not indicate whether the incineration processes/technologies are similar in nature. It is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details ~ta demonstrate that the test data is representative or use mare conservative emission rates {potentially AP-42 emission factors}. With respect to emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), a comprehensive list of VOCs was considered in the assessment, However, neither the EA nor the ESDM Report included assessments for acetone, acrolein, styrene, and mesitylene (1,3,5-trimethylbenzene), all of which have POI standards in Schedule 3 of O.Reg.419, and are expected to be emitted fiam the facility as indicated in the EA. The lack of an assessment of acrolein and acetone were similarly identified as an issue by the MOE (Approvals Branch) during the review of the EA documentation. While the EFW facility would likely be a relatively minor source of these contaminants, these contaminants should be included in the assessment of compliance with O.Reg.419. This is particularly true for acrolein, which has a relatively stringent POI limit. It is therefore recommended that the ESDM Report be amended to include an assessment of acetone, acrolein, styrene and mesitylene. Start Up and Shutdown conditions can be of concern since emission rates are often elevated during these periods. Several different scenarios were used to assess Start Up conditions, including the operation of a single train with auxiliary burner and both tz•ains with auxiliary burner, at different Erring rates. However, the Start Up assessment used the same concentration values that were provided by Cavanta to represent emission rates from the Main Stack under normal operations. Given that it is unlikely that the testing was completed during a Start Up phase, these concentrations may not be representative of the expected Start Up conditions at the DYEC. As such, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative, or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors). Air Dispersion Morlellitag O.Reg, 419 specifies a List of approved air dispersion models appropriate far use in Ontario, which includes the AERMOD model and soon to be phased out ISC-PRIME model. Proponents may also request use of an alternate model if it can be shown that the use of an alternate model is more appropriate than any of the approved models. Due to the proximity of the proposed facility location to Lake Ontario, the Proponent requested to use the CALPUFF model, which is a non- steady state, Lagrangian puff model. The MOE granted the request, since the CALPUFF model is more appropriate at representing the complex meteorology that exists at a land-water boundary. 35f1302 - 26 May 2011 ES-4 SENES Consultants Li[nited Pee~• Revie~v of DYEC ESD~ As part of the Peer Review, SENES reviewed the input meteorological data, as well as the general inputs to the dispersion modelling portion. The meteorological data used in bath the EA and the ESDM Report was previously reviewed and approved by the MOE. These data were provided to SENES electronically by the MOE. The data files were then reviewed by SENES staff with respect to data inputs and model switches used, in addition to the general approach used in the development of the data. SENES' review had initially indicated that there were potential issues with the MOE Approved meteorological data. However, based on MOE review and comments, these potential issues are not~expected to result in significant differences to the model predicted concentrations. The general model set up was also reviewed to assess whether the proposed facility layout was accurately represented in the model in terms of source locations and building wake effects. In addition, emission sources were reviewed to ensure that they were represented by the appropriate model source type (i.e. Point source, volume sourcej. Some issues were identified with the manner in which the building information was entered into the BPIP model. However, the~Main Stack is high enough that it is unlikely to experience significant plume downwash. Therefare, any changes to the BPIP inputs are unlikely to have a significant effect on the model predictions. 350302 - 26 May 2011 ES-5 SENES Consulta~tits Liiuited Peej• Re~~ietiv ofDYEC ESDMReport TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................ . ...... . ........... . ...............1-1 2.0 ESDM REPORT REVIEW ..............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Conditions of the EA Appro~al ...........................................................................2-1 2.1.1 Emissions Monitoring and Operational Requirements ............................ 2-1 2.2 Emissions Inventory ..........................................................:.................................. 2-4 2.2.1 Criteria Air Contaminants ........................................................................ 2-4 2.2.1.1 Data Quality .................................................................................2-5 2.2.1.2 Filterable Versus Total Particulate ............................................. .. 2-6 2.2.2 Metals and Elemental Compounds ........................................................ .. 2-7 2.2.2.1 Data Quality ............................................................................... ..2-8 2.2.3 Polyeyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) .......................................... .. 2-8 2.2.3.1 Data Quality ....................................................:............................2-8 2.2.4 Volatile Organic Compounds {VOCs) .....................................................2-9 2.2.4.1 Data Quality .................................................................................2-9 2.2.4.2 Contaminants Assessed ................................................................ 2-9 2.2.5 Start up Conditions ........................................................:....................... 2-10 2.3 Air Di spersion Modelling .................................................................................. 2-10 2.3.1 Meteorological Data ............................................................................... 2-11 2.3.1.1 Data Development ..................................................................... 2-11 2.3.2 Model Source Configurations ................................................................ 2-12 2.3.2.1 Building Wake Effects ............................................................... 2-i2 2.3.2.2 Model Source and Emission Rate Inputs ................................... 2-17 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 3-1 3.1 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Recommendations ................................:..........................................:....................3-2 350302 - 26 May 201 i 1 ~ SENES Consultants Liiuited Pee~° Review of DYEC ESDM Report LIST of TASLEs Page No. Table 2.1 Air Emissions Operational Requirements ................................................................ 2-2 Table 2.2 BPIP output for the Main Stack pel• Application (mj ............................................. 215 Table 2.3 BPIP output for the Main S#aek per SENES (m} .................................................... 2-15 Table 2.4 CALPUFF Results Using Application BPIP Output vs SENES BPIP Output....... 2-15 LIST OF FIGURES Pam Figure 2-1 Durham York Energy Centre Building and S#ack Layout ...................................... 2-13 Figure 2-2 Direction of Winds from 340 Degrees, DYEC ...................................................... 2-14 350302 - 26 1.9ay 2011 11 SENES Consultants 1.imiEed Peet• Revieti~~ of DYEC ~SDMRepo3•t 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC} is a proposed energy from waste facility to be located in Durham Region, within the Municipality of Clarington. The proposed facility was subject to a provincial Environmental Assessment {EAj, which received approval from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in November, 2010. An application for a Basic Comprehensive Certificate of Approval (CofA) {Air} for the facility was submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in March, 2011. SENES Consultants Limited was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to provide a Peer Review of the Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) Report that was submitted in support of the Basic Comprehensive CofA (Air). The purpose of the review was to assess whether the ESDM Report was completed in a reasonably comprehensive manner, using a general approach that was consistent with standard practices and protocols in -the general approach, and was consistent with the conditions of the EA Approval. As part of this process, SENES reviewed the Air Quality Assessment completed in suppoi•Y of the EA, as well as the EA Approval documentation, the ESDM Report, and the air dispersion modelling files {both the meteorological inputs and model configuration and source inputs}. An interactive process was followed, which included discussions with staff at the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Golder Associates (the authors of the ESDM Report, representing the Proponent, Covanta Energy) to apprise them of issues identified during the course of the review. In addition, information on same of these issues was provided to MOE to permit additional discussions and potential resolution in advance of completion of the Peer Review report. The review findings are outlined in the following sections of this Report. 350302- 2G May 201 I 1-1 SENES Constidtants Limited Peer Revietiv ofDYEC L'SDMRepo3•t 2.0 ESDM REPORT REVIEW The information provided in the EA, EA Approval and ESDM Report (in addition to supporting electronic files} was reviewed in terms of completeness, accuracy and the overall approach of the assessment. This was done in effort to determine whether the assessment was comprehensive, was consistent with what was completed in support of the EA, and if any differences were noted, whether these would fundamentally change the overall conclusions of the report. As outlined earlier, the review was completed in three parts, including: {a) the approach used in the Air Quality Assessment completed in support of the EA, and conditions of the EA Approval; (b) the emission inventory; and (c} the air dispersion modelling, including (i) the meteorological data that was used in the assessment, and {ii) the model configuration. These are discussed in detail in the following sections. 2.1 CONDITIONS OF THE EA APPROVAI. Several conditions placed on the approval of the Environmental Assessment are pertinent to this review. Most of these pertain to the emissions monitoring system that will be installed at the facility. This is discussed in detail in the following section. 2.1,1 Emissions lYlonitaring and Operational Requirements Sections 12 and 13 of the EA Approval outline requirements for the installation of a continuous emissions monitoring system and specify conditions on how these systems are to be used operationally. The continuous emissions monitoring system must be installed according to a Plan that is approved by the Director. The Plan must outline the sources and contaminants to be monitored, in addition to details regarding reporting frequency and protocols to be established in the event that the measured concentrations exceed the Air Emissions Operational Requirements that are also specified in the EA Approval. The contaminants outlined in Schedule 1 of the EA Approval are the minimum that must be monitored. Air Emissions Operational Requirements are specified in Section 13 and Schedule 1 of the EA Approval. These Operational Requirements outline the MOE's requirements that the facility is expected to meet the limits in Schedule 1 at all times with the exception of startup, shut down or malfunctions. The EA Approval specifies that the timing and feequency of monitoring is to be outlined in the conditions of the CofA (Air). It is recommended that the Municipality request a copy of the DRAFT CofA {Air} for review to ensure that these conditions are acceptable to the Municipality. The Air Emissions Operational Requirements are shown in Table 2.2 as follows: 354342- 26 May 20 [ 1 2- ~ S&NES Cottsullattts I.itnited Peer• Revielh of DY~C ESDMReport Table 2.1 Air Emissions Operational Requirements Contaminant Operational Requirement Particulate Matter 9 mgfRm Cadmium 7 ug/Rm Lead 50 ug/Rm Mercury 15 ugfRm Dioxins and Furans 60 pgfRrrl Hydrogen Chloride 9 rnglRm Sulphur Dioxide 35 mgfRm Nitrogen Oxides 121 mg/Rm Organic Matter ~ 50 ppmdv = 33 mgiRm ' Carbon Monoxide 35 ppmdv = 40 mgfRm Opacity 5 % (2 hour avgj 10% (6 minute avg) The EA Approval also specifies that the continuous emissions monitoring system must be operational prior to the receipt of waste at the site. It should be noted that the wording of the condition in Section 12.4 of the EA Approval is such that some of the parameters listed above may be monitored via source testing rather than continuous emissions monitors. The frequency of the source testing is expected to be on an annual basis, and will likely be included as a condition of the CofA as outlined in Ontario Ministry of the Environment Guideline A-7 - Air Pollartion Control, Design and Operation Guidelines for- Municipal YYcrste Thermal Treatment Facilities. It is recommended that the facility be required to conduct source testing of the Main Stack at a minimum of an annual basis, and that the source testing be carried out on a waste stream that is xepiesentative of the typical waste composition that is fed into the facility. Should source testing indicate that the measured emission rates are higher than those used in the current ESDM Report, it is recommended that the proponent be required to update the .ESDM Report to demonstrate continued compliance with O,Reg.419 POI limits. The ESDM Report indicates that the facility will continuously monitor the fallowing: • Baghouse outlet o Opacity, o Moisture, o Oxygen content (02), o Nitrogen oxides (NO;~}, o Sulphur dioxide (S02), o Hydrogen chloride (HCl}, 350342- 2G May 2011 2-2 SENES Consultants I,iiuited Peer Revietiv ofDYEC ESDMRePo~t a Hydrogen fluoride {HF}, and a Ammonia (NH3). • Economizer outlet a Oxygen, a Sulphur dioxide, and o Carbon monoxide. In addition to the parameters listed above, the ESDM Report indicates that the system will also include the following "Operational Monitoring Equipment" which will provide feedback tan the combustion units'operations: • • Temperature measurements in the combustion zone or a surrogate, • Long term integrated continuous dioxin sampling device, • Flue gas stack exit temperature, • Temperature and pressure of the steam for each boiler, and • Mass flow rate of steam for each boiler. It is unclear how the proposed continuous dioxins sampling device will be used as an operational monitor. Based on the information provided in the EA, the time integrated samples would be collected on approximately a monthly basis, followed by laboratory analysis. There would likely be a time lag of one or two weeks before the laboratory results are available. This type of timing would make it very diff cult to use the information operationally, as the conditions that may lead to higher monthly results would have long since passed before the data is available. However, the dioxin and furans cartridge samples can 6e collected more frequently, provided that the laboratory Method Detection Limits (MDLs) can be met. It is recommended that the frequency/duration of sample collection be shortened if the data is intended to be used for operational control. In addition, there has been no provision for continuous sampling for mercury. As such, it will likely be sampled as part of the expected annual source testing campaign, However, given that there is no pre-sorting of the waste stream, it is likely that some mercury will enter the waste stream. Similar to the proposed dioxin and furans sampler, systems are available to collect time integrated continuous mercury samples. MOE Guideline A~7 encourages proponents to explore the use of such techniques far continuous operational sampling of mercury and dioxins and furans. Use of such a system in the short term (i.e. 1St year of operation} could demonstrate whether the waste stream is adequately segregated or whether apre-sorting system is should be considered to remove batteries and other mercury containing wastes. It is therefore recommended that a time integrated, continuous mercury sampling system be considered for installation at the facility. 350302- 2b Mays 2011 2-3 SENES Consultants Limifed Peef~ Revielt~ of DYEC ESDMR Z.Z EMISSIONS INVENTORY An emissions inventory is an accounting of the expected air pollutant emissions from a facility. Generally, emissions inventories for facilities that do not yet exist are completed using information and data from similar emission sources {e.g., existing Energy from Waste (EFW) facilities) and operations. This can be from actual facility emissions tests from specific facilities that are of a similar size and nature, manufacturer's data or from information in databases of generalized, production-based emission factors {e.g., U.S. EPA AP-42 database). The emissions inventory for the Durham Yark Energy Centre used a combination of emissions testing data provided by the Proponent {Covanta Energy), U.S. EPA AP-42 emission factors and the EPA FIRE database, data from the MOE Peel Human Health Risk Assessment (Peel HHRA), manufacturer's specifications and the York Durham {YD) generic risk assessment. As indicated previously, the DYEC lias applied for aBasic- Comprehensive Certificate of Approval. This type of approval provides limited operational flexibility to proponents by allowing them to operate within a maximum operating envelope which permits changes to be made to a facility (i.e. the addition of a rlew pieces of equipment, changes to process materials, modifcations to air pollution control systems, etc.) without applying For an amendment to the CofA, provided that they do not exceed the maximum operating envelope. The conditions related to the limited operational flexibility are generally reviewed and renewed every five years. It is recommended that the limited operational flexibility conditions for the DYECs Basic Comprehensive CofA be reviewed/renewed on a maximum 5 year interval, and that the submission materials be provided to the Municipality of Clarington for review and comment prior to issuance of the renewal. 2.2.1 Criteria Air Contaminants Criteria Air contaminants (CACs) are a suite of air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain and have the potential to affect human and environmental health. CACs include: + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) • Sulphur Dioxide (S02) • Carbon Monoxide Ozanel • Lead • Particulate Matter 1 Note that the DYEC is not a significant source of azotie and thus it was not assessed as a primary (emitted) pollutant under O.Reg.4I9 350302- 26 May 2011 2-~ SEi+11rS Consul4ants Liuiitcd Peer Reviel~~ of DYEC ESDM Report n Total Particulate Matter (TSP), o Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PMI~}, and o Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). 2.2.1.1 Dntrr Quality The emission rates provided in the ESDM Report for these contaminants were based an "engineering calculations", which indicates that they were provided by Cavanta. The calculations were based on a measured in-stack concentration from another facility, and applied to the DuI•ham York Energy Centre using the expected stack conditions (flow rate, temperature, etc} at the future facility. It would be expected that the data were collected from a facility of a similar size and similar technology (in terms of process system - f ring grate, etc). However, the ESDM Report does not clearly indicate whether the reference facility was similar in nature in terms of the size, basic incineration approach, and installed air pollution control equipment. Also, it does not detail the process conditions under which the test data were collected (waste firing rate, etc}, which would typically be at maximum firing capacity. Smaller or larger units firing at different rates {i.e. tonnes waste per day) could result in different exhaust concentrations. Thus it is not clear whether the concentrations are representative of the conditions that would be expected at the Durham York Energy Center. Ontario Regulation 419/05 -Local Air Quality (O.Reg.419) outlines the requirements for the emission rates used in an ESDM Report. Section 11 of O.Reg.4I9 states that emission rates should be "The emission rate that, for the relevant averaging period, is at least as high as the ~naxirnarm emission rate that the source of contaminant is reasonably capable of for the relevant contaminant. " The ESDM Report also indicates that the emission rates provided by Covanta have been assigned a rating of "above average". Section 8.3.2 of MOE Guideline A-10 "Procedure for Preparing an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report" {the Procedure Document) outlines the types of data sources that would be considered to be of above average quality. Without an indication of the type of unit that was tested (size and firing technology) and the rate at which it was tested, the data does not meet an "above average" quality classification. In the absence of these details data would likely be considered to be of "average" quality, with the highest emission rate from these sources selected, as per O.Reg. X119. Therefore, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data are representative and meet criteria for "above average" quality or rerun the analysis using the most conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors). 35D3©2- 26 ivEay 20I1 2_5 SENEs CatsuitaErts Limited Peer Reviei~~ ofDYEC ESDM 2.2.1.2 Filterable Versus Total Partrcttlate The ESDM Report addresses filterable and total particulate matter separately, Filterable particulate matter is the fraction of particulate matter that is captured on a filter during a source emissions test. The EA was completed using a particulate emission rate that was estimated based on the performance limit of 9 mg/Rm3. The emission rate used in the EA was noted in the ESDM Repast to be "filterable particulate matter" only. However, this distinctian was not indicated in the EA, which conservatively assumed that all of the particulate emissions would be in the fine fraction, and thus used the same emission rate for PM1Q and PM2,5 (i.e., the EA did not account for condensable particulate, as discussed below), A portion of the particulate known as condensibles passes through the filter and is captured in a set of impingers. In terms of PM2.5s a significant portion of the total emissions are typically in the condensable fraction. Most source testing limits and performance guarantees are applied to the filterable portion of particulate emissions only. For example, the MOE Guideline A-7 is silent on whether'the limits apply to total or filterable particulate matter. Anne Maria Pennanen, Aix' Pollution Source Control Engineer at Standards Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment was consulted on what was required by A-7, since this was not specified in the revised guideline. She indicated that "the particulate limits in A-7 care specifically for• frlter•able par•tictrlate, as is consistent ~l~ith the Ontario Source Testing Code". , The Ontario Source Testing Code (OSTC) indicates that the "impinges catch" is not to be included in the total for determination of the particulate emission rate for Method ON-5. In essence, this means that only filterable particulate is included in the reported particulate emissions fiom source testing, However, Mr. Guillermo Azocar, MOF, Source Assessment Specialist was consulted on the requirement to include the condensable fraction in source testing assessments for PMz.S. He indicated that the OSTC is currently in the final stages of revision and will include a new method ON-7 for PMl© and PM2.5 {determination of particle size distribution). This method requires that the measurement include both the filterable and condensable fractions. In his opinion, once the OSTC is posted, both filterable and condensable will be required for assessment of compliance for fine particulate (PMIO and PMz.S) via source testing. As a result of the differences noted above, the PM2,5 emission rate used in the EA is lower than would be expected, as only the filterable portion was included. The ESDM Report used a PM2.~ emission rate that is based on total PM2,5 (filterable + condensable), and as such is more than a factor of 2 times higher than that used in the EA. Since PM2.5 emissions ace related to potential health impacts, the approach used in the EA and the coaresponding Human Health Risk Assessment is of concern. However, the magnitude of the resulting PM2,5 concentrations in the 350302- 26 May 2011 2-6 S1;NES Coc~sulta~3ts Licnifcd Peer Review of DYEC ESDMReport EA was primarily driven by the background (non-facility} PM2.5 concentrations. The facility related emissions contributed a very small portion of the overall concentrations. As a result, an increase in the facility related concentration of PM2,~ by a factor of 2.3 would only increase the concentration ratios presented for normal operations the EA to 0.87 from 0.84. The resulting concentration ratio remains below the threshold of l .Thus, the inclusion of total PM2,5 {filterable + condensable) would not have fundamentally changed the conclusions of the EA. Regardless of the conclusion, this may lead to the perception that the EA was not sufficiently conservative. The Air Emissions Operational Requirement listed in Schedule 1 of the EA Approval applies to Particulate Matter, and does not specify whether it is for total ar filterable particulate matter. Nor does it specify that the concentration is based an the procedures outlined in the OSTC. It is therefore recommended that the Municipality request that the aperational requirement of 9 mg/Rm~ be applied to filterable PM in addition to Total PM2.5 {filterable + condensable) if this is technically feasible from an operational perspective. If this is nat feasible, it is recommended that the risk calculations related to fine particulate matter (PMIa andior PM2,5) completed far the EA be revised and submitted as an addendum to the ESDM Report such that the calculations are consistent with the modelled emission rates and predicted concentrations presented in the ESDM Report. 2.2.2 1Vletals and Elemental Compounds The emissions inventory included a number of metals that are typically bound to emitted particulate, or are emitted as a vapour. These include: • Lead • Cobalt • Cadmium Nickel • Mercury • Phosphorus • Aluminum . Silver • Antimony • Selenium • Arsenic • Thallium • Barium Tin • Beryllium • Vanadium • Boron • Zinc • Chromium {hexavalerzt & total) The emission rates for mast of these compounds were estimated based on information provided by Covanta Energy as well as data from the MOE Peel HHRA (which is presumably the Algonquin Power facility located in Brampton, Ontario). 350302- 26 May 2011 2-7 SIiNES Coe~sultanis Limited Peer Re~~ie~~~ of DYEC ESDM Report 2.2.2..1 Data Quality As outlined previously, the Covanta data is rated as "above average" in the ESDM report. However, the ESDM Report does not indicate whether the tested facility employs a similar Erring technologylprocess to the DYEC nor does it outline the test conditions at which the data were collected. In the absence of this information, the data are mare likely rated as "average" and, it is not clear whether the Covanta data are representative of the expected concentrations at the DYEC. Therefore, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data ace representative and meet criteria for "above average" quality or rerun the analysis using the most conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors). The Algonquin Power facility is of a similar size to that of the Durham York Energy Centre; however, the ESDM Report does not indicate whether the incineration processesltechnologies are similar in nature. The quality for this data source is rated as "average" in the ESDM Report. It is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors). 2.2.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) PAHs are a group of compounds that consist of two al• mare fused aromatic 1•ings. In some cases several fused rings are connected by hydrocarbon bl•idges. Differences in the locations of these connection points result in the fot7natian of many structural isomers, which have the same chemical formula but are molecularly different in terms of stluctul•e. These compounds are generally of concern as they tend to be persistent in the environment and have the potential to affect human health. 2.2.3.1 Data Qarality The emission rates used in the ESDM Report were based on information provided in the manufacturer's specifications as well as the Peel HHRA data. The data quality is rated as "average" in the ESDM Report. Fox emissions of contaminants that relied on data from the Peel HHRA, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data are representative ol• use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors}. The manufacturer's specifications would generally be regarded as being acceptable as they ale specifically related to the units} in question. 350302- 2G Nla}~ 2011 2-S ~ SEAIES Consultants Limited Peer Res~iesv ofDl'EC ESDM 2.2.4 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) The term Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) is typically used to refer to organic chemical compounds which have significant vapour pressures, and which can affect the environment and potentially human health. Health Canada classes VOCs as organic compounds that have boiling points roughly in the range of 50 to 250 °C (122 to 482 °F). VOCs comprise a very large group of compounds which generally consist of hydrocarbon chains or zings with various chemical substitutions. Chlorine, fluorine and bromine tend to be common constituents. While there are a number of naturally occurring VOCs, the bulk of VOCs are man-made and are typically used as solvents used in surface coating (e.g., painting) or cleaning applications. 2.2.4.1 Data Quality The emission rates used in the ESDM Report were based on information provided in manufacturer's specifications, U.S EPA AP-42 emission factors and U.S. EPA FIRE database as well as the Peel HHRA data and YD generic risk assessment. The data quality from all of these sources is rated as "average" in the ESDM Report. For emissions of contaminants that relied on data from the Peel HHRA, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative, or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors). Data from the other sources is considered to be acceptable since it is likely sufficiently conservative such that the emissions are not likely to be underestimated. 2.2,4.2 Conta~rtrttattis Assessed In general, a comprehensive list of VOCs was considered in the assessment. VOCs were either included in the air dispersion modelling or were assessed but screened out of the air dispersion modelling poztian because they were considered to be negligible as per the MOE Procedure Document. However, neither the EA nor the ESDM Report included assessments for acetone, acrolein, styrene, and mesitylene (1,3,5-trimethylbenzene), all of whicl'i have POI standards in Schedule 3 of O,Reg.4l9. The lack of an assessment of acrolein and acetone were similarly identifed as an issue by the MOE (Approvals Branch) during the review of the EA documentation. It is expected that the EFW facility would be a relatively minor source of these contaminants; however, these contaminants should be included in the assessment of compliance with O.Reg.419. This is particularly true for acrolein, which has a relatively stringent POI limit. It is therefore recommended that the ESDM Report be amended to include an assessment of acetone, acrolein, styrene and mesitylene. 350302- 2G VIay20ii 2-9 SENDS Cansultanfs i.imited Peer Revretiv ofDYEC ESDMReport 2.2,5 Start up Conditia~><s The emission rates and data quality discussed in the preceding sections apply to emissions from the Main Stack during normal operations. Emission estimates were also developed for Start Up conditions to assess the potential effects associated with these conditions. The emission estimates for the Main Stack during these conditions are generally rated as a lower quality, with a majority of them listed as "marginal". The emission rates for these conditions were derived based an a combination of the Covanta data and U.S EPA AP-42/FIRE emission rates, as the scenario includes the natural gas auxiliary boiler which must be flied at start up to bring the incinerator unit up to the necessa>.y operating temperature. Several different scenarios were used to assess Start Up conditions, including the operation of a single train with auxiliary burner and both trains with auxiliary burner, at different f ring rates. The assessment used the same concentration values that were provided by Covanta to estimate the start up emission rates firom the Main Stack. Given that i[t is unlikely that the testing was completed during Start Up, these concentrations may not be representative of the expected Start Up conditions at the DYEC. As such, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data is representative, or use more conservative emission rates (potentially AP-42 emission factors). 2.3 AIR DISPERSION MODELLING Air dispersion modelling is typically used to assess the potential air pollutant concentrations resulting from the operation of a facility that is not yet built. An air dispersion model is a mathematical representation of how pollutants are dispersed and transported in the atmosphere as they move away from a source. The model uses the estimated air pollutant emission rates along with meteorological data that are representative of the conditions at the site and the mathematical representation of dispersion and transport to predict the air pollutant concentrations at various locations. O.Reg. 419 specifies a list of approved air dispersion models appropriate for use in Ontario, which includes the AERMOD model and soon to be phased out ISC-PRIME model. O.Reg. 419 also provides a mechanism for Proponents to request use of an alternate model if it can 6e shown that the use of an alternate model is more appropriate than any of the approved models. Due to the proximity of the proposed facility location to Lake Ontario, the Proponent requested to use the CALPUFF model, which is anon-steady state, Lagrangian puff model The MOE granted the request, since the CALPUFF model is more appropriate at representing the complex meteorology that exists at a land-water boundary. 350302- 26 May 2011 2-1 a sENES Constdta«ts l,in~itecE Peer Review of DYEC ESDMReport CALMET (the meteorological pre-processor) has the ability to generate 3 dimensional meteorology on a grid, such that changes in terrain or surface characteristics (i.e. land to water, or vice versa) are considered in the dispersion calculations. However, this makes it a very complex model to use andlor review. As part of the Peer Review, SENES reviewed the input meteorological data, as well as the general inputs to the dispersion modelling portion. 2.3.1 Meteorological Data The meteorological data used in both the EA and the ESDM Report was developed by Stantec (for the EA} and reviewed and approved by the MOE. These data were provided to SENES electronically by the MOE. The data were then reviewed by SENES staff with respect to data inputs and model switches used, in addition to the general approach used in the development of the data. 2.3.1.1 Data Developmesat The meteorological data file was developed using meteorological observations as the primary data source. For the Application, data fiom 10 surface stations, 4 upper air stations, 5 precipitation stations and 3 water buoys (sea surface stations} were used for the generation of the CALMET 3-dimensional meteorology. To verify that CALMET generated accurate meteorology, data produced for a single day was analyzed. The results fiam this day indicated that there were potential issues with the meteorology, due to unexpected temperature gradients located within Lake Ontario, and the exclusion of the land{lake breeze module in Calpuff. Since this was an "MOE Approved" meteorological data set, SENES forwarded these issues to the MOE for preview and comment in advance of completion of the Peer Review Report. The MOE provided a response to SENES on 26 May, 2011. The response indicator that the observed temperature gradients were very weak (~0.5 degree centigrade) and were located far enough away from the facility not to have a significant impact. Also, the MOE noted that they crass checked the CALMET data with observations from two lake breeze events that occurred in May 2007, and found that "the CALMET configtcrtrtion reproduced these trvo land/lake breeze cases fairly ~I~ell." Based on the MOEs review, it is not expected that these issues would result in significant changes to the model predicted air concentrations. 3503©2- 26,lgay 2011 2-~ 1 SINES Consultants Limited deer Revietis~ of DYEC ESDMRepw•t 2.3.2 Model Source Configurations The general model set up was reviewed to assess whether the proposed facility layout was accurately represented in the model in terms of source locations and building wake effects. In addition, emission sources were reviewed to ensure that they were represented by the appropriate model source type {i.e. Paint source, Volume source). 2.3..2.1 Building YYnke Effects The BPIP (Building Profile Input Program) is used in air dispel•sion n-yodelling assessments to incorporate the effects of wind flow over and around structures and the corresponding effects on the plume. The program only applies to emissions from stack (point} sources. As inputs, the program requires building dimensions as well as the location of emission sources. The program then produces a matrix of dimensional data that defines the projected effect the structure has on wind flow and emissions based on 10-degree wind directions. For each wind direction, the program produces, per stack emission source, dimensions of; • Building height • Projected building width • Projected building length along the flow • Along-flow distance from the stack to the center of the• upwind face of the projected building • Across-flow distance fiam the stack to the center of the upwind face of the projected building However, BPIP is sensitive to how the structure dimensions are entered into the program. For simple, 1-tiered structures, the program works quite well; however for multi-tiered or complex st>uctures, the format of data entry is critical, The structure layout at the Durham York Energy Centre is complex and hence requires special attention. Figure 2-1 provides the layout of structures at the Durham York Energy Centre. The numbered buildings align with those presented in the Application, while the red dots indicate the location of the emission sources. As can be seen in Figure 2-3, buildings 1 through 9 are all part of the same stl•uctule, and hence wind flow over and around these buildings has to be considered as if it were one entire structure. Figure 2-2 provides an overview of the main complex and the location of the main stack. Far illustrative purposes, Figure 2-4 also indicates the direction of wind flaw fal• a wind coming from 340 degrees. As can be seen, winds coming from 340 degrees are. vi~•tually parallel to the length of the structure. 350302- 26 May 201 [ 2-12 SE3~ES Conscdtants Li«tited Peer Revie}s~ of DYEC ESDM Report Figure 2-1. ~ Durham York Energy Centre Building and Stack Layout 350302- 26 May 201 I ~.-~ 3 SENES Consulla~~ts Limitcd 680480 680500 680520 880540 680550 680580 684500 b80620 Peer Reviely ofDYEC ESDIkl Report Figure 2-2 -Direction of Winds from 340 Degrees, Durham York Energy Centre 35©302- 26 May 2011 2- 14 SENES Cot~sultaE~ts Limited Peet• Revieiaj of DYEC ESDMRepo3•t For this illustration, Table 2,2 provides the output from the Bp1P model for the main stack as provided in the Application. In particulaz•, the values highlighted represent the values For winds coming from 340 degrees. Thus for winds taming from 340 degrees: • The building height is 35.1 metres; • The projected building width is 41.13 metres; • The projected building length along the flow is S 1.58 metres; • The along-flaw distance fiom the sfiack to the center of the upwind face of the projected building is 47.41 metres; and • The across-flaw distance from the stack to the center of the upwind face of the projected building is 2.56 metres. Table 2.2 BPIP output for the Main Stack per Application (m) SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 25 25 SO BUILDHGT ST9 25 25 25 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35,9 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 25 25 SO .BUILDHGT ST9 25 25 25 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT . ST1 35,1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDWID ST1 60.4 63.77 78.87 80.83 97.98 95,99 SO BUILDWID ST1 91.09 92.81 93.2 73.98 70.61 65.09 SO BUILDWID ST1 46.9 37.23 36.87 35.4 36.63 55.2 SO BUILDWID ST1 60.4 63.77 78.87 80.83 97.98 95.99 SO BUILDWID ST1 91.09 92.$1 93.2 73.98 70.61 85.09 SO BUILDWID ST1 46.9 40.87 40.32 41.13 48.32 55.2 SO BUILDLEN ST1 55.92 54.54 65.09 57.59 55.39 43.71 SO BUILDLEN ST1 41.13 51.5 65.2 67.89 74.51 7$.$7 SO BUILDLEN ST1 64.65 24.44 19.17 13.32 17.56 55.6 SO BUILDLEN ST1 55.92 54.54 65.09 57.59 55.39 43.71 SO BUILDLEIV ST1 41.13 51.5 65.2 67.89 74.51 78.87 SO BU[LDLEN ST1 64.65 62.14 57.74 51,58 53.59 55.6 SO XBADJ ST9 35.26 28.6 7.48 2.2 -10.1$ -12.25 SO XBADJ ST9 -23.12 -39.58 -55.22 -69.18 -81.05 -90.45 SO XBADJ ST1 -97.1 -100.8 -101.44 -99 -98.79 -96.45 SO XBADJ ST1 -91.18 -83.14 -72.57 -59.8 -45.29 -31.46 SO XBADJ ST1 -18.01 -11.92 -9.98 1.3 6.54 11.5$ SO XBADJ ST1 32.44 38.66 43.7 47.41 45.2 40.85 SO YBADJ ST1 38.98 49.16 59.01 56.68 51.81 53.44 SO YBADJ ST9 53.45 52.39 49.85 54.19 47.83 40.02 SO YBADJ ST1 36.35 26.59 10.8 -5.31 -21.26 -27.62 SO YBADJ ST1 -38.98 -49.16 -51.09 -56.68 -51.81 -53.44 SO YBADJ ST1 -53.45 -52.39 -49.85 -54.19 -47.83 -40.02 SO YBADJ ST1 -36.35 -24.77 -19.3 2.56 9 5.42 27.62 The problem, though, as can been seen in Figure 1B, is the projected building length along the 340 degree flow, for example, should be closer to 120 metres and not 51.58 metres; this is the 350302- 26 May 201 I 2.- ~ 5 SE3VES Consulfa~rts Limited Peer Revrelt~ ofDYEC ESDMRepo;`•t distance from the north edge of building 1 to the south edge of building 7, and passing through buildings 2, 4 anal 6. This discrepancy implies that the building dimensions were not entered into BPIF in the format that is required far complex structures. Table 2.3 provides the BP1P outputs that SENES believes more accurately represent the flows around the main complex of the facility in respect of the main stack. As can be seen, the projected building length along the 340 degree flow is now calculated to be 122.26 metres. Table 2,3 - BPIP output ifor tl>~e Main Stack per SENES (m) SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 25 25 SO BUILDHGT ST1 25 25 25 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 25 25 SO BUILDHGT ST1 25 25 25 35.1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDHGT ST1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35,1 35.1 35.1 SO BUILDWID ST1 86.08 98.71 110.54 119.fl1 123.87 124.96 SO BUILDWID ST1 122.26 123.91 123 118.93 117.45 112.4 SO BUILDWID ST1 103.94 92.31 77.89 70.27 71.65 76.7 SO BUILDWID ST1 86.08 98.71 110.54 119.01 123.87 124.96 SO BUILDWID ST1 122.26 123.91 123 118.93 117.45 112.4 SO BUILDWID ST1 903.94 92.31 77.89 70.27 71.65 76.7 SO BUILDLEN ST1 11$.93 117.45 112.4 103.94 92.31 77.89 SO BUILDLEN ST1 70.27 71.65 76.7 86.fl8 98.71 110.54 SO BUILDLEN ST1 119.01 123.$7 124.96 122.26 123.91 123 SO BUILDLEN ST7 118.93 117.45 112.4 103.94 92.31 77.$9 SO BUILDLEN ST1 70.27 71.65 76.7 86.138 98.71 110.54 SO BUILDLEN ST7 119.07 123.87 124.96 122,26 123.91 123 SO XBADJ ST7 0.42 -2.43 -5.2 -7.81 -10.78 -12.25 SO XBADJ ST1 -23.12 -39.58 -56.52 -76.14 -93.45 -107.92 SO XBADJ ST7 -119.11 -126.69 -130.41 -130.17 -129.89 -126.25 SO XBADJ ST1 -119.35 -115.03 -107.21 -96.13 -82.13 -65.64 SO XBADJ ST1 -47.15 -32.08 -20.18. -9.93 -5.26 -2.62 SO XBADJ ST1 0.1 2.82 5.45 7.91 5.98 3.25 SO YBADJ ST7 33.11 44.1 52.65 59.67 64.75 57.93 SO YBADJ ST1 89.04 67.94 64.75 59.89 56.3 51.01 SO YBADJ ST1 44.16 35.97 26.69 12.01 -3.75 -18.17 SO YBADJ ST1 -33.11 -44.1 -52.65 -59.61 -54.75 -67.93 SO YBADJ ST1 -69.04 -67.94 -54.75 -59.89 -58.3 -51.01 SO YBADJ ST1 -44.16 -35.97 -26.69 -12.01 3.75 18.17 It is noted here that the main stack is being used for illustrative purposes only. Given the height of the main stack in comparison to the height of the buildings, there will likely be no impact from the buildings on the emissions from the main stack. For the remaining stacks, there will be a significant impact from wind flow around buildings on stack emissions. 350302- 2& May 2011 2-16 SENES Cot}sultat~ts Limited Peer Re~~retis~ of DYEC ESDAf Report Ta test the impact of the difference in BPIP outputs to dispersiorf modelling results, the CALPUFF model was run for one day of meteorological data, chosen at random, with the only change being the BPIP dimensional data. The CALPUFF results are presented in Table 2.4. It is noted that the results ~do not represent any particular pollutant, but are rather provided for illustrative purposes only. Table 2.4 -CALPUFF Results Using Application BPIP Qutput vs SENES BPIP Output Meteorolo ical Day ~ July S, 2003; Scenax•io =emissions from 4 silos only Maximum 1- Location of Maximum 24- Location of hour Maximum 1- hour Maximum 24- eancentration hoot concentration hour (~.gim3) concentration (µglm3) concentration Application 771.97 680615E ~ 34 02 680687 E 4860146 N .4860393 N SENES 567,67 680687E 139 84 680687 E 4860393 N 4860393 N As can be seen in Table 2,4, the application of the BPIP is cl•itical to achieving accurate CALPUFF results. Using the SENES BPIP, results in the maximum 1 hour concentration dropping significantly on the day in question, and the location of the maximum also changes, occurring over 250 metres away from the location of the maximum concentration in the Application. On a 24-hour basis, the SENES concentration is higher than the maximum in the Application, though they both occur at the same location. However, BPIP .has little impact on the Main Stack, which is the primacy emission source. Therefore, SENES does not believe that any changes to BPIP would significantly affect the maximum predicted concentrations, and thus the conclusions of the report are unlikely to change. In order to demonstrate that this is in fact the case, SENES recommends that the impact of these corrections on the maximum predicted 24-hour concentrations be examined for a few of the key contaminants, 2.3.2.2 Model Source mid Emission Rate Ittptrts SENES reviewed the model input files to assess whether the source inputs were correctly entered into the files. This included spot checks on the stack parameters (temperature, exit velocity, etc} and contaminant emission rates for the various model scenarios that were assessed. No issues were identified. 35t)302- 26 May 2©11 2-17 S1iNES Consultaa3ts Limited Peer Revie~tij of DYEC ESDMRepof•t 3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 CONCLUSIONS The overall conclusion of the review is that the ESDM Report was reasonably well done, in a manner consistent with industry standard protocols and practices as well as Ontario Ministry of the Environment requirements for emissions inventories and air dispersion modelling assessments. However, some potential issues were identified, These are as follows: E~rissiotrs Monitoring • Based an the monthly sampling regime outlined in the EA documentation, it is unclear how the proposed continuous dioxins{furans sampling device will be used as an operational monitor. • Although encouraged by the MOE A-7 Guideline, there has been na provision far continuous sampling for mercury. Entissiotts Ittve~ztory • Emission rates for many of the compounds included in the assessment were based on data provided by Covanta, presumably from source testing at other facilities, However, no details were provided related to the source of the data {facility size, nature of the facilitylinstalled operations and air pollution control technologies}, waste firing rate, etc. This information is necessary to assess whether the data {and hence estimated emissions} are representative of the expected conditions and concentrations at the DYEC. • Emission estimates for a number of the compounds were based on data from the Peel HHRA, presumably from the Algonquin Power facility, which is of a similar size to that of the Durham York Energy Centre. However the report does not indicate whether the incineration processes/technologies, installed air pollution controls, etcetera are similar in nature. Therefore it is unclear whether the estimated emissions are representative of what would be expected from the DYEC. + The Environmental Assessment was completed using a particulate emission rate that was estimated based an "filterable particulate matter" only. As a result, the PM2.5 emission rate used in the EA is lower than would be expected. The ESDM Report used a PM2.s emission rate that is based on total PMz.s {filterable + condensable), and as such is more than a factor of 2 times higher than that used in the EA. 350302- 2b Alay 2Ol l ~-1 sENE3 Consulta»ts Limited Peef• Ree=rev of DYEC ESDIIT Repof•t • Although the facility is expected to emit acetone, acrolein, styrene, and mesitylene (1,3,5 trimethylbenzene), neither the EA nor the ESDM Report included assessments for these contaminants, which all have POI standards in Schedule 3 of O.Reg,419. Meteorology • SENES' review had initially indicated that there were potential issues with the MOE Approved meteorological data. However, based on MOE review and comments, these potential issues are not expected to result in significant differences to the model predicted concentrations. Model Source Configrrratio~zs • There are issues with the manner in which the building information was entered into the BP1P model. However, given the source configuration at the site, and the height of the the primary emission source {Main Stack}, any changes to the BPIP inputs are unlikely to have a significant effect on the model predictions. 3.z RECOMMENDATIOnTS As indicated throughout the report and in the preceding section, many of the issues that have been identified are unlikely to result in significant changes to the conclusions of the ESDM Report. However, in many cases this is not clear without actually implementing the changes. SENES therefore makes the following recommendations: 1. The Municipality should request a copy of the DRATT CofA for review and comment prior to issuance of the final CofA to ensure that the Municipality's concerns are adequately addressed within the conditions of the CofA. (section 2.1.1) 2. It is recommended that the facility be required to conduct source testing of the Main Stack on an annual basis at a minimum, and that the source testing be cai7ied out on a waste stream that is' representative of the typical waste composition that is fed into the facility. {section 2.1.1) 3. It is recommended that the proponent be required to update the ESDM Report within 3 months to demonstrate continued compliance should source testing indicate that the measured emission rates are higher than those used in the current ESDM Report. (section 2,1.1) 354342- 26 May 2011 3-2. SE3~ES Co~tsultants Limited Peer Review of DYEC ESDM Report 4. With respect to the continuous, time integrated dioxins/furans sampling, it is recommended that the frequencylduration of sample collection be shortened if the data are intended to be used on an operational basis rather than simply a reporting basis. (section 2.1.1) 5. Given that the waste will rzot be pre-sorted, it is recommended that a time integrated, continuous mercury sampling system be considered to demonstrate that significant quantities of mercury are not entering the incinerator. (section 2.1.1) 6. It is recommended that the limited operational flexibility conditions for the DYECs Basic Comprehensive CofA be reviewed/renewed on a maximum 5 year interval, and that the submission materials be provided to the Municipality of Claz•ington for review and comment prior to issuance of the renewal. (section 2.2) 7. It is recommended that the Municipality request that operational requirement of 9 mg/Rm3 be applied to filterable PM in addition to Total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable) if this is technically feasible from an operational perspective. If the proponent can demonstrate that this is not feasible, it is recommended that the risk calculations related to fine particulate matter {PMzQ and/or PM2,5) completed for the EA be revised and submitted as an addendum to the ESDM Report such that the calculations are consistent with the modelled emission rates and predicted concentrations presented in the ESDM Report. (seetian 2.2.1.2) 8. With respect to the source emissions inventory data, it is recommended that the Proponent either provide additional details to demonstrate that the test data from Covanta and the Peel HHRA are zepresentative and meet the data quality criteria, or use more conservative emission factors (potentially AP-42 emission factors) in the assessment (2.2.1 - 2.2.4). 9. It is recommended that the assessment be amended to include an assessment of acetone, acrolein, styrene and mesitylene, which were not included but have Point of Impingement Limits in Schedule 3 of O.Reg.419. (section 2.2.4.2} 10. It is recommended that the Proponent examine the effect of the suggested corrections to BPIP for a few of the key contaminants to demonstrate whether there is an impact on the maximum predicted 24-hour concentrations. (section 2.3.2.1) 350302- 2G 11Aay 2©11 3-~ sENES Consultants Limited ATTACWMENT No. 10 TO A'RACHMENT ~ TO REPOKT LGL-006-11 REPORT # ~ MNR AURORA DISTRICT OFF-SITE FILL ACCEPTANCE PROTOCOL This Protoco! has been developed for use in the.rehabilitation of aggregate pit and quarry operations. Definitions For purposes of this Protocol, the following steal! have the meanings described below: "Acceptable has the meaning set out in Part Il following Fill" "EPA" means the Environmental Protection Act, R.5.0. X990, c.E.19, as may be amended "Generating The location from which acceptable fill material Location" originates "Site" means the relevant properties licensed under the Aggregate Resources Act "MINK" means the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources "ProtocoP' means this Oft-Site Fill Acceptance Protocol, as may be amended from time to time "Qualified means a Qualified Person as defined in O.Reg. Professional" ~ 53f04 Environmental Protection Act} as may be amended "Reviewing means a Qualified Professianaf retained by the Professional' Licensee as required by this Profocof, and who is a professional geoscientist or professional engineer experienced in environmental site assessment and peer review "Licensee" means .the person or company and its successors and assigns'to whom the Aggregate Resources Act licence is issued "Table ~ means the standards set out in•Table 1 of the "soil, Standards" Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV~ of the Environmental Protection Act" published by the MOE and dated March 9, 2004, as may be amended or replaced pursuant to the , provisions of the EPA under the column entitled "Alf Other Types of Property Uses". "Topsoil" As defined in c. 25, s. 142 {1) of the Municipal Act, 2081, as may be amended, to mean: Those horizons in a soil profile, commonly known as the "O" and the "A" Horizons, containing organic material and includes deposits of partially decomposed organic matter such as peat, - ll. Acceptable Fill The Licensee shall place at the Site only Acceptable Fill which, for the purposes of this Protocol, is defined as being rriaterial that meets the following criteria, provided that the material does Hat contain any putrescible materials: - a} Sail !earth that meets Table s Standards and passes a slump test as outlined in the General Water Management Regulation {O. Reg. 347 pursuant to the EPA), as may be amended; or b} Rock; brick {without coating and free from contamination); and concrete (without coating or exposed rebar or containing cement fines and free from contamination). In addition to Acceptable Fill, Topsoil may be imparted for use as final cover {i.e., 5 -- 1 Q cm or as identified on the approved Aggregate Resources Act site plan). See section VIII. Ill. Application far Shipment of Fill Material 1. Any person wishing to ship off-site materia! to the Site wil! be provided with a copy of Parts I, fl and III of the Protocol. 2. Anyone seeking to ship material for deposit at the Site must receive written approval from the Licensee that the material proposed to be shipped has been accepted in accordance with the Protocol. 3. An application to ship material for deposit at the Site shall include the following: 2 (a} Name of the ,owner of the Generating Location and the . representative of the Generating Location authorized to sign any bill of kading ar other documentation relating to shipments of Acceptable Fill to the .Site. (b) One or more reports, prepared by a Qualified Professional from the Generating Location), to include the following information. A description of the Generating Location. and its history, including the location, pas# and present uses of the land, and current activities. A description of the material to be shipped to the Site, including the processes involved in its generation. Where some or all of the material to be deposited is soiliearth, a record of the results of a comprehensive soil testing program for the Generating Location, including a description of the sampling locations, sample coklection procedures, and parameters analysed. An explanation or rationale for the selection of the sampling locations and the parameters for testing must be included. iv A statement from a Qualified Professional stating that in hislher opinion the material .satisfies the requirements of the Protocol and is suitable for placement at the Site. v .The anticipated volume of material to be shipped to the Site. vi An estimated time frame in which the material will be shipped. ~ . 4. Copies of any application, together with the related report or reports, wi11 be forwarded to the Licensee and the Reviewing Professional. 5. The application will be reviewed by the Reviewing Professional to determine whether the material proposed for shipment is suitable for acceptance. The Reviewing Professions! will consider the results of the sampling program, including but not limited toy whether the sampling kocations and number of samples are. _ representative of the material proposed to be shipped, whether the test results. include the full range of parameters of potential concern relating to the Generating Location and whether a 3 suitable Quality AssurancelQuality Control (QA/QC} program was implemented. ~. The Reviewing Professional will advise the Licensee in writing whether or not the material proposed to be shipped is suitable for acceptance and provide any terms or conditions of acceptance. The Licensee or the Reviewing Professional, if so authorized by the Licensee, will communicate the approval or rejection, in writing, together with any terms or conditions of approval to the person making the applicafiion and confirm the approximate times of shipment of any off-site material. 7. Once written approval has been provided by the Reviewing Prafessional, the Licensee will proceed to issue "bills of lading" to the Generating Location. 8. A master list of bills of lading will be produced for each Generating Location by the Licensee prior to the shipment of any materials. The master list will enable the bills of lading to be linked by number to the specific Generating Lacafion, haulage company(ies} and site assessment report. The master fist will be updated as required so as to remain current. 9. The Licensee will keep at the Site, or at some other secure place, a copy of the documentation referred to in this Part 111 and shall provide a copy thereof promptly upon request to MNR, 1V. .Controls at the Site 1. The Site will be fenced and gated to prevent unauthorized access to the Site during the times that any off-site material is being received at the Sife. The .Sife will be manned by persons who have been appropriately trained by the Reviewing Professional 2. On a daily basis, the Licensee will identify a location on the Site where filling activities will occur. The location of loads will be tracked and recorded on a daily basis through the development of a locational grid tracking system for the property. Records will be retained and made available to I~INR upon request. 3. A bill of lading r~vill be presented before any trucks} can enter the Site. Each load to the Site will be accompanied by a completed bill of lading indicating: ^ the name of the generator; Generating Location, 4 ^ the name of the hauling company ^ license plate number and .truck identifier {if one exists} the date and time of the shipment, . Each bill of fading will be signed by an authorized representative of the Generating Location. 4. The gatekeeper will cross-reference the information an the bill ofi lading against the master list which will include truck ticket numbers issued by project. 5, Untestedlundocumented Toads or bads with na bill of lading will not be accepted under any circumstances. 6, The gatekeeper, who must be trained for such purposes, wil[ complete a visual inspection of each load prior to,permitting access to the Site, loads containing unacceptable material or exhibiting evidence of possible chemical impact (e.g., unusual odours or staining} will not be permitted access to the Site, Repeated situations of material being rejected by the gatekeeper from a particular Generating Location will give rise to an investigation. An investigation report will be prepared within 30 days, giving a full account of the reasons the quality control system on the part of the Generating Location failed and the corrective actions taken and a copy shall be provided to MlVR, The report will be retained by the Licensee at the Site, or at some other secure place, 7. Once the gatekeeper approves the load for acceptance at the Site, he/she wilt sign the bill of lading, and direct the driver to a specific dumping location a# the Site. The assigned location wifi be noted on the bill of lading. 8, A daily summary log will be maintained for bads shipped to the Site, including rejected toads. The log entry wifi include: - Date - Daily total # of trucks entering the property - Daffy total # of trucks accepted - Daily total # of trucks rejected (and reasons for rejection) - For each Generating Location: i. identification number for each Bili of Lading received on that date, r`i. Location fill was placed on the lacational tracking grid. 5 9. Ai] applications and related reports, bills of lading, logs of ma#erial accepted at the Site, records of material approved far acceptance at the Site, etc, will be retained by the Licensee until the licence is .rehabilitated and surrendered. V. Reality Control Audit Program 1. For the purpose of a quality control audit, samples of materials shipped to the Sife will be collected by or on behalf of the .Licensee under the supervision of the Reviewing Professional for every 10,000 cubic metres of imported fill (or as approved by MNR} and a record will be maintained of the sampling procedure and the rational connected therewith. 2, Samples collected for audit, purposes will be seabmitted to an accredited laboratory for analysis and will be analyzed for inorganic -parameters, volatile organic compounds, poiynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and F1 through F~ general petroleum hydrocarbon parameters, together with any other parameters that are deemed necessary by the Reviewing Professional, given the information contained in the reports for the Generating Location relating to the materials being shipped to the Site. VI. Discovery of UnacceptaiZie Materials Should any unacceptable materials (i.e., material other than Acceptable Fi]!~ be discovered at the Site (through the audit program or during, or after, dumping of a food), the Licensee shall do or cause to be done the fallowing procedure, Alf unacceptable material will be located byway of the site log and lacationaf tracking grid and recovered and stockpiled far further assessment andlor removal from the Sife. A record of the action taken, together wi#h any applicable documentation (e.g. testing and analysis andlor shipment off-site} with respect to the unacceptable material will be kept in the site log. (at the Sife, or at some other secure place). A copy of the documentation referred to in this Part VI shall be provided promptly upon request to.MNR. Should any unacceptable materials be discovered at the Sife, the MNR will be notified promptly in writing by or on behalf of the Licensee. VII. Groundwater Monitoring 1. MNR, in consultation with the Licensee, will determine if a groundwater monitoring program will be required at the Sife. 2. Any such monitoring program may include documentation of the number and type of samples, the manner and timing of sampling, 6 the parameters to be analyzed, the standards to be used for comparison purposes, the reporting requirements, and any confirmatory sampling requirements should the results indicate any exceedance of a standard established for a parameter of concern, and any further response requirements. 3. As far as is practicable, existing groundwater monitoring wells will be utilized far the purposes of any groundwater monitoring program. - 4. Groundwater samples will be caliec#ed by or on behalf of the Licensee under the supervision of the Reviewing Professional and delivered to an accredited laboratory to be tested. Results of the testing will be provided to -iVINR upon request, Any changes to groundwater quality {i.e., from background condition) wild be reported to tifl~lR immediately. - Vill. G.uic~e[ines for Topsoil ~ . All requests to import Topsoil for rehabilitation purpvses shall include the following: - A demonstrated need to import Topsoil for rehabilitation purposes - An area identified vn a drawing or sketch as to where Topsoil is .to be placed and/or stockpiled on the Site for rehabilitation purposes - Narne of the owner of the Generating Location and the representative of the Generating Location authorized to sign any bill of lading or other documentation relating to shipments of Topsoil to the Site. - A description of the Generating Location and its history, including the iota#ion, past and present uses of the land, and current activities. - The volume of Topsoi! anticipated to be received - An anticipated time frame in which the Topsoil will be shipped . - A maximum depth of Topsoil to be used as top dressing as shown on the approved site plan or as approved by 1vfNR 2. Ali requests to import Topsoil.shall be subject to the conditions as set out in Part lV #6-9 and Part Vi of this Profocof. 3, To the extent possible Topsoi! will be used immediately as final - cover. Topsoi! stockpiles should be as m~iriimal as possible and are to be used progressively in rehabilitation efforts. 7 4. Additional testing or information may be required for the importation of Topsoil as deemed necessary by MNR. IX. Amendments #o the Protacol This Protocol has been developed for use in more typical, larger scale, fill importation operations. Where any special. circumstances exist or fhe importation of fit! operation is smaller in size this Protocol may be reviewed and/or altered in co-operation with MNR. 8 No~T~~nb~r 21 2007 SAMPLE BILL DF LAD[NG No: D00000'l Game and Location of Generating Location: Date Shipped: Time Shipped. Haulage Company: . Truck Numher: Licence Plate: ~~~gna of Au~h ~iiede •~ net aGeneratng ~Loc-_a~tton -- - - - -- - _ _ Date Received: Time Received: Assigned Location for Deposit at Receiving Site: S gn foie ~f~ufho~lzed Persortn~l~~~~Re eig~.S° ~~T ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~- ANY UNSIGNED OR INCOMPLETE FORMS WILL RESULT IN REF'EJSAL OP LOAD AT THE RECEIVING LOCATION. WHITE COPY - RECEMNG SITE YELLOW COPY - HAt3LAGE CaNEPANY PINK COPY -GENERATING LOCATION November 21 2007 SAMPLE DAILY ,SUMMARY LOG Date: ddlmmlyyyy ~ Total Number of Truck Loads Received at Site: 34 Generating # of Truck ~ Filling Location Loads Ball of Lading # s Grid Location Assigned ABC Condos 8 OOOIw0007, 0032 AI ABC Homes 14 0008 0021 Al a 123 Homes 10 0022-0031 B2 TR UCg LDADS RE.TECTED Generating Location Hauling Company Bill of Lading # Reasan for Refusal /Comments ABC Condos 234 Hauling - Rejected - no Bill of Ladin 123 Harries WYZ Excavation 27 Oil smelllstainirzg, mixed with asphalt - report re aired Signature of Authorized Personnel at Receiving Site; 10 November 21 2007 Sample ll~aster List: Bills of Lading Generating Location_#1 (I~Tame and Location} Bill of Ladin # Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekee er Initial 0001 Se t 2, 2007 0002 Se t 2, 2007 0003 Se t 2, 2007 0004 Se t 2, 2007 0005 Se t 2, 2007 0006 Se t 2, 2007 0007 Se t 2, 2007 ' 0008 Se t 2, 2007 .". N N N o0zs oGt. s, zoo? 0026 Oct. 5, 2007 0027 Oct. 5, 2007 4028 Oct. 5, 2007 Generatin Location #2 ame and Lacation Bill of Ladut # Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekee er Initial 0017 Set 6, 2007 0018 Se t 6, 2007 0019 Sept b, 2007 0020 Se t 6, 2007 0021 Se # 6, 2007 Generating Location.#3 (lame and Location) Bill of Ladin ~ Date Issued Date Received at Site Gatekee er Initial 0017 Set 6, 2007 0018 Se t 6, 2007 0019 Set 6, 2007 0020 Se t 6, 2007 0021 Sept 6, 2007 ' 0022 Se t 6, 2007 0023 Se t 6, 2007 0024 Se t 6, 2007 Date of Last Update; Signature of Authorized personnel at Receiving Site; ~1 PEER REVIEW OF THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE ESDM REPORT Summary Presentation Presented by: Abigail Salb, M.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Environmental Engineer SENES Consultants Limited SENES Consultants Limited What is a Peer Review? • A process used to check or verify work undertaken by a professional . Typically completed by an independent professional working in the same field (peers). • The process is usually interactive • discussion occurs between the consultants ("peers") and is formalized in a dispositioning process. SENES Consultants Limited Purpose of Peer Review • Verify the quality of the work • Provide suggestions for improvement • Peer Review of ESDM Report: • Completed in a reasonably comprehensive manner? • Consistent with standard practices and protocols? • Consistent with the conditions of the EA Approval? SENES Consultants Limited Review Materials • EA Documents • Air Quality Assessment Report; • Ambient Monitoring Report; • Emission Inventory • EA Approval • ESDM Report • Report and supporting electronic data files - Emission Inventory - Air Dispersion Modelling SENES Consultants Limited Review Findings • Overall Conclusions: • Report was organized and reasonably well done; • Consistent with MOE requirements; and • Consistent with industry standards. • Identified some potential issues and recommendations for improvements • Not expected to fundamentally change the overall results and conclusions of the ESDM SENES Consultants Limited Review Findings ~concinuea> • Approach used in ESDM Report is generally consistent with the EA . ESDM included "background" - Not typically required by MOE for ESDM • Differences in how particulate emissions were estimated - Total versus filterable particulates • Emission estimates need clarification • Are data from similar facilities? SENES Consultants Limited Review Findings ~concinuea> • Four compounds with regulatory standards not included in the assessment . Facility is a potential source of these emissions . Not shown to be negligible . Lack of data? • Start Up conditions may not be adequately represented • Test data likely from normal operations • Additional details required SENES Consultants Limited Review Findings ~concinuea> • EA and ESDM used a more advanced, complex air dispersion model • Approved by MOE • Meteorology approved by MOE (generated for EA) • Some potential issues discussed with MOE • MOE determined unlikely to have a significant effect • Potential issue with data entry for plume downwash (BPIP) . Unlikely to have a significant impact due to height of Main Stack SENES Consultants Limited Recommendations ~. The Municipality request a copy of the DRAFT CofA for review and comment. 2. The facility conduct annual source testing (minimum) of the Main Stack, on a waste stream representative of typical composition. SENES Consultants Limited Recommendations 3. The proponent update the ESDM Report within 3 months should source testing indicate that the measured emission rates are higher than estimated. a. The frequency/duration of sample collection for dioxins and furans be shortened if the data are used for operational control. SENES Consultants Limited Recommendations s. Since the waste will not be pre-sorted, it is recommended that a time integrated, continuous mercury sampling system be considered. s. The limited operational flexibility conditions for the Basic Comprehensive CofA be reviewed/renewed on a maximum 5 year interval, and that the submission materials be provided to the Municipality in advance for review and comment. SENES Consultants Limited Recommendations z. The operational requirement of 9 mg/Rm3 be applied to filterable PM in addition to Total PM2.5 (filterable + condensable) if this is technically feasible from an operational perspective. a, If not feasible, the risk calculations related to fine particulate matter (PM~o and/or PM2.5) completed for the EA be revised and submitted as an addendum to the ESDM Report. SENES Consultants Limited Recommendations s. The Proponent provide details demonstrating that test data used in the ESDM are representative, or use more conservative emission factors. s. The assessment be amended to include an assessment of acetone, acrolein, styrene and mesitylene, which have regulatory standards. SENES Consultants Limited Recommendations ~o. The Proponent examine the effect of suggested corrections to BPIP for key contaminants to determine any impacts on the maximum predicted 24-hour concentrations SENES Consultants Limited Thank You! SENES Consultants Limited