HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-2020Clarftwn
Planning and Development Committee
Post -Meeting Agenda
Date: December 7, 2020
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) I Members of the Public (MS
Teams)
Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for
accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Patenaude,
Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at Iatenaude@clarington.net.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
AudioNideo Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of
General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General
Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording
public by on the Municipality's website, www.clarington.net/calendar
Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or
placed on non -audible mode during the meeting.
Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive
*Late Item added after the Agenda was published.
Pages
1. Call to Order
2. Land Acknowledgment Statement
3. New Business — Introduction
Members of Committee are encouraged to provide the Clerk's Department, in
advance of the meeting, a copy of any motion the Member is intending to
introduce, (preferably electronic) such that staff could have sufficient time to
share the motion with all Members prior to the
meeting.
4. Adopt the Agenda
5. Declaration of Interest
6. Announcements
7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
7.1. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of November 16, 2020 6
8. Public Meetings
No Public Meetings.
9. Delegations
9.1. Patrick Byrne, Kingsway Arms, Regarding Assisted Living Facility in 19
Bowmanville
9.2. Devon Daniell, Kaitlin Corporation, Regarding Assisted Living Facility in
Bowmanville
9.3. Rodger Miller, Miller Planning Services, Regarding Report PSD-056-20 25
Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block of 17
Townhouse Units within a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
*9.4. Gina Brouwer, Regarding Report PSD-056-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision
to Permit a Block of 17 Townhouse Units within a Common Elements
Condominium, Courtice
*9.5. David Lee, Candevcon Limited, Regarding Report PSD-056-20 Draft
Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block of 17 Townhouse
Units within a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Page 2
*9.6. Rodrick Sutherland, Kaitlin Corporation, Regarding Report PSD-058-20
Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit a
Total of 205 Residential Units Contained with an Apartment Building and
Townhouses within a Common Elements Condominium
*9.7. Gord Robinson, Regarding Item 11.1, LPAT Decision for East
Gwillimbury, ZONE Clarington - Review of Potential Alternative
Approaches
*9.8. Stephen Shine, Regarding Item 11.1, LPAT Decision for East
Gwillimbury, ZONE Clarington - Review of Potential Alternative
Approaches
*9.9. Ronald F. Worboy, Worboy Law, Regarding Report PSD-055-20
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan - Recommendation Report for
Official Plan Amendment 124
*9.10. Diana White, Regarding Report PSD-056-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision
and Rezoning to Permit a Block of 17 Townhouse Units within a
Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
*9.11. Bryan Noble, Regarding Report PSD-058-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision
and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit a Total of 205 Residential Units
Contained with an Apartment Building and Townhouses within a
Common Elements Condominium, Bowmanville
10. Communications — Receive for Information
10.1. Linda Gasser's Response to Durham Region Regarding Mixed Waste 32
Pre -Sort Proposed Anaerobic Digestion Facility
*10.2. Petition Regarding Agenda Item 13.4, Report PSD-056-20 Draft Plan of 41
Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block of 17 Townhouse Units
within a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
A petition containing approximately 787 signatures was received
regarding a request that the 37 Cedar and Pine trees on the east side of
Richfield Square (beside the guardrail) remain completely untouched.
11. Communications — Direction
11.1. Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and 42
Development Services, Regarding LPAT Decision for East Gwillimbury,
ZONE Clarington - Review of Potential Alternative Approaches
(Motion for Direction)
Page 3
12.
13.
14
*11.2. Ronald F. Worboy, Worboy Law, Regarding Report PSD-055-20 44
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan - Recommendation Report for
Official Plan Amendment 124
(Motion to refer to the consideration of Report PSD-055-20 Southeast
Courtice Secondary Plan - Recommendation Report for Official Plan
Amendment 124)
Presentations
No Presentations.
Planning and Development Services Reports
13.1. PSD-052-20 Heritage Incentive Grant Program Annual Report for 2020 49
13.2. PSD-053-20 Environmental Stewardship Program - 2020 Annual Report 53
13.3. PSD-054-20 An Application by Goldmanco Inc. to Amend Sign By-law 60
2009-123 to Permit Two Oversized Ground Signs at the Southeast
Corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road, Courtice
*13.4. PSD-055-20 Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommendation 72
Report for Official Plan Amendment 124
(Updated Attachment 1 B)
13.5. PSD-056-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block 348
of 17 Townhouse Units within a Common Elements Condominium,
Courtice
13.6. PSD-057-20 Community Improvement Plan Programs 2020 - Annual 386
Report
13.7. PSD-058-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment 393
to Permit a Total of 205 Residential Units Contained with an Apartment
Building and Townhouses within a Common Elements Condominium in
Bowmanville
13.8. PSD-059-20 Proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 426
2014-84; 210 and 224 King Ave. W, Newcastle
New Business — Consideration
14.1. Adhoc Jury Lands Negotiation Committee (Councillor Neal) 437
*14.2. Bill229
Page 4
15. Unfinished Business
15.1. Wendy Bracken regarding Correspondence from Ravi Mahabir, Dillon
Consulting responding to Wendy Bracken's Concerns regarding a
Discrepancy in Dioxin Furan Between Dillon Consulting's Presentation
and Posted DYEC Reports
(Referred from the November 23, 2020 Council Meeting)
Link to Correspondence
16. Confidential Reports
No Reports.
17. Adjournment
Page 5
Clarington
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes
Date: November 16, 2020
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) I Members of
the Public (MS Teams)
Present Were: Councillor G. Anderson
Present Via Electronic Mayor A. Foster, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Jones,
Means: Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor M. Zwart
Staff Present: J. Gallagher, L. Patenaude
Staff Present Via A. Allison, A. Burke, F. Langmaid, C. Strike, A. Taylor -Scott, K.
Electronic Means: Richardson
1. Call to Order
Councillor Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Land Acknowledgment Statement
Councillor Jones led the meeting in the Land Acknowledgement Statement.
3. New Business — Introduction
There were no new business items added to the Agenda.
4. Adopt the Agenda
Resolution # PD-174-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That the Agenda for the General Government Committee meeting of November
16, 2020, be adopted as presented, with the following changes:
• Alter the Agenda to consider Item 12.1 Presentation from Anne
Taylor -Scott, Senior Planner before Item 9.6, Delegation of
Bernice Norton's; and
• Communication Item 11.3 from David Winkle, Regarding Report
PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft
Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan.
Carried
1
Page 6
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
5. Declaration of Interest
There were no disclosures of interest stated at this meeting.
6. Announcements
Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of
community interest.
7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of October 26, 2020
Resolution # PD-175-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Development
Committee meeting held on October 26-27, 2020, be approved.
Carried
8. Public Meetings
There were no Public Meetings.
9. Delegations
9.1 David Astill, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and
Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a
Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
David Astill was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-050-20
Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25
Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice. Mr. Astill
stated that he is a resident of Lawson Road, and that he had attended the first
Committee in April, 2019 to express his concerns. He noted his concerns
regarding the large number of units in the proposal as there are currently only 23
homes on the street. Mr. Astill stated that every home on Lawson Road is
unique and that is what attracted him to buy in the area. He cited Section 9.6.4
of the Official Plan and noted that the proposal does not reflect the current
configuration or characteristics of Lawson Road. Mr. Astill stated his concerns
regarding safety and the limited parking available. He explained that Lawson
Road does not have sidewalks and with the increase of on street parking, people
will be forced to walk on the road. Mr. Astill stated that the traffic in the area is
heavy making it difficult to make a left turn onto Townline Road, and the
proposed development will make it worse and increase accidents.
2
Page 7
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # PD-176-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Mayor Foster
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the delegation for an
additional two minutes.
Carried
He stated that the concerns expressed at the April 1, 2019 Planning and
Development Committee meeting have not been addressed.
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # PD-177-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the delegation for an
additional one minute.
Carried
Mr. Astill urged the Committee to not approve the proposal and first address the
concerns from residents. He answered questions from members of Committee.
9.2 Bill Calder, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and
Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a
Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Bill Calder was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft
Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse
Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice. Mr. Calder stated
that he is a retired police officer and has experience in Level 2 accident
investigation and noted that he spoke at the April, 2019 public meeting
addressing traffic concerns. He expressed his concerns are regarding traffic
safety and stated that the traffic report does not speak to risk, only traffic
volume. Mr. Calder noted that the Lawson Road and Townline Road intersection
is already very dangerous. He asked Committee to consider the traffic risk
before adding to the volume. Mr. Calder questioned if DRPS provided a report on
the collisions at the intersection of Townline Road and Lawson Road. He added
that, when walking his dog, he has had several near miss accidents. Mr. Calder
stated that he is not opposed to the building proposal but does not agree with the
traffic report and would like to see a traffic risk assessment completed. Mr.
Calder answered questions from Members of Committee.
3
Page 8
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
9.3 Joanna Longworth, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision
and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a
Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Joanna Longworth was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-050-
20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25
Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice. Ms.
Longworth noted that she has lived on Lawson Road for 13 years and had raised
her concerns at the April 1, 2020 Planning and Development Committee meeting.
She expressed her concerns regarding traffic, on -street parking, and the lack of
consideration for the character of the neighbourhood. Ms. Longworth explained
that her concerns have not been addressed and is disappointed in the minimal
changes of the proposal. She noted that she appreciates Municipal Staff's
response to the comments and questioned why the Lawson Road exit hasn't
been considered given the current dangerous traffic conditions. Ms. Longworth
noted that the neighbourhood is not a walking community and will be dangerous
for families getting their mail. Ms. Lawson explained her concerns regarding the
increase in parking and how the proposal does not meet the requirements of
complimenting the existing neighbourhood.
9.4 Kirsty Mason, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and
Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a
Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Kirsty Mason was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-050-20
Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25
Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice. Ms.
Mason explained her concerns regarding increased traffic and the safety of
residents as there are no sidewalks on either side of the road. She noted that
the Lawson and Townline Road intersection is already dangerous and will cause
more accidents. Ms. Mason suggests that the developer address the safety
concerns at the proposed location and urged the Committee to consider the
concerns before approving the proposal.
9.5 Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group Ltd., Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft
Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit a 25
Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group Ltd., was present via electronic means
regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law
Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements
Condominium, Courtice. Mr. Jacobs outlined the changes since the previous
proposal, noting the reduced units from 28 to 25 and the height along the east
side to two stories and added that there will be a larger area for residents for
indoor and outdoor space. He noted that they want to ensure there is safety for
children and residents of the neighbourhood. Mr. Jacobs added that they are
proposing sidewalks within the development and along Lawson Road across the
entire stretch of the development, providing a safe place to pedestrians.
0
Page 9
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
He stated that the Canada Post mailboxes will remain on site and can be
accessed along a sidewalk. Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposal is a medium
density development and that it conforms with the regional and Clarington Official
Plans. He answered questions from Members of Committee.
Alter the Agenda
Resolution # PD-178-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Agenda be altered to consider Report PSD-050-20, at this time.
Carried
13.4 PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to
permit 25 townhouse dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium,
Courtice
Resolution # PD-179-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Report PSD-050-20 be referred back to Staff; and
That Staff be directed to report back on what, if any, limits can be placed on
common elements condominiums.
Carried
12.1 Anne Taylor -Scott, Senior Planner, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to
Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington
Official Plan
Anne Taylor -Scott, Senior Planner, was present via electronic means regarding
Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No.
121 to the Clarington Official Plan. Ms. Taylor -Scott made a verbal presentation
to accompany an electronic presentation. She provided an overview on the Jury
Lands and site contexts, the evolution of planning for residential development on
the Jury Lands, and 3D models. Ms. Taylor -Scott noted that the site has
significant historical importance and explained the existing land use. She
outlined the urban design master plan and design guidelines and stated it will be
builder -owned lands with unique development potential. Ms. Taylor -Scott
outlined the four variables and demonstrated how unit yield has evolved in the
10+ years of planning for private residential development on the Jury Lands. She
displayed the 3D Models for the block plan from DTAH design guideline, Official
Plan Amendment 121 - Recommended from PSD-041-20, and Kaitlin's May 2020
Proposal. Ms. Taylor -Scott explained the difference between the three models,
the next steps, and answered questions from Members of Committee.
5
Page 10
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
9.6 Bernice Norton, Architectural Conservancy Ontario, Regarding Report
PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121
to the Clarington Official Plan
Bernice Norton, Architectural Conservancy Ontario, was present via electronic
means regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft
Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan. Ms. Norton stated that they
are in support of the work being completed in an effort to preserve Camp
30. She provided an update on the tours and noted that they had 308 visitors
this tour season, which ran from August 1 - October 18, 2020, and included
COVID-19 protocols. Ms. Norton added that there were visitors who are local
and others who came from across the province. She stated that Camp 30 placed
second in the Reader's Choice awards for best local tourist attraction by This
Week's Durham readers.
Ms. Norton hopes that Council will stand behind the DTAH as the six remaining
original buildings speak to the vision of the time and historical value of the
site. She noted her concerns regarding a seniors complex or affordable housing
units being developed inside the ring road because it will negatively impact the
campus layout. Ms. Norton explained that the construction of an apartment
building near the Cafeteria will cause more concern as it is recognized as a
space for an event center. She added that having an event center would cause
issues for by-law and would not be desirable for residents nearby. Ms. Norton
explained that preserving the site will show the unique history of Clarington. She
added that, during the tours, visitors are excited about the preservation of the
layout and repurposing the buildings in ways that it will complement the site and
community use of it. Ms. Norton requests that Committee keep, and honor, the
historic value of the site with no intrusions allowed inside the Ring Road noting
that an apartment near the cafeteria would be equally regretful. She noted that a
significant part of the recognition as a National Heritage Site, as well as the
Provincial Heritage Designation, is in the land and layout, the vistas, and
greenspace, and requested that it be preserved.
9.7 Marilyn Morawetz, Jury Lands Foundation, Regarding Report PSD-051-20
Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the
Clarington Official Plan
Marilyn Morawetz, Jury Lands Foundation, was present via electronic means
regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft
Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan. Ms. Morawetz stated that
the Jury Lands Foundation endorses the recommendations in Report
PSD-051-20 which will allow work to begin on the site and will attract residents
and continue to provide growth. She stated that the goal is to successfully
repurpose the buildings and noted that the green space is equally important. Ms.
Morawetz added that preserving the greenspaces and buildings will become an
oasis to residents.
n
Page 11
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
She recognizes the potential in the site, views it as a step in the right direction
and hopes Committee will approve the DTAH study, and endorse the areas for
development as recommended. Ms. Morawetz explained that additional
buildings will eliminate the green space and will negatively impact the site. She
expressed her concerns regarding the green space at 2C regarding the ring
road. Ms. Morawetz noted that comments have been shared with the developer
and that they have not received any response back. She stated her concerns
regarding development in the ring road, the impact to the greenspace, and
answered questions from members of Committee.
9.8 Devon Daniell, Kaitlin Corporation, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to
Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington
Official Plan
Devon Daniell, Kaitlin Corporation, was present via electronic means Regarding
Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No.
121 to the Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Daniell thanked everyone involved for
their passion of the site. He explained the background of the Report PSD-051-20
and noted that developing a park in the ring road will create significant
issues. Mr. Daniell displayed the current concept plan, explained the location of
the facilities on the property, and noted that he thinks their proposal fits with the
site and with heritage. He addressed comments made regarding the
development cutting off the ring road and noted that they are working on other
wording for the OPA Amendment 121. Mr. Daniell suggested that, rather than
approving the recommendations in Report PSD-051-20, Committee should direct
staff to work with land owners to bring forward the modifications to OPA 121, to
allow the above concept to proceed and for Staff to work with land owners to
bring forward draft zoning by-law amendments to Council.
9.9 Marcus R. Letourneau, Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., Regarding
Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment
No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
Marcus Letourneau, Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., was present via
electronic means regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30)
and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Letourneau
explained that he is working with their client to look at options for the property to
keep the heritage conservation principles. He added that it is important to
understand that the property has evolved significantly over time and provided
aerial photos of the property. Mr. Letourneau noted that assisted living is
important in the discussion and to recognize that heritage conservation is about
the uses related to the property. He added that this site has lots of institutional
uses and the proposed structure does not continue the history of institutional
views. Mr. Letourneau stated that heritage conservation is not about change but
about managing change in a way that it is significant to the property and added
that COVID-19 has changed how they are approaching heritage
conservation. He stated that the introduction of buildings in a cultural heritage
landscape is not new and has been done widely across the world.
7
Page 12
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
Mr. Letourneau provided successful examples of infill in cultural heritage
landscape in Traverse City State Hospital, Pentridge Prison, and South Carolina
State Hospital and answered questions from members of Committee.
Recess
Resolution # PD-180-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Committee recess for 10 minutes.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 10:02 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
Alter the Agenda
Resolution # PD-181-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the Agenda be altered to deal with Communication Item 11.3 and Report
PSD-051-20, at this time.
Carried
11.3 David Winkle, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands
(Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
Resolution # PD-182-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Communication Item 11.3 from David Winkle, be referred to Report
PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to
the Clarington Official Plan.
Carried
13.5 PSD-051-20 Update on Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No 121
to the Clarington Official Plan
Resolution # PD-183-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Report PSD-051-20 be received;
That the Community Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design
Guidelines for former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War
Camp 30 by DTAH dated April 2019 be accepted;
8
Page 13
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
That Official Plan Amendment 121 and the Block Master Plan implement the
Community Vision by DTAH;
That Official Plan Amendment 121 prohibit private residential development
buildings within the ring road of the Jury Lands;
That the consulting team for Soper Hills Secondary Plan be retained to assist
with refining draft Official Plan Amendment No 121;
That Staff continue to work with the land owners on other issues to be brought
forward a subsequent report; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-051-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Carried, See following motions
Resolution # PD-184-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the foregoing Resolution #PD-183-20 be divided such that Paragraph 5 be
considered separately.
Yes (6): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor
Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill
No (1): Councillor Zwart
Carried on a recorded vote (6 to 1)
Resolution # PD-185-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That Report PSD-051-20 be received;
That the Community Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design
Guidelines for former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War
Camp 30 by DTAH dated April 2019 be accepted;
That Official Plan Amendment 121 and the Block Master Plan implement the
Community Vision by DTAH;
That Official Plan Amendment 121 prohibit private residential development
buildings within the ring road of the Jury Lands;
That Staff continue to work with the land owners on other issues to be brought
forward in a subsequent report; and
9
Page 14
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-051-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Carried on a recorded vote, See following motion
Resolution # PD-186-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to
speak to the foregoing Resolution #PD-185-20 for a second time.
Carried
That the foregoing Resolution #PD-185-20 was then carried on a recorded vote
as follows:
Yes (7): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor
Jones, Councillor Neal, Councillor Traill, and Councillor Zwart
(7 to 0)
Resolution # PD-187-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Mayor Foster
That the consulting team for Soper Hills Secondary Plan be retained to assist
with refining draft Official Plan Amendment No. 121.
Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Traill,
and Councillor Zwart
No (2): Councillor Jones, and Councillor Neal
Carried on a recorded vote (5 to 2)
10. Communications — Receive for Information
10.1 Memo from Amy Burke, Acting Manager of Special Projects, Regarding
PM2.5 Monitoring at St. Marys Cement — Bowmanville Site
10.2 Correspondence from Ravi Mahabir, Partner, Dillon Consulting Limited
Responding to Wendy Bracken's Concerns Regarding a Discrepancy in
Dioxin Furan Between Dillon Consulting's Presentation and Posted DYEC
Reports
Resolution # PD-188-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That Communication Item 10.1 and 10.2, be received on consent.
Carried
10
Page 15
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
11. Communications — Direction
11.1 Hugh Allin, Regarding Item 15.1, Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the
Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding the North Village Secondary Plan
11.2 Francis Kiemicki, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision
and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a
Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Resolution # PD-189-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Communication Items 11.1 and 11.2, be received on consent as follows:
That Communication Item 11.4 from Hugh Allin, be referred to the
Consideration of Item 15.1, Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the
Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding the North Village Secondary
Plan.
That Communication Item 11.2 from Francis Kiemicki, be referred to
the consideration or Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and
Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a
Common Elements Condominium, Courtice.
Carried
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # PD-190-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for an
additional half hour until 11:30 p.m.
Carried
11.3 David Winkle, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp
30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
This matter was considered earlier in the meeting.
12. Presentations
12.1 Anne Taylor -Scott, Senior Planner, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to
Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington
Official Plan
Anne Taylor -Scott, Senior Planner, presented earlier in the meeting.
11
Page 16
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
13. Planning and Development Services Department Reports
13.1 PSD-047-20 Review of BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study
Resolution # PD-191-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Report PSD-047-20 be received for information.
Carried
13.2 PSD-048-20 Update to Site Plan Control By-law
Resolution # PD-192-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Report PSD-048-20 be received;
That the By-law attached to Report PSD-048-20, as Attachment 2, regarding
updating the Site Plan Control By-law, be approved; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-048-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Carried
13.3 PSD-049-20 Street Names in Foster Northwest Neighbourhood, Newcastle
Resolution # PD-193-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Mayor Foster
That Report PSD-049-20 be received;
That the street names proposed for the Foster Northwest Neighbourhood
development, as outlined in Report PSD-049-20, be approved; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-049-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Carried
13.4 PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to
permit 25 townhouse dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium,
Courtice
Report PSD-050-20 was considered earlier in the meeting.
12
Page 17
Planning and Development Committee Minutes of November 16, 2020
13.5 PSD-051-20 Update on Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No 121
to the Clarington Official Plan
Report PSD-051-20 was considered earlier in the meeting.
14. New Business — Consideration
15. Unfinished Business
15.1 PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding the
North Village Secondary Plan (Referred from the October 26-27, 2020
Planning and Development Committee Meeting)
Resolution # PD-194-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Mayor Foster
That Report PSD-039-20 be referred to the Planning and Development
Committee meeting dated February 22, 2021.
Carried
16. Confidential Reports
17. Adjournment
Resolution # PD-195-20
Moved by Mayor Foster
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the meeting adjourn at 11:04 p.m.
Carried
Chair
Municipal Clerk
13
Page 18
SENIORS NEED A PLACE TO CONGREGATE, TO LIVE, TO BE ACTIVE, AND TO
HAVE THE ASSURANCE OF QUALITY CARE NEARBY SHOULD THEY NEED IT.
Our vision of the future is to build campuses for seniors that would be fully
integrated so that seniors can age in place&racefully. We see this campus
becoming the Centre of Excellence in eacn community.
WE WISH TO DEVELOP A SENIOR'S CAMPUS AT THE STEVENS ROAD SITEH
Page 19
■��■■�.��
Q ■�
..
"mom
k■
|■■
m.C:9 + .
■mom � R � *� � q
-LIki A,I
� &
. ®
i4&■s■c�°\B
L
Bpi III u, `¥f:�«^�^��
��® w���:���/r
-�
ff \
k _ :
:\�■■ISIRS \\/
- L �
.h.i:
�. 1� h Q
ah
'
» �
�# .�.r
{i� -
�
«�r�����l,.
°.
�
�
■�§� �� ,
,�C �`�
. �\, \
� -
• � � �� ,
m
.■� -
■�■ �■ 2 = 2 2 � ■■■■,■,
|� ■ q =
' ���� �
#: &
.t
� �
.4 ■4■■ A
_ ■■.■■.;
. �
, ����|■,��
:,W������•'`�
/
-ONOa 0
IIMLI
q
Page 20
We want to build a senior's campus that will have six components on the
site:
12 one story independent living bungalows,
140 senior apartment rentals for independent living,
150 privately owned condominiums, ala carte choices available,
140-unit full -service retirement home, offering assisted daily living,
130-unit cognitive impairment home, offering memory care,
Right in the center of the campus, a 50,000 sf Monarch Seniors Club `MSC'.
Page 21
THE CLARINGTON MARKET IS UNDERBEDDED! THERE IS NO STOCK OF
PRODUCT, DEMAND EXCEEDS SUPPLY, THERE ARE NO PLANS IN THE
FUNNEL FOR NEW RETIREMENT HOMES AND THE SENIORS ARE
AGING AT 8% PER YEAR AND IN NEED OF CARE, CARE THAT WILL
DRIVE THEM TO LEAVE THIS AREA!
IF YOU ARE A SENIOR TODAY IN CLARINGTON AND LOOKING FOR A
NURSING HOME YOU WILL WAIT OVER A YEAR AND A HALF FOR A
BED, IF YOU HAVE ANY COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT OVER TWO YEARS.
Page 23
PE
or .
K
or .
K
1668 Nash road Courtice —
Development Proposal
Page 25
J
cc
\
9
\9 0
I
I'O
U
I
I /�
cc
II
i
I
I
63.24
IAA HgHPFNACY FENCE
BLOCK2I I I _ BLom
51111
11
IN!'
Rimrl
i
I
�11■I7�1
111„�r,
Mimi
MI�►����
..........
11llYli.
1�
���Ills
�i�S11111.
�I
Igll'
IIIIIY1111..
I�
��il�
�iIIJ11111:
L®I
��ill�li�llf►��
„ril_
ILm�
11 I IIIIYIr,
�'1■•_■•
Rlli►��
IIIIIYIIi�
��J
�I���
1..
IIIIIYI�FRI
Its•+•
111.�
■il,,,lll
LEI
!�■111■I
.� JI I1.
1@11
w OWN
WIgI�w
A
wwLj
�.
1
q!�O
�i
�i
i
An
orl
I'swipli'm
IRV
' '
A ■L�1411
n n ■eu
trm r 1 n � ■�
A
''
:1�
1
III
■i 000001■ MISSION
�
�IIY11111
��• �-
_
`Irti11111 -____ - ..IIIIIYII�I
_I..II IIII11.73
COMMON
-
OUTDOOR
oil
AMENITYSPACE
6III6iI 116_1'0
MASON__ IULAR
DECORATIVE STEEL FENCE
ENTRY FEATURE
340� ROAD WIDENING
MASONRY "I
EX. ISO CONC. SYDBWA �`?� '�� SIDEWALK
Page 26 Pj 9\ PROPOSED RIGHT-IN/FIGHT-OUT MEDIAN
WIIIH DEPRESSED CURB AND ISLAND TO
NASHROAD ACCOMMODATE BARRIER FREE SIDEWALK
.0� - — - - - - - --- -�- - -
Richfield Existing Tree Conflicts
1. Trees are blocking visibility sight lines.
2. Trees are located in a reverse grading slope which would b
contrary to municipal engineering standards.
3. These trees are reported to be at full maturity. Some of the
trees are thinning out and others are dying. Conclusions of
Arborist Report - Kuntz Forestry.
Page 27
Proposed Site Plan
The development proposal consists of 3 Blocks of 17 townhome units + Community playground & Visitor Parking spots.
SAKMET DEVELOPMENT - 1668 Nash Road, Courtice
v
�I
BLOCK 2
al
0
RENDERED ELEVATION - N.T.S.
v
vl
0
of preserve existing
s I hedge along Richfield
0
BLOCK 2
i, driveway
RICHFIELD SQUARE STREETSCAPE - OPTION 2
RENDERED ELEVATION - N.T.S.
BLOCK 1
oad NASH
9ening ROAD
fi
w
i
c_
I
BLOCK 1
o.
LLI
I2
Elf
Q
to
D
d
IN
U?
r� �r-' •
I road NASH
widening ROAD
J
W
November 26, 2020
Page 28
.....................: NASH ROAD
Transit Considerations
1. A proposed Bicycle Rack is to be located on site to
encourage Cycling.
2. A free Durham Region Presto Card Transit Pass
will be provided to all home buyers for 6 months
to encourage transit use.
n
3. A bus stop is located adjacent to this proposed
development making transit access convenient.
'I
L
Page 29
Air Conditioners & Meter Screening
1. Block One Townhomes will have air conditioners concealed from street
View with installations on a terrace balcony located internally to the project.
2. Block Two and Block Three Townhomes will have
air conditioners located in backyard.
3. Gas and Hydro Meters will be recessed (or within
enclosures) within the masonry exterior wall, installed on the
private lane side.
Page 30
Thank you
If you have any questions, please contact:
Miller Planning
Consulting
Suite 404,
701 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
Ll N 9 K3
Toronto Line: 416 605
0741
Office Line: 905 655
0354
Email: r.miller(Dmillerpla
Sakmet Development
Su ite 916,
305 Milner Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M1 B 3V4
Office Line: 752
1109
Email: nathanC sakmet.
ca
n.ca Page 31
Patenaude, Lindsey
From: Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:56 PM
To: ClerksDepartment@clarington.net; Gallagher, June
Cc: Gioseph Anello; Melodee Smart; Susan Siopis
Subject: my Correspondence to Clarington - re Durham Region Response RE: Mixed Waste Pre -Sort AD
Facility and LTWMP
Attachments: 20201124_LTR_GAnello-LGasser_Response_Mixed_Waste_Pre-Sort_AD_and_LTWMP.pdf
Importance: High
EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Clarington Clerks:
I submit this email as correspondence to Council, further to the correspondence emailed today by Durham staff, dated
Nov. 24th.
Durham's letter dated November 24th to me was copied to Clarington Council, who had requested they be copied with
Durham's response, further to correspondence I had sent to Clarington between Oct. 30-November 2nd.
Please note the correspondence from Durham Region's Gio Anello is dated Nov. 24th and was emailed today on
November 25th.
Mr. Anello writes in his Nov. 24th letter how Durham staff responded to the motion about the Long Term Waste
Management Plan (LTWMP) Guiding Principles were APPROVED, which was NOT the issue I had referenced in my
correspondence, nor was that the substance of EFW WMAC's September 22nd motion he references and he would have
known that, which WMAC motion asked staff to provide evidence backing up their claim that the Guiding Principles had
been endorsed by Durham Council.
Yesterday, November 24th, I wrote to the EFW WMAC staff contact and copied Mr. Anello to point out this error in the
minutes regarding a WMAC motion, which is discussed in Mr. Anello's Nov. 24th letter starting bottom of page 2.
I include a copy of the email I sent to WMAC yesterday, pasted in below, for your information.
Note: the webcast recording segment clearly captured what the EFW WMAC motion was asking regional staff to respond
to.
Not only was Mr. Anello present on September 22nd when multiple questions about Durham's staff claims of Council
endorsement were asked, and at which meeting the WMAC motion asking for evidence to back up their claim was
passed, Mr. Anello ALSO attended yesterday's meeting where that incorrect Motion wording was corrected, to
ACCURATELY capture EFW WMAC's request that Durham staff provide evidence of their claim that Durham Council had
endorsed the Guiding Principles.
The September 22nd meeting recording clearly captured the motion AND the Clerk taking the minutes on September
22nd repeated the motion back correctly prior to the vote.
Page 32
Therefore, Mr. Anello was clearly aware of this corrected motion and its request PRIOR to sending his letter to me and
Clarington Council today.
Which means, that responding via his letter as Durham's Director of Waste Management Services, he could have and
should have provided an "updated" aka accurate response around that aspect of the LTWMP issue I had raised.
Brief background -Staff wrote on the LTWMP web page that Durham Council had endorsed the LTWMP Guiding
Principles. https://www.durham.ca/en/living-here/long-term-waste-management-strategV.aspx The next waste plan is
to guide Durham decisions for the next 20 years, so this is not a minor matter.
Not only was there NO evidence to back up the staff claim, initially at the July EFW WMAC meeting, Durham staff were
not receptive to WMAC questioning the GPs at all - listening to that webcast will show you the effort WMAC members
made to try to address this that night.
WMAC revisited the LTWMP Guiding Principles matter at their Sept. 22nd meeting and that night, passed a motion
asking staff to respond to WMACs questions around evidence to support their claims of Council endorsement. The
motion was captured INCORRECTLY in the September 22nd minutes, which I noticed when reviewing them before last
night's WMAC meeting.
Last night - PRIOR to Mr. Anello sending his correspondence TODAY, the WMAC at their meeting last night corrected the
incorrect minutes by substituting the initial wording with "endorsed" for the word "approved", as motion was originally
worded and confirmed by webcast recording.
Incorrect motion read:
Moved by W. Bracken, Seconded by K. Meydem, That the email correspondence and two references from Linda
Gasser, dated September 21, 2020, regarding Correspondence to September 22, 2020 EFW-WMAC —further to July 15,
2020 EFW-WMAC discussion re: LTWMP Guiding Principles (GP) correspondence be referred to Works staff for
comment and for staff to answer the question of where the evidence is that shows Regional Council
approved the guiding principles and report back to the Committee. CARRIED
Corrected motion effective yesterday reads:
Moved by W. Bracken, Seconded by K. Meydem, That the email correspondence and two references from Linda
Gasser, dated September 21, 2020, regarding Correspondence to September 22, 2020 EFW-WMAC —further to July 15,
2020 EFW-WMAC discussion re: LTWMP Guiding Principles (GP) correspondence be referred to Works staff for
comment and for staff to answer the question of where the evidence is that shows Regional Council
endorsed the guiding principles and report back to the Committee. CARRIED
I am not aware that to date Durham staff have responded to the WMAC Sept. 22nd motion, the substance of which they
were fully aware at the time it passed September 22nd through to the writing of the November 24th letter. Durham's
Oct. 27th summary of approval attachment is irrelevant and I had already provided the relevant information to WMAC
after having contacted Durham Clerks who asked the Commissioner of Finance to confirm that disposition.
Last night Durham staff indicated they will bring LTWMP (I'm guessing it's the LTWMP outline) to Durham Works and
Council in February, after the current term ended last night and before the new term of WMAC begins. WMAC's next
term to begin March 2021.
Page 33
In closing, HOW that September 22nd WMAC motion's wording was subsequently altered in such a substantive manner
(because the webcast confirms motion wording was captured correctly by the clerk taking minutes at the meeting), is
very troublesome.
Thank you for your attention.
Linda Gasser
Whitby
Forwarded Message
Subject:RE: Please forward to Chair and members re Chair draft presentation to councils AND error Sept 22 minutes re
my correspondence LTWMP Guiding Principles (GP)
Date:Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:09:49 +0000
From:Melodee Smart <Melodee.Smart@Durham.ca>
To:Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>, EFW-WMAC <EFW-WMAC@durham.ca>, Sarah Glover
<Sarah.Glover@durham.ca>
CC:Kerry Meydam <ksam2@rogers.com>, Wendy Bracken <wendy-ron@Svmpatico.Ca>, Gioseph Anello
<Gioseph.Anello@Durham.ca>, Angela Porteous <Angela.Porteous@durham.ca>
Good afternoon —
Confirming receipt of your email.
Thank you,
Melodee Smart I Administrative Assistant
The Regional Municipality of Durham I Works Department — Commissioner's Office
605 Rossland Road East, Level 5, Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3
905-668-7711 or 1-800-372-1102 extension 3560 1 durham.ca
Page 34
From: Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 1:06 PM
To: Melodee Smart <Melodee.Smart@Durham.ca>; EFW-WMAC <EFW-WMAC@durham.ca>; Sarah Glover
<Sarah.Glover@durham.ca>
Cc: Kerry Meydam <ksam2@rogers.com>; Wendy Bracken <wendy-ron@Sympatico.Ca>; Gioseph Anello
<Gioseph.Anello@Durham.ca>; Angela Porteous <Angela.Porteous@durham.ca>
Subject: Please forward to Chair and members re Chair draft presentation to councils AND error Sept 22 minutes re my
correspondence LTWMP Guiding Principles (GP)
Importance: High
Melodee/Sarah - I don't know who of you will be attending tonight's WMAC meeting.
I was reviewing tonight's WMAC agenda in advance of tonight's meeting.
Please bring the following to the attention of George Rocoski, WMAC Chair, and the committee, who will review a draft
presentation of the Chair's annual remarks to Durham and Clarington Councils.
There are two issues: 1) Sept. 22nd minutes and 2) Chair's draft PowerPoint re annual presentation to the two councils.
I refer to his Slide (not numbered) on agenda page 22. Bullet two refers to the correspondence I had sent to WMAC
committee, which I include again, below.
His second bullet:
That the email correspondence and two references from Linda Gasser, dated September 21, 2020, regarding
Correspondence to September 22, 2020 EFW-WMAC —further to July 15, 2020 EFW-WMAC discussion re: LTWMP
Guiding Principles (GP) correspondence be referred to Works staff for comment and for staff to answer the question of
where the evidence is that shows Regional Council approved the guiding principles and report back to the
Committee.
That motion refers to Page 4 the Sept. 22nd minutes - which contains an error:
Moved by W. Bracken, Seconded by K. Meydem, That the email correspondence and two references from Linda
Gasser, dated September 21, 2020, regarding Correspondence to September 22, 2020 EFW-WMAC —further to July 15,
2020 EFW-WMAC discussion re: LTWMP Guiding Principles (GP) correspondence be referred to Works staff for
comment and for staff to answer the question of where the evidence is that shows Regional Council approved the
guiding principles and report back to the Committee. CARRIED
Note also that Kerry's last name is spelled: "Meydam".
I copy Kerry and Wendy, WMAC members who moved and seconded the motion in question, so they would be aware
this matter should be addressed at tonight's meeting because the wording in the motion does NOT capture the motion
made and as read out by Clerk prior to vote.
The webcast of the relevant portion of the Sept. 22nd meeting starts at 1 hour 18 minutes. The recording confirms
Wendy's motion requested staff provide evidence of council endorsement of the GPs.
The Clerk read out the motion at the 1:26 mark, clearly including the part asking staff providing evidence of council
endorsement through to vote at 1:28-9 minute mark.
Page 35
Staff had contended that Council had endorsed the Guiding Principles with this claim posted on the LTWMP web pages.
After I checked with both Clerks and F & A, I found not evidence of said council endorsement. My correspondence
suggested that WMAC should request staff should provide evidence for their claim that the GPs had been endorsed.
Council had approved the staff recommendation which was to receive for information and refer to budget - I had
provided all relevant supplementary information I had received from Nancy Taylor as included below.
My question was around the staff claim of council endorsement of the GPs. There is a BIG difference between receiving
something for information and thus "approving receipt" of a report, versus endorsing the GPs as staff had claimed.
Staff subsequently provided a summary of the approval of the report via receiving for information - see attached, but
did NOT respond to the question I had raised in my correspondence, further to which EFW WMAC members referred the
correspondence to staff asking for evidence of endorsement of the GPs. I don't know if staff provided anything further
and if they did not, staff essentially did NOT respond to the Sept. 22nd motion request.
For the sake of accuracy -because that is fundamental to this issue in particular- in Mr. Rocoski's update to the two
Councils, if he keeps that bullet, the word "approved" should be deleted and substituted with the word "endorsed".
Thank you for your attention.
Linda Gasser
Whitby
-------- Forwarded Message--------
Subject:Durham Region Response RE: Mixed Waste Pre -Sort AD Facility and LTWMP
Date:Wed, 25 Nov 2020 15:56:04 +0000
From:Melodee Smart <Melodee.Smart@Durham.ca>
To:Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>
CC:Gioseph Anello <Gioseph.Anello@Durham.ca>, Gallagher, June <JGallagher@clarington.net>
Good morning Ms. Gasser:
On behalf of Gioseph Anello, M.Eng., P.Eng., PMP, Director, Waste Management Services, The Regional Municipality of
Durham, please find attached correspondence to your attention regarding 'Regional Municipality of Durham Mixed Waste
Pre -Sort Anaerobic Digestion Facility and Long -Term Waste Management Plan'.
Thank you,
Melodee Smart I Administrative Assistant
The Regional Municipality of Durham I Works Department — Commissioner's Office
605 Rossland Road East, Level 5, Whitby, Ontario UN 6A3
5
905-668-7711 or 1-800-372-1102 extension 3560 1 durlpra 36
i
DURHAM
REO!2NJI
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Works Department
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 5
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax: 905-668-2051
durham.ca
Sent via mail and email (gasserlinda@gmail.com)
November 24, 2020
Linda Gasser
111 Ferguson Street
Whitby, Ontario L1 N 2X7
Dear Ms. Gasser:
RE: Regional Municipality of Durham Mixed Waste Pre -Sort
Anaerobic Digestion Facility and Long -Term Waste
Management Plan
Thank you for your comments submitted to the Municipality of Clarington
(Clarington) Council as well as the Regional Municipality of Durham
(Region) Works Committee received November 9, 2020. Region staff offer
the following responses with regards to your questions.
Mixed Waste Pre-sort Anaerobic Digestion Facility
The previous Regional composition study and pilot assessment was
completed with a specific technology set associated with an existing facility.
From the results of the study, it was determined that the testing facility did
not offer an appropriate solution for the Region. The proposed Mixed Waste
Pre-sort Anaerobic Digestion (MWP/AD) facility has more specific
objectives that will allow the Region to meet targets in the provincial Food
and Organic Waste Policy Statement and integrates into the existing waste
management systems in the Region. Mixed Waste Pre-sort (MWP) is one
available technology to increase the capture of organics that is also being
investigated by other municipalities.
The proposed MWP will allow the Region to meet several objectives in
relation to the facility. These include the primary objective of separation of
residual organics from the mixed waste stream diverting them to organics
processing and resulting in the generation of renewable energy in the form
of natural gas. Secondly, the process will allow the recovery of non-
combustible materials including metals and rubble, by removing these
materials prior to the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC). The Region will
avoid incurring the costs associated with processing this material through
the DYEC, where its inert nature would not result in energy production or a
reduction in disposal volume. Additionally, the MWP will have the ability to
Page 37
L. Gasser
Mixed Waste Pre -Sort Anaerobic Digestion and
Long -Term Waste Management Plan
November 24, 2020
Page 2 of 3
sort wastes, recovering marketable materials where market demand exists and in
response to shifting conditions in the material streams and marketplace.
MWP/AD will allow the Region to expand the acceptable items in the current Green Bin
program to include pet waste, diapers and sanitary products. This increases the level of
service to Regional residents by reducing the average storage time for several odourous
materials by including them into a weekly, rather than a bi-weekly collection program. Also,
due to the technology being employed there will no longer be a requirement for
compostable bags. This will increase program participation rates as well as the capture of
organics. This is anticipated to increase the Region's diversion rate to over 70 per cent.
The generation of organics recovered from the waste stream has been raised as a
concern. However, it should be noted that many other jurisdictions operate Anaerobic
Digestion (AD) facilities from programs with much higher contamination rates of the feed
material than the Region's system. To ensure materials from both organic sources can be
used at their highest reuse potential, for the initial commissioning, the Region intends to
specify that the MWP/AD will process digestates derived from the source separated
organics (Green Bin) separate from the facility separated organics derived from the MWP.
These two sources of organics for AD will remain separate until such time that it can be
demonstrated that satisfactory performance of both processing lines are in keeping with
relevant guidelines.
Combustible residues remaining after processing at the MWP/AD facility will continue to be
within the scope of the current contract for the DYEC. No new materials are proposed to
be processed due to the development of the MWP/AD facility, as the MWP is intended to
divert additional materials from the residential waste stream prior to it being delivered for
energy recovery in keeping with the waste hierarchy. All Environmental Compliance
Approval (ECA) emission limits will continue to apply. By removing recyclable materials
and high moisture content organics, it is anticipated that following MWP the DYEC will
operate more efficiently, increasing the amount of energy recovered per tonne of materials.
By sorting organics, non -combustibles and recyclable materials during the MWP, there will
be a smaller amount of processed material sent to the DYEC, thereby delaying a future
expansion.
Long -Term Waste Management Plan
At the Energy from Waste -Waste Management Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC)
meeting of September 24, members requested that the Long -Term Waste Management
Plan (LTWMP) Guiding Principles (GP) be referred to Works staff for comment and for
staff to answer the question of where the evidence is that shows Regional Council
Page 38
L. Gasser
Mixed Waste Pre -Sort Anaerobic Digestion and
Long -Term Waste Management Plan
November 24, 2020
Page 3 of 3
approved the GP and report back to the Committee, and further, once the response is
confirmed, that a special EFW-WMAC meeting be called for the purpose of providing
comments for the LTWMP.
Please find attached a summary outlining the approval of the LTWMP's GP by Regional
Council, as confirmed by Legislative Services and in addition to the response from Nancy
Taylor, Commissioner, Finance, included as correspondence in the EFW-WMAC
Addendum of September 24, which confirmed the following:
"...2020 Works Department Business Plans and Budgets which was subsequently
presented to the Works Committee on February 5, 2020, and recommended that
the Finance and Administration Committee for subsequent recommendation to
Regional Council approve the 2020 Property Tax Supported Business Plans and
Budgets for the Works Department's General Tax and Solid Waste Management
operations. This report has additional detail that may assist you in determining
prioritizations and action items, including Solid Waste Management. It can be found
at the following link: https://calendar.durham.ca/meetings/Detail/2020-02-05-0930-
Works-Committee-Meeting. Within the February 11, 2020 F&A minutes (page 15)
and subsequently at the February 26, 2020 meeting of Regional Council (minutes
page 19), the 2020 Business Plan and Budget for Solid Waste Management at a
net property tax requirement of $47,736,000 was recommended and approved, as
is detailed in the 2020 Solid Waste Management Business Plan and Budget
available to you (page 272) at the following link:
https://www.durham.ca/en/resources/2020-Detailed-Durham-Region-Approved-
Business-Plans-and-Property-Tax-Supported-Budgets.pdf...".
Sincerely,
Gioseph Anello, M.Eng., P.Eng., PMP
Director, Waste Management Services
c. J. Gallagher, Municipal Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
Enclosure
Page 39
Summary of Durham Region Council Approval
of Waste Management Services' Long -Term Waste
Management Plan's Guiding Principles
Committee of the Whole Meeting of January 15, 2020
Solid Waste Management: 2020 Strategic Issues and Financial Forecast (Report #2020-COW-2)
4.2 The 2021 to 2040 Long -Term Waste Management Plan will be guided by the following principles, as
identified and consistent with the 2019 Solid Waste Management Servicing and Financing Study (2019-
COW-03):
a) Working with rapid and diverse population growth to ensure community vitality and innovate how
the Region delivers cost effective waste management services to its communities.
b) Working in collaboration with producers and importers of designated products and packaging under
"Extended Producer Responsibility" regulations and strategies to transition the full costs for
managing these materials from municipalities to producers and importers.
c) Applying innovative approaches to repurposing the Region's waste streams and managing them as
resources in a circular economy and developing local opportunities that contribute toward ensuring
the Region's economic prosperity.
d) Demonstrating leadership in sustainability to address the climate crisis by adopting new or adjusting
existing waste management programs and technologies and green energy solutions to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Committee of the Whole Meeting of January 15, 2020
Moved by Councillor Lee, Seconded by Councillor Barton,
(3) That we recommend to Council:
That the 2020 Solid Waste Management Strategic Issues and Financial Forecast be received and
forwarded to the 2020 Business Planning and Budget deliberations.
[CARRIED]
Regional Council Meeting of January 29, 2020
10.3 Report of the Committee of the Whole
2. Solid Waste Management: 2020 Strategic Issues and Financial Forecast (Report #2020-COW-2)
[CARRIED]
That the 2020 Solid Waste Management Strategic Issues and Financial Forecast be received and
forwarded to the 2020 Business Planning and Budget deliberations.
Moved by Councillor Chapman, Seconded by Councillor Collier,
(26) That the recommendations contained in Items 1 and 2 inclusive of the First Report of the Committee of
the Whole be adopted.
[CARRIED]
Regional Council Meeting of February 26, 2020 approved the 2020 Business Planning and Budget
Page 40
Sage the lives of 37 Cedar and Pine trees on the
east side of Richfield Square
Concerned Richfield Residents started this petit ion to Municipality of Clarington
We, the undersigned, request that the Municipality of
Clarington accept our petition in regards to the proposal at 1668
Nash Rd. We request that the 37 Cedar and Pine trees on the
east side of Richfield Square (beside the guardrail) remain
completely untouched. These trees have existed for about 60
years. We respect the limes of these trees, the animals that are
supported by these trees, and the barrier / aesthetic they
provide.
Also, we have seen the actual municipal map plan showing an
access point out onto Richfield Square. We request that there be
no access point from the development out onto Richfield.
787 have signed. Let's get to 1,00Q
Ottawa, K2J
Canada
04
0 Display my name and comment on this petition
By signing, you accept Change_org's Terms of
Service and Privacy Policy, and agree to receive
occasional emails about campaigns on Changeorg.
You can unsubscribe at any time.
Page 41
Clarington
MEMO
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Date: December 1, 2020
File No: PLN 40
Re: LPAT Decision for East Gwillimbury, ZONE Clarington — Review of
potential alternative approaches
When the rural phase of Zone Clarington was tabled, one of the decisions we were
awaiting was the appeal filed by Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA)
to portions of the Town of East Gwillimbury's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2018-
043. LSRCA filed the LPAT appeal on the basis that the Town's new comprehensive
zoning by-law was not in conformity with Provincial policy, the York Region Official Plan
or the East Gwillimbury Official Plan as it relates to the protection of natural heritage
features. This fall, LSRCA's appeal was withdrawn after LSRCA and East Gwillimbury
reached a mutual agreement as outlined in Town of East Gwillimbury Administration
Report ADMIN2020-07. Staff have subsequently consulted with East Gwillimbury and
LSRCA staff to further understand the agreement that was reached between the parties
and next steps for its implementation.
While taking into consideration the outcomes of the LSRCA / East Gwillimbury zoning
by-law appeal matter, staff are looking at approaches that other municipalities have
taken. What other municipalities are doing can provide options as to how to approach
Zone Clarington while ensuring that we address policy conformity, transparency,
modernization and ease of implementation.
Early in the new year, Planning and Development Services would like to bring forward a
report to Planning and Development Committee on a potential alternative approach to
rural area zoning and the implementation of Provincial, Regional and Local policy to
provide for the protection of agricultural land and the natural heritage system. The
examination of potential alternative approaches would consider the concerns heard
from the community and Council in response to the First Draft Zoning By-law.
As this matter relates to the tabled, rural portion of the zoning by-law review project, a
report and its recommendations cannot be considered by Committee or Council until a Page 11
motion has been made to lift the matter from the table by Council, with notice given in
accordance with section 7.13 of the Procedural By-law 2015-029. Since the tabling
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net
Page 42
occurred at a Planning and Development Committee meeting, it can be lifted either at
Committee or Council, but notice is required. This could be achieved by either a motion
from Committee/Council OR by two Members of Council advising the Municipal Clerk,
that they wish to move/second a lifting motion, prior to publication of the agenda.
Staff are seeking Council direction on whether they are willing to receive a Report that
would explore potential alternative approaches to address the rural portion of Zone
Clarington. If Council wishes to do so, the following motion would be in order:
That Council direct staff to report back on the potential alternative options to rural
area zoning;
That notice is hereby given that the matter of the rural portion of the zoning by-law
amendment be lifted from the table; and
That all interested parties be notified of the upcoming report.
Sincerely,
Faye Langmaid
Acting Director of Planning & Development Services
*av
cc: CAO
Department Heads
J. Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 12
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net
Page 43
RONALD F. WORBOY, B.A., L.L.B.
Parrisfar,,*nlirifnr
mviney(�neallaw.ca
Ibackus(a clarington.net
cpeIIerin(a,claring ton. net
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Attn: Carlo Pellerin
Lisa Baccus
Joseph Neal
TELEPHONE (905) 723-2288
FAX (905) 576-1355
153 SIMCOE STREET NORTH
OSHAWA, ONTARIO
L1G 4S6
E-MAIL rfw@worboylaw.ca
December 4t", 2020
RE: SOUTH EAST COURTICE SECONDARY PLAN AMENDMENTS —
Meeting
RE: ALEX MUIR AND JAMES MUIR
Dear Madam and Sirs,
I have met again with Alex Muir and James Muir with regard to the South
East Courtice Secondary Plan. My clients are extremely disappointed that their
submission of June 23rd, 2020, has been completely ignored. I enclose same.
Again, I am submitting an attached Plan with a major request that High
Density Residential be included as per the enclosed Land Use Plan originally
Page 44
2
submitted June 231d, 2020. The plan being put forward by the Municipality is
flawed in the sense that:
a) Designated High Density Residential (referred to on Plan attached)
which includes Mixed Use is already primarily retail commercial. My
clients submit that the High Density Area as shown on the enclosed
plan would permit a development of a high density pod involving a
number of permitted high density towers.
b) In addition, would you please include a Medium Density Residential
Designation as per request my clients. The location of the High Density
Residential Area with Mixed Use as shown in the clients submitted
Plan together with Medium Density Residential would permit a
designation of residential density in keeping with the south east corner
of Courtice Road and Highway #2. The environmental protection area
on the submitted Secondary Use Plan certainly provides the spine for
park area without providing park north of Sandringham Drive.
Please consider and amend the plan accordingly.
Thanking you and I remain,
Yours very truly,
RO F. WORBOY
RFW/ahw
Enclosures
Page 45
RONALD F. WORBOY, B.A., L.L.B.
Parrisfer, Sulidtar
TRANSMITTED BY E-MAIL ONLY
TELEPHONE (905) 723-2288
FAX (905) 576-1355
153 SIMCOE STREET NORTH
OSHAWA. ONTARIO
June 23rd, 2020. L1G ass
E-MAIL rtw@worboylaw.ca
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON
Planning Division,
40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1C 5A6
Attention: Carlo Pellerin
Lisa Backus
Joseph Neal
Dear Sirs:
RE: SOUTHEAST COURTICE SECONDARY PLAN
RE: ALEXANDER MUIR and JAMES MUIR
I have met with Alexander Muir and James Muir with regard to the Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan.
Alexander Muir and James Muir want to have the draft plan amended as follows:
Page 46
2
a) To provide a block of high density residential at the north west corner of their property
as coloured brown on their submission;
b) The north east corner of their property be amended to provide Block of medium
residential;
c) Move the park south to partially include the wood lot (north end of Tooley Creek);
The above configuration of high residential and medium residential would provide better
usage of park area.
The part of the Plan on the Muir property in built form is a true mixed use plan that focuses
density and minor retail at the transit notes of Highway 2 and Hancock Road.
My clients thought that the "use" plan as submitted with the Southeast Courtice Plan would
include Land Use Summary showing area of residential, mixed use, parks, school, open space and
total land area.
RFW/lrb
Yours very truly,
kNDWORBOY
Page 47
-0
0
9
0
-E
0
a) a
E c,:
D
.2,0
z CL
-IOU
a
CU 0
U)
a)
PB08)PDOUBH
CD
-------------------
pooti soginoo
-t ------- ---
E
.
-Po -IOR-BA
I L
n.
li
<
ry
o
Z"
'o,
au))
PecPd -.PuJ. Lj
u) 3
(D
u)
R E E o..
'0
C)
L
E 5
Lu uj
A uj uj
A-1
.x
X3—
O
o
Cl)
a)
-E
co
E
a. o
E u)
LL.
Lu
.in(n x z o_
cMo
LU
C/)
0
n
�(D(Do q
0
x
LL
<
m
40-
9�
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-052-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 34.2.24.1 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Heritage Incentive Grant Program Annual Report for 2020
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-052-20 be received; and
2. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-052-20 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
Page 49
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-052-20
Report Overview
Page 2
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG)
Program activity in 2020. The intent of the HIG Program is to provide owners of properties
designated under Parts IV and V of the Ontario Heritage Act, 2005 with financial support to
assist with the cost of repairs and restoration of their property's identified heritage features.
1. Background
1.1. The Ontario Heritage Act, 2005 (OHA) enables municipalities to designate properties of
cultural heritage value or interest and identify specific features to be conserved. The
OHA, in conjunction with the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 also provides
municipalities the opportunity to implement heritage grant and/or tax relief programs,
recognizing heritage properties can be more costly to restore and maintain than newer
buildings.
1.2. Clarington's Property Standards By-law 2007-070 addresses property standards
requirements specific to designated heritage properties, requiring identified heritage
features to be maintained, preserved, and protected.
1.3. The Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) Program was established in 2013 to assist the
owners of properties designated under Parts IV and V of the OHA with financing the
cost of repairs and restoration. The HIG Program is targeted towards maintaining and
preserving those heritage attributes identified in each property's designation by-law.
2. Heritage Incentive Grant Program
HIG Program Guidelines and Procedures
2.1. The HIG Program provides owners of designated heritage properties with grants of up
to 50% of the costs of eligible works to a maximum of $2,000 for exterior projects, and
up to $1,000 for interior work.
2.2. Eligible works generally relate to the maintenance, repair and preservation of heritage
attributes identified in the property's designation by-law and may also include
reconstruction of existing heritage features that are beyond repair, required structural
works, and repair of mortar. Priority is typically given to applications for works that
specifically address the repair and restoration of heritage features listed in the
designation by-law.
Page 50
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-052-20
2.4. In the spring of each year a letter is sent to owners of designated heritage properties
advising them of the HIG Program and inviting them to submit a HIG application. HIG
applications are required to be submitted by the end of May of each year for processing.
In most cases, a Heritage Permit application is required to be submitted in conjunction
with the HIG application in accordance with the OHA requirements for a proposed
alteration to a designated heritage property.
2.5. Applications are reviewed by the Planning and Development Services Department. In
cases where a Heritage Permit is required under the OHA, the proposal is also
reviewed by the Clarington Heritage Committee. If all eligibility criteria and HIG Program
requirements are met, the Director of Planning and Development Services may approve
the HIG.
2.6. All proposed works are required to be undertaken in accordance with an associated
Heritage Permit and the Ontario Building Code and meet all applicable planning and
zoning requirements. Grants are issued upon the completion of the works to the
satisfaction of the Municipality, and confirmation that property taxes are up-to-date.
Properties that are currently in receipt of other grants or tax incentives from the
Municipality are not eligible for the HIG Program.
3. 2020 HIG Program Activity
3.1. Three applications for HIGs were received in 2020 in response to the letter notifying
designated property owners of the Program.
3.2. Funding ranging from 30% to 50% of the total eligible project costs was allocated to the
three designated properties for works that included:
• Repair of a chimney (110 Wellington Street);
• Repair of exterior features including window brackets, hood mouldings, transom,
and sidelights (182 Church Street); and
• Repair of windows, trim, and soffits (67 Ontario Street).
3.3. At the time of writing, two 2020 HIG projects have been completed and grants have
been issued.
3.4. Uptake of the HIG Program has proven successful, with little funding unexpended year
to year. Generally, funding that remains unallocated in a given year is carried over for
use in following years. A small amount remains unallocated from the 2020 budget and
will be carried over to support applications in 2021.
Page 51
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-052-20
Page 4
3.5. Throughout the year, staff received inquiries about the HIG Program that did not result
in 2020 HIG applications, either due to the timing of the project or the ineligibility of the
proposed works. The availability of contractors with expertise and experience in
heritage construction is an ongoing issue for many designated property owners, and
often contributes to project delays.
4. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
5. Conclusion
4.1 The intent of the HIG Program is to provide owners of properties designated under
Parts IV and V of the OHA with financial support to assist with the cost of repairs and
restoration of their property.
4.2 HIG Program uptake continues to be strong in the context of the funding available, and
particularly so in the light of the COVID-19 situation.
4.3 2020 HIG grants ranging from 30% to 50% of total eligible project costs were allocated
to designated property owners in support of their contribution to conserving Clarington's
built heritage fabric. To this end, 34 HIG applications have been approved and $34,650
of grant funding has been issued since the implementation of the HIG Program in 2013.
4.4 It is respectfully recommended that this report be received for information.
Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Planner II, 905-623-3379 extension 2419 or sallin@clarington.net.
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Clarington Heritage Committee
Page 52
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-053-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN17.1.6 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Environmental Stewardship Program - 2020 Annual Report
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-053-20 be received; and
2. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-053-20 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
Page 53
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-053-20
Report Overview
Page 2
Council provides annual funding for an ongoing Environmental Stewardship Program. The
program encourages citizens and groups to carry out initiatives that improve municipal lands,
such as valleylands and natural areas. Since 2011, a key component of this program has
included the replanting of trees along rural roads. The benefits of the program go beyond the
monetary value of the projects, and include ecological enhancement, climate change
mitigation, community beautification, preservation of historical landscapes, education and
research, and community engagement through volunteerism. In 2020, the Environmental
Stewardship Program continued to support the Trees for Rural Roads initiative, contributing
to the planting of 588 saplings and 50 shrubs along rural roads in Clarington.
1. Background
1.1. Beginning in 2002, Council has provided annual funding for an ongoing Environmental
Stewardship Program. When approving projects for funding, Staff review projects to
ensure general public benefit, matching in -kind contributions (labour and/or materials),
and how a project meets the long-term objectives of the Municipality.
1.2. The purpose of this report is to inform Council of how the funds were used in 2020.
2. 2020 Stewardship Projects
Trees for Rural Roads
2.1. In 2012, Clarington initiated the Trees for Rural Roads (TRR) program in partnership
with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority (GRCA). The goal of the program is to plant trees along country
roads for the benefit of the environment and local communities. Increasing tree canopy
cover improves wildlife habitat and enhances environmental services, including carbon
sequestration and cooling of roadways, while preserving the historical rural aesthetics of
the area.
2.2. The TRR program is announced through articles in local newspapers, the planning E-
update and the Municipal website and social media. Trees are offered free of charge to
rural residents to be planted on private property adjacent to municipal roadways.
Participants have their choice of native tree species, including sugar, silver and red
maples, white pine, white spruce, white birch, and red and white oak.
2.3. Applications are reviewed by the applicable Conservation Authority staff to ensure
planting locations support the intent of the program, do not conflict with infrastructure,
and trees have an appropriate separation from each other and from the road.
Page 54
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-053-20
Page 3
2.4. The 2020 application intake window ran from January 15 to March 31 and was quickly
followed by the distribution of 588 saplings to 46 rural property owners throughout
Clarington (Attachment 1 — Map of the roadways planted to date).
2.5. To support property owners who have site limitations that restrict their ability to plant
trees (e.g. overhead utilities), a native shrub pilot project was trialled as part of the 2020
TRR program. Three native shrub species, Nannyberry, Highbush Cranberry and
Serviceberry, were made available. The provision of shrubs was at the discretion of the
Conservation Authority. In total, 50 shrubs were distributed to six property owners
throughout Clarington (incorporated into Attachment 1 — Map of the roadways planted to
date).
2.6. Due to COVID-19 and the emergency declaration called by the Province on March 17,
2020, modifications to the traditional approach for tree distribution were necessary. A
contactless drop-off service was provided, delivered by Staff from Community Services.
Staff practiced appropriate social distancing when loading and delivering plants and
were not approached by any program participants.
Figure 1 Staff practicing social distancing when loading and delivering plants
2.7. Since 2013, the TRR program has received partial funding through Maple Leaves
Forever, a registered charity that advocates and supports the planting of native
Canadian maples across the rural and urban landscape of southern Ontario. Native
maples were subsidized at a rate of one third of the purchase price of the planting stock.
Page 55
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-053-20
2.8. A feedback survey of TRR program participants is undertaken in order to help improve
the program for future years. The 2020 survey respondents indicated that they were
very satisfied with the program, planting information and delivery. In addition, several
positive comments and appreciation was expressed for the adaption of the program in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall the response and satisfaction of rural
residents with this program and its goals is very positive. In September, overall survival
rate appeared to be in the 75 to 80% range for saplings, with coniferous species
generally coping with the dry summer better than the deciduous species. Overall
survival rate of shrubs appeared to be in the 80 to 100% range, with more Highbush
Cranberry being lost than any other type of shrub.
Figure 2: Delivery team member with healthy conifers
Page 56
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-053-20
2.9. In September 2020 the five Conservation Authorities in Durham Region submitted a
proposal to the Region of Durham to develop and implement a region -wide rural tree
planting program, using the TRR program as a template. The submission proposes that
the Conservation Authorities in Durham Region coordinate their efforts to build
relationships with rural landowners to identify tree planting sites, source and distribute
suitable trees, leverage funding from a variety of sources, and track and report on the
success of the program. Program implementation would be administered by the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. If approved, program development is
targeted to proceed in Spring 2021.
Other Projects
2.10. In 2020, a request for support from the Environmental Stewardship Program was
received from the GRCA to help address and stop the spread of Japanese Knotweed
along a reach of Foster Creek in Newcastle. Working in collaboration with the Public
Works Department and the Conservation Authority, a management plan and treatment
schedule was established with costs being allocated through the Municipality's existing
invasive species management budget.
2.11. At the time of writing this report, an additional funding request was received from
CLOCA to support the purchase of a Biotactic Fish Counter for the Bowmanville Creek
Fishway. The fish counter would provide real time data on the type, number and rates
of fish passage through the system. It would support the monitoring and management
of this important cold -water creek system, supplement spring and fall spawning counts
undertaken by the Bowmanville Creek Conservation Group and contribute to a growing
provincial network of fishway monitoring systems actively followed by anglers,
fisherman and other conservationists. This funding request will be considered for
commitment as part of the 2021 program.
Figure 3: Biotactic Fish Counter Demonstration in the Bowmanville Fishway (2016)
Page 57
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-053-20
3. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
4. Conclusion
4.1. The Environmental Stewardship Program in Clarington is an initiative that has been well
received in the community. Since 2002, over $180,000 has been invested in numerous
projects; however, the value of the in -kind contributions multiplies the benefits many
times over. The benefits go well beyond the monetary value of the projects to include
ecological enhancement, climate change mitigation, community beautification,
preservation of historical landscapes, education and research, and community
engagement through volunteerism.
4.2. Tree planning initiatives, such as the TRR program, increase the Municipality's
resilience to climate change by helping to cool both urban and rural areas. Trees also
sequester carbon from the atmosphere, reducing greenhouse gasses that contribute to
climate change. Staff continue to work diligently to develop the Clarington Corporate
Climate Action Plan (CCAP), to identify specific actions that the Municipality can take to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the risks associated with climate change.
The CCAP is expected to be complete in February 2020. The Municipality's tree
planting programs are a tangible way for the Municipality can continue to work to
respond to climate change.
4.3. Clarington "led the way" with the introduction of the TRR program in 2012. Since then,
the program has been adopted and adapted by other local municipalities and continues
to garner interest.
Staff Contact: Amy Burke, Acting Manager - Special Projects, 905-623-3379 x2423 or
aburke@clarington.net.
Attachment:
Attachment 1 — Trees for Rural Roads Map of Planting 2012-2020
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Page 58
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-054-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: SBA 2020-0001 By-law Number:
Report Subject: An application by Goldmanco Inc. to amend Sign By-law 2009-123 to
permit two oversized ground signs at the southeast corner of Highway 2
and Trulls Road, Courtice.
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-054-20 be received;
2. That two ground signs be permitted, measuring 4.01 m in height and 5.6 m2 in
display area, in accordance with all other applicable provisions of the Sign By-law
2009-123, at the southeast corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road, Courtice;
3. That the amending By-law attached to Report PSD-054-20, as Attachment 2, be
approved; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-054-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Page 60
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-054-20
Report Overview
Page 2
Goldmanco Inc., the developer of the Courtice Urban Centre located at Trulls Road and
Highway 2, previously submitted a Sign By-law Amendment application to permit a monolith
sign along the Highway 2 frontage.
After discussions with staff and members of Council, Goldmanco has revised their
application. A monolith sign is no longer being requested. Instead, they are requesting a
Sign By-law Amendment to permit two oversized ground signs at the southeast corner of
Highway 2 and Trulls Road.
1. Original Application
1.1 A commercial, mixed -use development is under construction at the southeast corner of
Highway 2 and Trulls Road in Courtice. This project will include six commercial and one
mixed -use building. The buildings currently under construction include a Food Basics
supermarket, Shoppers Drug Mart and Dollarama. The expected completion date is
early 2021.
1.2 To support the promotion of this new development, a Sign By-law Amendment
application was submitted requesting a monolith sign along Highway 2. The intent of
this sign was primarily to advertise tenants who were located at the southern side or
interior of the property and did not have direct exposure along Highway 2. Report PSD-
031-20 was presented at the Joint Committee on September 14, 2020.
1.3 Both during and following the meeting on September 14, Council discussed the
appropriateness of the proposed monolith sign. Additional information provided to
Council did not satisfy all outstanding concerns.
1.4 In an effort to address Council's concerns, the Applicant revised their signage proposal.
Page 61
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-054-20
2. Revised Application
2.1 The revised signage proposal has eliminated the use of a monolith sign along Highway
2. Instead, the revised proposal is for two oversized ground signs located at the
southeast corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road (see Figure 1).
�urla►k n
�4 l�kY
J Ground Signs"'�'^"M'=
BUILDING C
YmH nonuaw wu.r .� �
-
�
0!
0
a.
IL01I i
OUR
Y A
T
v �
- II
it
r
I I BUILDING 8
1
f-
if
' imrlll�iiiiia
6MMMMEMuOMMM ��ii0��mmrl
b m Is, a
Figure 1: Proposed ground signs location at Highway 2 and Trulls Road
2.2 The two proposed ground signs exceed the maximum height and display area permitted
for this type of sign (see Table 1 and Figure 2). An amendment to the Sign By-law is
required to permit the proposed signs.
Sign By-law Max.
Requested
Height
3m
4.01 m
Sign Area
3.75m2
5.6m2
Table 1: Requested Sign Amendment
Page 62
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-054-20
Figure 2: Proposed Ground Signs
3. Staff Comments
Page 4
3.1 Ground signs are permitted in more locations than pylon and monolith signs because
they are shorter and contain a smaller display area. The Applicant has proposed to
reduce the overall profile of the signage on -site by using ground signs instead of a
larger monolith sign. However, due to the total number of tenants that will occupy this
site it is useful for the ground signs to be taller and larger than standard requirements
permit. The increased height and display area will continue to be in -scale with the
proposed buildings that will flank the signs at the northwest corner of the site as well as
the landscaping designed for the corner (see Figure 3).
Page 63
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-054-20
Page 5
3.2 The applicant has cooperated with Staff and Council members to arrive at a proposal
that will satisfy the needs of the future commercial tenants while being respectful of
good urban design principles. The approved landscaping plan will support this Sign By-
law amendment application.
Figure 3: View of the landscaped corner facing southeast from Highway 2 and Trulls Road
4. History of Development Rights
4.1 During the course of the discussion about signage on the subject property, questions
were raised about the development rights and built form requirements for the subject
site in the context of the Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan. A brief outline of the
development rights for this property is contained in Attachment 3.
5. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
6. Conclusion
6.1 The future business owners within this development will be looking to maximize their
exposure to the passing public. The proposed amendment to the ground sign
permissions will not impede vision or create a safety hazard. The design of these signs
reflects the high quality of design found in the remainder of the development and will be
in -scale with the surrounding buildings.
Page 64
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-054-20
Page 6
6.2 It is respectfully recommended that the amendment (Attachment 2) to Sign By-law
2009-123 to permit two ground signs, measuring 4.01 metres in height and with a
display area of 5.6 ml, at the southeast corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road, be
approved.
Staff Contact: Paul Wirch, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2418 or pwirch clarington.net.
Carlos Salazar, Manager, csalazar(c�clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Approved Site Plan
Attachment 2 — Amending Sign By-law
Attachment 3 — History of Development Rights
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 65
rnxO
a
c �
r oNCRt'leHZI
sroEwgr = � __ \ \
IV
Y
o ✓ � � �,�g \ \ � Imo.. PPROp°Rose°N rvWGP��� \\\MCIS/ o � \ \ \,
Y � �egy�^% �;FNr°FGNorrq �
o T r
Falloscn>enaen >nvrxs rl PROPpSEOGO
II PERaou i_taieNrO R�Ap BUIz �N REY
c^NOpy-,eovR RAn I'/oa 36Fn. to �Gs
2 ALK� 1 _, NrRgS,�f
•y[E"rRgNC,
Irry� �Pi R
BUILDINGC / "ter„wF „ pR°roEnu
PROPOSED I STOREY A a
ro*uRING
l.00R ARUeA�b brio m. _ _ 1400
Isa.z.1 s9.n.1 QMx -
L
%l
BUILDING B•'
IN
PROPOSED I STOREY
RETAIL BUILDING
TOTAL ROOR AREA,
.5
n
u
1
�ooe�00000e
��0
�
M1TT
III
11
, V
BUILDING A
PROP OSEDISTOREY
RETAIL UILDINSG
TOTAL reOBAREA,
laa,9a4.a s4rr) :5 s9
5
I
I
I
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-054-20
pxoros[ slotwAlx SITE PLAN NOTES THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE & IS
1FV� THE PROPERTY OF ABA ARCHITECTS INC. 8 CANNOT
1. LEGALDESCRIPTION: PART OF LOT 30 CONCESSION 2 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON, NOW IN THE ¢0 BE MODIFIED AND/OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE
EXISn l MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM -j PERMISSION OF ABA ARCHITECTS INC.
NG TS / 2, SITE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM IVAN S. WALUICE; FILE NUMBER: 5-11446-RPUW-V4
�M1f)C CE / 3. FOR SITE GRADING, SERVICES & STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REFER TO DRAWINGS PREPARED BY CANDEVCONa THE CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS
N)AE / y\4JI /[��/ ITV/// ON SITE AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE
/ =
/ 4. FOR
LAND WORK REFER TO DRAWINGS PREPARED BY BRODIE & ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC. ARCHITECT, BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
FOLL ROR SITE LIGHTING REFER TO DRAWINGS PREPARED BY INVIRO ENGINEERED SYSTEM LTD. DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED.
/ ADS ISLANDS SHALL HAVE 150mm CU RBS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. A 6.
2. CURB RADIUS=1.20m UNLESS OTHERWISE DIMENSIONED.
B. STANDARD PARKING STALLS TO BE 2.75m x 5.70m
8. BARRIER FREE PARKING STALLS TO MEET THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REQUIREMENTS OF 4.5m x 5.2m OR 3.4m
4 N x5.]m WHEN PAIRED, INCLUDING ALL APPLICABLE ACCESS AISLES (1.5mWIDE). \O Al.SS��I
CB E L 9. ALL OUTDOOR UGHTING MUST BE FULL CUT-OFF AND HAVE NO GLARE. 9
10. FIRE HYDRANTS ARE TO BE PAINTED RED
aR°Nyy 11. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHOULD BE ERECTED AROUND ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPED AREAS TO REMAIN AND
oR yxsocgrbN SHOULD REMAIN ON SITE FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. A T O
A/ e RAMPED ASPHALT DETAIL m 12. ALL ROOF- TOP EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED AND/OR LOCATED SO THAT IT CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THE STREET.
13. SIGNAGE (BUILDING, PYLON & OTHERWISE) NOT APPROVED VIA THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS.
\ 12. ANYMULTIPLEUNIi IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGETO HAVE REFLECTIVE LETTERING. SFIELD; • /� \ \ AS PER 3.8.3.2131 14. THERE WILL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF ANY ITEMSONSITE.-ANOREW M
15. ALLGARBAGETO BE STORED INTERNALLY UNTIL PICKUP. LICENCE
16. LIGHT FIXTURES& BOLLARDS ARE NOT TO OBSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT. 43]1
18 EXCESS SNOW TO BE REMOVED FROM SITE
ABM 4'
EFAI
1
M.na.
LIII■1
\ \ \ \ 19. INTERIOR OF PARKING GARAGE TO BE PAINTED WHITE IN ENTIRETY.
X. LIGHTING IN PARKING GARAGE TO BE RECESSED AND MUST NOT SPILL OUT, SHOULD NOT"GLARE' OVER TO STREET OR
PROPERTIES NOR SHOULD THE LIGHTING BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
\PRorKy.EOM \ 21. RESPECTING ALL WORK IN THE MUNICIPAL RIGHT OF WAY, THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE AT LEAST 4B HOURS
PRIOR TO NOTICE TO THE CLARINGTON ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF AT 905-623-33I9.
/ucNw "'V, 22. AR CAD OCCUPANCY PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK DONE IN THE MUNICIPAL ROAD ALLOWANCE.
EXCAVATION OF THE ROAD SURFACE IS NOT PERMITTED BETWEEN DECEMBER I ST AND APRIL 30TH.
23. ALL RESTORATION OR WORK DONE IN THE ROAD ALLOWANCE MUST BE COMPLETED AS PER MUNICIPAL FIELD STAFF
DIRECTION.
24. THE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE WILL NOT BE REFUNDED BY THE MUNICIPAL" OF CLARINGTON UNLESS THE WORKS
HAVE BEEN INSPECTED BY MUNICIPAL FORCE AND DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE AND SATISFACTORY.
SITE LEGEND
$\ 3mxRkI.
FREEPARKING SPACE
E
EXISTING LIGHT STANDARD BARMER
xx EXISTING HYDRO POLE RYPIc°I3.65 m x5.]Omf a ACCESSIBLE PARKING
\ \ \\\ 3 \ O y�I SIGN Rb 93 (60x95) cm
j BIKE RACKS (RA) SUPPORT: STEEL
EXISTING HYDRO POLE T
Rqr \ Monos.Eo/ tl[s`� ��� p.slcx EXISTING SIGN EXISTING STANDARD
❑
x- EXISTING CATCHBASIN °S1B IRON BAR STOP SIGN RA-1160x601cm
s �> FLUSH CURBING (IC) SUPPORT: STEEL
EXISTING MANHOLE
4 r lR� ga Ox. mn CONCRETE CURB
ENTRANCE/EXIT -..- PROPERTY LINE + FIRE ROUTE SIGN S-5
%ROPas� E / � COMMERCROU PO YP/OOR \ Ieoe TT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION -_- PROPOSED FIRE ROUTE(WA5) Cm: SUPPORT:
Tc STEEL OR WALL
`3' R
TCE\EHr\m'Bgr„cFre V FIRE HYDRANT(FH) F PROPOSED CONCRETE
l� l \yam �'Et sagep 'PF9si�N ♦ PROPOSED BOLLARD PROPOSED LANDSCAPE/SOD
PRo�RDj � /--------
TRANSFORMER C/W
P T CONCRETE PAD AND
TO O •Y
I, �❑
u4 R R+M /Orq�R OIXED SFe(l ^ - \\ /o l O PROPOSED FENCE PARKING COUNT BUBBLE PROPOSED SNOW STORAGE AREA GROUNDING RODS
/roa gRFAv FOING ``` CONCRETE PARKING
PROPOSED TRASH CAN
mq (9T I ® BUMPER; �iYP. IN FRONT I��yI TACTILE WARNING STRIP
�? _� ncFRooM ' o \� `•s I 4 PROPOSED LIGHT STANDARD OF STORE FRONT) ICI INDIC
DROP CURB
C/W
`10 • ® BENCH ON CONCRETE PAD
s o 4H I
g R `w.o g. ...... .
1.
/ m l 4 «% -
4/ I
Ift
N.
�eA WG FaYE
0
3 ,
RA,FnrMx�BA,FnPa �R Rar°,EoaNasc FAl.
a° r oscnPeoaxeA -
��� ���II=
:
�■IIIIr.7�lll�lll�lll�
•
..
■
iG=
-
BUILDING F
0PROPOSED
"%
rod■
I STORE
9 `,•
-
•____I
ii�ii�i�i
��
lKIT
�'`
..... .. .. .
��O
m.n•
BUILDING G
`
PROPOSED I STOREY
RETAIL BUILDING
i
AVONDALE D Page 66
No.
REVISIONS
DATE
16
ISSUED FOR COORDINATION
2018.08.09
19
SITE PLAN RESUBMISSION
2018.08.13
18
SITE PLAN TO CLIENT
2018.08.20
19
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019.01.16
20
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019.01.24
21
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019.01.29
22
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019.M.01
23
2nd SPA RESUBMISSION
2019A2.04
24
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019.02.22
25
REISSUED TO CITY
2019.02.22
26
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019 M 27
29
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019.03.1I
28
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019.03.12
26
REISSUED TO CITY
2019.03.18
29
ISSUED TO CONSULTANTS
2019-19
28
ISSUED TO LOBLAWS
2019.1)5.06
29
ISSUED TO LANDSCAPE
2019A5.29
30
REISSUEDTO CITY
201906.11
a
KEY PLAN nTs.
SITE PLAN APPUCATION
2018A2.05
CHRONOLOGY
DATE
aba arch itects inc E.
m7l��R�
1989 L Ii, Street, Toronto Ontano M382M3
Phone: 416445.1107 Fax 416.391.0586
11OPCTNAll
COURTICE COMMONS
HIGHWAY 2 & TRULLS ROAD.
CLARINGTON, ON
SITE PLAN
H_
IFIELsn61O914 SPA.01
oL[ 20174195 0124195
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-054-20
The Corporation of The Municipality of Clarington
By -Law No. 2020-
being a by-law to amend By-law 2009-0123, the Sign By-law for the
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to amend By-law 2009-0123, as amended, of the Municipality of Clarington in
accordance with application SBA 2020-0001 to permit two oversized ground signs at the
northwest corner of the Courtice Urban Centre development;
Now Therefore be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
Section 9 — EXCEPTIONS BY AMENDMENT is hereby amended by inserting the
following new subsection:
9.29 Notwithstanding Section 7.10 and 7.11 to this By -Law, two ground signs,
measuring 4.01 m in height and 5.6 m2 in display area, are permitted, in
accordance with all other applicable provisions of the By-law, at the
southeast corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road, Courtice.
By-law passed in open session this day of 2020
Mayor Adrian Foster, Mayor
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 67
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-054-20
Date
Courtice Main Street
Courtice Commons
(S.E. Hwy 2 & Trulls)
1984 September
Zoning By-law approved
Property is zoned "Holding -
General Commercial (Cl)".
Permits one -storey retail and
service stores.
2010 September
Courtice Main Street Master
Development Plan approved by
Clarington Council
2012 August
Pre -consultation Meeting with
Halloway (Appendix A).
Proposal = Five, single -storey
buildings incl. a bank w/drive-
through.
2013 January
Secondary Plan (incl. Urban
Design Guidelines) adopted by
Clarington Council
2014 February
Secondary Plan (incl. Urban
Design Guidelines) adopted by
Region of Durham
2014 November
Secondary Plan (incl. Urban
Design Guidelines) approved by
Ontario Municipal Board —
Except for minimum two -storey
requirement on Courtice
Commons site
2016
Draft Zoning By-law released,
Successful negotiations with
Public Meeting
Goldmanco on the zoning for
this site.
Agreement to increase density
and height of two buildings
(D&E) and maintain one -storey
for other buildings.
Goldmanco withdraws appeal
of minimum two -storey
requirement.
2017 March
New lot created by natural
severance when Avondale
Drive transferred to the
Municipality
2017 June
Pre -consultation Meeting with
Goldmanco (Appendix B).
Proposal = Six buildings incl.
two storey plaza and four
storey apartment bldg.
'�
Date
Courtice Main Street
Courtice Commons
S.E. Hwy 2 & Trulls
Late 2017
Negotiations with Goldmanco
leading to the increase of the
apartment building from four to
six storeys.
2018 February
Site Plan application submitted
2018 June
Zoning By-law approved
Property is zoned "Urban
Centre Mixed Use (MU3-2)".
Permits one storey
development along Trulls
Road and in the centre of the
site together with two to six
storey development along
Highway 2.
2019 August
Site Plan approval
Page 69
Appendix A — Proposal by Halloway
Page 70
Appendix B — Original Proposal by Goldmanco
w
NAG
—
raY 4, ,a H
�N Nyy q Y
_-
N+�
33g HCHI/q
OROCF
0. 2
��f
�
o RS NS
Au�eNr roo
Nszss�
T . Bg4 'TDO m2
n
� RaTall
RETAIL
1n
465 48�5
l�
•9PgR��f71T�UNl
■
_
'9 09j�'Adq
r
RETAIL
4
PART 1
B
II IIII ill mil
15,035 s.f.
N
1,39&75 m
HIM
"
Pp
174 spaces
WalkweY
\ I 'I
III
-—n— LHna.cepi ng 11
Walk Walkway way
"'� \ Lendsoaping Lantlscapin a Lflntl.ceping R
3
�.` RETAIL
fi,700 a.f.
fi22.93 m
,L ■ ■
A
= SUPERMARKET
Q' r, 22, 900 s.f. 146 apses. /
G
n RETAIL
9,000 s.f.
&36.10m-
V \ II IIII IIII r, F t
Page 71
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-055-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: COPA 2020-0003; PLN 41.10 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommendation Report for Official
Plan Amendment 124
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-055-20 be received;
2. That Official Plan Amendment 124 to include the Southeast Courtice Secondary
Plan in the Clarington Official Plan be adopted;
3. That upon adoption by Council, the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan be
implemented by Staff as Council's policy on land use and planning matters and be
implemented through the capital budget program;
4. That the Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to finalize the
form and content of OPA 124, the Secondary Plan and the Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines resulting from Council's consideration, public participation,
agency comments and technical considerations;
5. That the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines appended to the Secondary
Plan be approved and be used by staff to guide development applications and public
projects;
6. That the Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to execute
any agreements to implement the Secondary Plan once adopted by Council;
7. That OPA 124 be forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval; and
8. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-055-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision regarding the adoption of the Secondary Plan.
Page 72
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Report Overview
Page 2
Staff are pleased to present the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan for Council adoption
based upon the extensive consultation that has occurred.
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment 124 is to adopt the Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan and the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines into the Clarington
Official Plan. This Amendment applies to only the lands located within the Southeast
Courtice Secondary Plan Area. The policies and guidelines will guide the creation of transit -
oriented neighbourhoods and include a diverse range of housing located within walking
distance of shopping, services, schools and amenities. The neighbourhoods will include a
variety of densities and mix of uses along Bloor Street and Courtice Road. A linked system
of parks, trails and green space will support pedestrian movement throughout the area.
These new neighbourhoods will be designed to include easily recognizable sustainable
design elements such as centrally located schools and parks to promote walkability, a
connected system of sidewalks, trails and cycle routes supported by a diverse planting
program, vegetated swales to promote groundwater infiltration as well as less recognizable
features including `green' infrastructure to address stormwater management.
After adoption by Council, the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan will be sent to the Region
of Durham for approval.
1. Purpose of the Report
1.1 The purpose of this staff report is to recommend to Council the adoption of Official Plan
Amendment 124 (OPA 124) to the Clarington Official Plan to include the Southeast
Courtice Secondary Plan in the Official Plan. The recommendation comes following a
thorough public planning process. The staff recommended OPA 124 includes the
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
are incorporated as Attachment 1 to this staff report.
1.2 This report includes a summary of the process and comments received since the
release of the draft Secondary Plan and draft Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines, and draft Official Plan Amendment on June 1, 2020.
2. Background
2.1 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan (Secondary Plan) area is located generally
between the Robinson Creek valley in the west and Hancock Road in the east. It
extends from south of Bloor Street northward to Durham Highway 2 (Figure 1).
Page 73
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Figure 1: Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Area
Page 3
2.2 There are approximately 60 landowners within this Secondary Plan area. Ownership is
a mixture of parcel sizes, including larger farm parcels and single residential lots.
2.3 The Secondary Plan area contains the headwaters and tributaries of Tooley Creek and
Robinson Creek. These watercourses, and their associated woodlots and wetlands add
interest to this area and guide the structure of the Secondary Plan layout. These natural
areas will be incorporated into an overall parks and open space system that will link the
entire neighbourhood together.
2.4 All of the higher density uses, which range between 3 and 12 storeys, will be focused
along the three Regional Corridors of Durham Highway 2, Courtice Road and Bloor
Street. The remainder of the area will predominantly be single detached and semi-
detached units.
Page 74
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Page 4
2.5 The goals of sustainability, liveability and inclusivity link all parts of the Secondary Plan
and are pursued in tandem to create a well-balanced community that meets the needs
of residents and workers while respecting the natural environment.
3. Public Participation
3.1 The preparation of this Secondary Plan has been supported by a thorough public
engagement strategy, including a range of public consultation initiatives, including online
and in -person events. These efforts have been in addition to all statutory meetings
requirements. All landowners in the area received notice of all the public information
centres held and the statutory public meeting. Also, the landowners have been informed
that this recommendation report is being presented to Council.
3.2 All public notices, communications and review periods have been designed to ensure
conformity with the requirements of both the Planning Act and Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment (EA). To avoid creating confusion by sending multiple
notices, and to focus Municipal resources more effectively, this project was designed to
jointly satisfy the requirements of both the Planning Act and the Environmental
Assessment Act.
3.3 In summary the following were the opportunities provided for public consultation:
Project Web page
3.4 To facilitate public participation and to provide information, a project web
page(www.clarington.net/SoutheastCourtice) was created. All information associated
with the project including meeting notices, presentation materials, staff and consultant's
reports are housed on this web page.
3.5 Since the project web page was created in October 2017 it has been visited by over
3,150 different people. Of that number, over 900 different people visited the web page
after the draft Secondary Plan and Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
(Guidelines) were posted to the web page on June 1, 2020.
Page 75
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Page 5
Initial Planning and Development Committee Public Meeting — January 2018
3.6 The Public were first invited to participate in the process at a Public Meeting before
Council in January 2018. The general public and all landowners (60+) within the
Secondary Plan area were invited to this meeting. Notice of the meeting was also
advertised in the Clarington This Week and Orono Times newspapers and on the
Municipal website for the two weeks preceding the meeting. The Public Meeting and
associated staff report (PSD-011-18) outlined the proposed planning process, the
composition of the steering committee and the terms of reference for the Secondary
Plan. Shortly after Council approval to proceed, AECOM was hired (COD-013-18), and
the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan planning process began.
Public Information Centre number 1 — June 2018
3.7 The first Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on June 27, 2018. The initial PIC
was to introduce the public to the project by defining the study area, the process, and
the study priorities. Over 800 people were invited to this PIC. This included landowners
within and surrounding the Secondary Plan area, people who had expressed an interest
in the project, Council members, and steering committee members. The over 60
residents, business owners, agencies and developers attending the session were
interested in how the framework for future development of this area would be created.
The integrated Environmental Assessment (EA) process was introduced at the project
launch to inform the community that the EA was being undertaken simultaneously with
the Secondary Plan.
Landowner Meeting — October 2019
3.8 In October 9, 2019, a meeting was held for all the landowners within the Secondary
Plan area. This gave these stakeholders the opportunity to view and provide feedback
on the three alternative land use concepts developed for Southeast Courtice. Of the
over 60 landowners invited, approximately 30 attended the meeting.
Public Information Centre number 2 — November 2019
3.9 The same three land use options were presented to the general public at the project's
second PIC on November 5, 2019. Notice of the PIC was given in the same manner as
PIC #1. Approximately 90 people attended this information centre.
3.10 Following the second PIC, the Municipality launched an online mapping exercise to
generate additional feedback. The next major step in the public engagement process
was the statutory public meeting held on June 23, 2020.
Page 76
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-055-20
4. Priorities in the Secondary Plan and the Urban Design
Guidelines
4.1 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan, the Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines and the preparation process has addressed the five priorities identified by
Council in the Secondary Plan Terms of Reference;
• Affordable Housing
• Sustainability and Climate Change
• Excellence in Urban Design
• Community Engagement
• Co-ordination of Initiatives
Affordable Housing
4.2 Clarington Council, through Official Plan policy and the Housing Task Force, supports
the provision of a variety of housing types, tenure and costs for people of all ages,
abilities and income groups.
Sustainability and Climate Change
4.3 Clarington Council adopted a sustainable, "green lens" approach to development
throughout the Official Plan. This Secondary Plan has addressed the criteria developed
for Secondary Plans in Clarington's Green Development Program and the Priority Green
Development Framework.
Excellence in Urban Design
4.4 The goal for any new development is to celebrate and enhance the history and
character of Clarington. New neighbourhoods are to be created with a sense of place
and all development should result in high quality design. The Secondary Plan policies
supported by the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines provide substantial
direction for high quality design.
Coordination of Initiatives
4.5 There are several projects integrated with, and yet separate from the Secondary Plan.
This includes the Environmental Assessment process for higher order roads in the
Secondary Plan, the Robinson and Tooley Creeks Subwatershed Study and the
Courtice Employment Lands/Major Transit Station Area Secondary Plan.
Page 77
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Environmental Assessment Process
Page 7
4.5.1. The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Act process recognizes the
desirability of coordinating or integrating the planning processes and approvals
under the EA Act and the Planning Act, providing the intent and requirements of
both Acts are met. The aim is to streamline the planning and approvals process.
The integrated approach provides proponents with the opportunity to avoid
duplication.
4.5.2. The key to the EA and planning process integration is to identify when and how
the EA process is addressed and EA criteria are met, through the preparation of
a supplementary document showing the integration steps as follows:
Data Collection and Background Document Review: Previous and
ongoing land use planning and technical environmental documents
collected and reviewed as evidence of inventory and assessment efforts.
The technical documents have been posted for review on the project web
page and circulated to the agencies for their review and comment.
Identification of Opportunities and Constraints (Phase 1 EA): Based
on review of the background documents along with public comments
received from the first Public Information Centre (PIC), problems and
opportunities associated with the development of Southeast Courtice lands
were used to create the Problem and Opportunity Statement.
Identification of Alternative Solutions to Problem or Opportunity
(Phase 2 EA): Alternative methods to address the project need (as
identified in Phase 1 of the EA) are documented, such as do nothing,
development limitations, improve transit, build new roads, etc. The EA
considered the Secondary Plan's goals to promote a sustainable natural
environment through the protection of the identified natural heritage system
within an urban setting. In addition, it is the intent of this Secondary Plan to
promote the community planning and design features along with practical
road layouts for the area.
Notifications: All project notices and communications demonstrate clearly
the integrated approach procedure regarding the Secondary Plan.
Consultation Events, Meetings and Documentation: Consultation is a
key component for both the Planning and EA process. All work was
synchronized to ensure documentation supporting both the Planning
process and the EA process.
Page 78
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Page 8
Project Summary Report: Documents will incorporate the commitments
made (including EA Monitoring) into the appropriate EA and planning
documents which will serve as the basis of approvals for the associated
infrastructure.
4.6 The final steps of the Class Environmental Assessment process have not been
completed yet. This will include confirming the applicable Class EA Schedule for
the preferred solution (project), additional Class Environmental Assessment
Phases as appropriate, project summary documentation, public notification and
review. As part of this process, the Landowners Group will take the lead for the
EAs for the identified road projects with the Municipality as a co -proponent.
Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study
4.7 This Secondary Plan is located within the watersheds of the Robinson Creek and
Tooley Creek. The Subwatershed Study (SWS) Existing Conditions Report was
released for public comment, and a public meeting was held in November 2019.
4.8 The second phase of the SWS is nearing completion. In this phase, a Subwatershed
Management Report will be prepared. It will provide direction regarding stormwater
management controls, low impact development measures and groundwater
recharge/infiltration parameters. It will also include natural heritage strategies which will
protect, rehabilitate and enhance the environment within the study area. The
consultants preparing the SWS, CLOCA and staff have been working together to ensure
the necessary policies have been included in the Secondary Plan prior to the report
being finalized. After the Secondary Plan is adopted, the development approvals
process will provide additional opportunity for the implementation of the Subwatershed
Study recommendations.
Courtice Employment Lands and Major Transit Station Area Secondary Plan
4.9 The Courtice Employment Lands (CEL) and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA)
Secondary Plan is located adjoining to, and immediately south of, the Southeast
Courtice Secondary Plan. Two north/south collector roads are proposed to connect
these two secondary plans just north of the proposed GO Station site, within the CEL
and MTSA Secondary Plan Area. The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan, and its
integrated Environmental Assessment, will take the lead in establishing the alignment of
these collector roads and will establish land uses, policies, mobility and connectivity
options that respond and complement the planning for the CEL and MTSA.
Page 79
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PSD-055-20
5. Official Plan Amendment and the Secondary Plan Process —
Final Phase
Statutory Public Meeting Notice
5.1 The Public Meeting notice was provided to over 800 people including property owners
inside the Secondary Plan area, landowners within 120 metres of the Secondary Plan
area and interested parties. All draft and supporting documents were posted to the
project web page by June 1, 2020. Clarington Communications promoted the Public
Meeting on the Municipal website and through social media. Notice advertising the
Public Meeting was placed in Clarington This Week and the Orono Times for three
weeks preceding this meeting. All registered interested parties from the beginning of the
project were either mailed or emailed the notice of Public Meeting.
5.2 In addition to receiving a notice of Public Meeting, external agencies and internal
departments were requested to provide their comments regarding the Draft Secondary
Plan and the Draft Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines.
5.3 The Statutory Public Meeting Staff report (PSD-021-2020) was released for public
review as part of the June 23, 2020 Special Meeting of the Planning and Development
Committee agenda. The Staff Report provided an overview of the planning process for
Secondary Plans, a brief overview of the planning policy framework in which the
Secondary Plan has been developed, a summary of public and agency comments
received to date, as well as an overview of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and
the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines.
Statutory Public Meeting — June 23, 2020
5.4 The Statutory Public Meeting was held at Council's Planning and Development
Committee virtually on June 23, 2020. The Statutory Public Meeting was the
opportunity for Staff to present the Secondary Plan and the Guidelines to Council and
the public to ask questions and provide feedback. The meeting was `attended' by
approximately 63 people. The Statutory Public Meeting provided the opportunity for the
public to formally comment on the draft OPA, the draft Secondary Plan and the draft
Guidelines. Since the Public Meeting staff has received an additional 40 written
submissions. A summary of public submissions is provided in Section 7 of this report
and the Public Comment Summary Table in Attachment 3 of this report.
'�
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PSD-055-20
5.5 A Notice of Council's decision regarding Draft OPA 124, Draft Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan and the Draft Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines was sent
following the ratification of decisions made by Committee at the Statutory Public
meeting held on June 23, 2020. This notice was sent to the landowners within the
Secondary Plan area and interested parties. The standard notice was modified to
provide further explanation to the recipient as to why they were receiving the Notice
from the Municipality and explained in plain language what the resolution meant.
5.6 Attachment 2 to this staff report presents the Sequence of Events regarding the
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan as well as a hyperlink to the modified Notice of
Council's Decision described above. In total, each of the landowners have received six
notifications including the one for this report, as the project has advanced to the
recommendation stage.
5.7 Staff have also received comments from the Region of Durham, CLOCA, Bell, Canada
Post, Durham Regional Police Service, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
and the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Catholic District School
Board. A summary of their Comments is provided in Section 8 of this report and the
Agency Comment Summary Table in Attachment 4 to this report. The comment tables
provide a review of each comment received and a response as to how the
comment/request has been addressed in the Secondary Plan.
6. Provincial and Regional Policy Conformity
6.1 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan is in conformity with the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2020, A Place to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
2019, and the Durham Region Official Plan. Collectively the directions regarding
complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment and social
equity have shaped both the Clarington Official Plan and this Secondary Plan. The
Statutory Public Meeting Report PSD-021-20 outlined how the Secondary Plan is in
conformity to these planning documents and included the summary of the robust public
engagement activities.
7. Public Submission Summaries
General Public Comments
7.1 General inquiries were brought forward regarding the timing of construction, project
completion, and clarification on the boundary of the Secondary Plan. Other inquiries
touched upon the details related to the Secondary Plan project and the impacts on
specific properties within the Secondary Plan area. Related comments included topics
such as decisions on future and surrounding land uses, proposed densities, housing,
roads/extensions, traffic and servicing.
Page 81
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Page 11
7.2 Comments were received regarding Secondary Plan boundary adjustments, street
realignments, future infrastructure, stormwater management, and noise and odour from
nearby potential industrial facilities. Many comments supported environmentally
protected lands and features/habitat, increased vegetation, parks, schools, community
facilities, transportation and neighbourhood connectivity.
7.3 More specific concerns were related to seasonal maintenance of roads, wildlife
protection, Tooley Creek, groundwater and the impact to property development
potential. No submissions from the general public were directly related to a proposed
Secondary Plan policy or Urban Design and Sustainability guideline. The comments
have informed the proposed Secondary Plan policies, giving regard to the concerns
expressed. Support and gratitude from the public were also expressed.
7.4 Specific comments were received including the request for additional lands to be
designated for high density/mixed use along Durham Highway 2 and resizing the
adjacent park. A request to shift the Neighbourhood Park and the elementary school
south of Bloor Street, as well as to realign Farmington Drive were also received.
Landowner Group
7.5 The Landowners Group (LOG) represented by Delta Urban Inc. as well as two
developer/landowners are members of the project Steering Committee. The LOG
provided several sets of comments regarding the Secondary Plan and the Urban Design
and Sustainability Guidelines since release for the Public Meeting in June 2020.
Comments were policy and guideline specific. They ranged from being minor in nature,
(grammar, numbering, consistent terminology) to extensive in that they sought changes
to land use provisions that were more aligned with developer expectations (height,
density and built form).
7.6 The LOG also provided detailed comments regarding school and park locations, the
environmental constraints overlay and the extent of the environmental study area.
7.7 All public comments, including those from the LOG, are included in the Public
Comments Summary Table in Attachment 3 to this report. The summary table provides
an outline of the comment received as well as a response as to how the
comment/request has been addressed.
8. Agency Comments
Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA)
8.1 The extensive comments provided by CLOCA support environmental protection,
recommend conservation and appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated, and
helped strengthen the policy structure of this Secondary Plan.
Page 82
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PSD-055-20
8.2 CLOCA has encouraged sustainable initiatives be incorporated throughout the
Secondary Plan and Urban Design Guidelines. This includes low -impact development
and stormwater management features within the road network and open space system.
Maintaining ecological integrity is necessary to conserve natural features within the
area. This includes minimizing creek crossings and ensuring trails are planned and
constructed carefully.
8.3 Additional recommendations were noted specifically relating to meeting the Durham
Region Official Plan's woodland cover target of 30% to support ecosystem health; the
creation of green streets; low -impact developments; and proposed roads and
modifications related to potential flooding, drainage, and overall topography. To achieve
"complete streets" design, CLOCA encouraged that the streets incorporate active
transportation routes (bike lanes), permeable paving, trees and vegetation as well as
stormwater planters. New development should be separated from designated vegetated
protection zones to minimize impacts.
Region of Durham
8.4 Staff have received two extensive sets of comments from the Region of Durham since
the release of the draft Secondary Plan and draft Urban Design Guidelines in June
2020.
8.5 The Region of Durham has provided guidance on Regional Corridor and general land
use policies and Regional servicing as it relates to future development in the Secondary
Plan area. The comments were supportive of the Secondary Plan including higher
density, built form requirements along Regional Corridors. Policy direction to ensure
that adequate access and spacing of arterial roads to accommodate higher traffic
volumes as well as for all modes of transit were provided. Policy suggestions have
strengthened how the public realm and surrounding land uses are shaped, while
promoting an attractive community design.
8.6 Region of Durham staff note there is a high degree of respect for natural systems in
Secondary Plan area which is complemented by referencing the existing Clarington
Official Plan policies. Regional Staff encourage an increase in tree planting along
pedestrian routes.
8.7 The Region also suggested policy changes to enhance pedestrian routes, provide better
connectivity within the street network, on trails and within development blocks in order to
allow for a more walkable community to and from nearby transit stops and amenities.
Further comments for the proposed roads and extensions recommended ensuring all
street users, especially cyclists, be accommodated by adhering to Provincial road
design standards. Design consistency is required for the active transportation network
including trails, crossings, and sidewalks.
Page 83
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PSD-055-20
8.8 Region of Durham staff initially expressed concern that Clarington staff were proceeding
to recommend to Council the Adoption of the Secondary Plan prior to final revisions to
the Functional Servicing Report and the Transportation Report. Updates to these
reports are ongoing and are being coordinated with Region of Durham staff. During
recent meetings, neither Clarington nor Region of Durham staff, or the consultants
preparing the reports, anticipate that any final findings from either of these reports will
impact the Secondary Plan.
8.9 Recommendations from both the Functional Servicing Report and the Transportation
Report will be addressed during the development application process. Policies have
been included in the Secondary Plan to this effect. At the same time, if the report
findings necessitate amendments to the Secondary Plan, Region of Durham staff, in
consultation with Clarington staff can incorporate the necessary amendments into the
Secondary Plan prior to Region of Durham Approval.
School Boards
8.10 The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) and the Peterborough
Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board (PVNCCDSB)
support the configuration of the neighbourhoods and the proposed elementary school
locations identified in the Secondary Plan. While the Boards are pleased with the
direction and potential population in the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan, they note
continuous monitoring of development within and around the area will be conducted by
the Boards to determine whether additional elementary or secondary school sites are
required.
8.11 The KPRDSB has indicated their desire for the two sites located north of Bloor Street
while the PVNCCDSB has requested the site south of Bloor Street. These School
Boards are also working together to release a joint Education Development Review and
have advised that this review may demonstrate the projected need for additional
elementary school sites in Courtice.
Other Agencies and Clarington Departments
8.12 Comments have been received from Durham Regional Police Service, Canada Post,
and Bell Canada. These agencies suggested minor policy modifications to the
Secondary Plan or Urban Design and Sustainability guidelines. Generally, comments
from these agencies are more pertinent at the development application stage.
8.13 The Clarington Legislative Services Department, Financial Services, and the Clarington
Fire & Emergency Services Department generally had no objections to the Secondary
Plan.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Page 14
8.14 Staff from Clarington's Public Works Department — Infrastructure Division are on the
Secondary Plan Steering Committee and have been providing continuous and
invaluable input to the Secondary Plan and Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
since the beginning of the project.
Indigenous Consultation
8.15 The Curve Lake First Nation provided valuable information to the Secondary Plan
process, raising concern for potential environmental impacts to drinking water quality,
fish and wild game, territorial lands, archaeology and Aboriginal heritage and culture. In
response to the comments, staff have included Curve Lake First Nation as an interested
party for the two ongoing Subwatershed studies. Staff and Curve Lake First Nation
liaison staff have also committed to bi-monthly meetings to continue our open dialogue.
8.16 All agency comments are included in the Agency Comments Summary Table in
Attachment 4 to this report. The summary table provides an outline of the comment
received as well as a response as to how the comment/request has been addressed.
9. Key Revisions to the Secondary Plan since the Public Meeting
9.1 The recommended OPA 124 attached to this report, reflects the changes made in
response to extensive public participation and comments, agency comments and staff's
continuing review. While a considerable number of comments were received by
CLOCA, the Region of Durham and the Landowner Group, the concerns raised and the
staff response to them, did not significantly change the direction of the Secondary Plan
or the Design Guidelines from the drafts released on June 1, 2020. The following
summarizes the changes made to the Secondary Plan and the Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines.
9.2 Changes to Schedule A — Land Use
The High Density/Mixed Residential designation at Durham Highway 2 and Courtice
Road has been expanded south along Courtice Road and east along Durham
Highway 2.
Farmington Drive has been shifted eastward south of Bloor Street; and
The elementary school, neighbourhood park and parkette have shifted south of
Bloor Street.
Page 85
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Changes to Schedule A Since June Public Meeting
SCHOOL WAS RELOCATED
NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK [NP] WAS RELOCATED
PARKETTER [P] WAS RELOCATED
ROAD WAS REALIGNED
I 1 I
I t I
•1
O 1
P I
I
June 2020 Public Meeting Concept
HIGH DENSITY AREA
WAS EXPANDED
f -
1
NP
1 1lSl •' r ,
June 2020 Public Meeting Col
P.
i
I
i
f
Sa nd6nyham Drive
I
1
1
t
a
Page 15
8hw
� o
�1 V
1 � C
1 0
tY n
I � S
Legend Environmental Pratectiw Area
=SECSP Boundary `Fnvirpnmental Gon5tra int
=High Density&li.ad Use Q LnYimriaiental Study ARo— Schedule A- Land Use
I Nlediurn nensity Regional Cgrridor VAbtercourse - Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan -
A r C Low Density Residential Z. t=lertierit:rrySr:haol
■ �j =Neighbourhood Park 01 Nntn' -F n,I F.Y.F n �imx to [ . dd—in-A by Rnhn... T.�nk.� AiiFwaMrxhrrl S,.dy � I xndrran^;
Prominent Infl anag ion —wee auntr:l U 1L — emnr: —n audy
�Parkette * Stornrwatcr FAanagcmcnt Paciliry f544'Tj'
Figure 2. Changes made to the Land Use Schedule presented at the public meeting
Municipality of Clarington Page 16
Report PSD-055-20
9.3 Changes to Schedule B — Transportation, Parks and Open Space
• Farmington Drive, south of Bloor Street, has been shifted eastward
• Elementary School symbol south of Bloor Street has been shifted westward.
• Neighbourhood Park south of Bloor Street has been relocated to the south
• Parkette south of Bloor Street has been relocated to the west.
9.4 Summary of revisions to Secondary Plan policies:
• Reorganization of the document layout including an expanded Community
Structure chapter;
• Objectives have been added to many sections including Land Use, Urban Design
and Transportation;
• Many numeric references have been removed from the Urban Design chapter;
• Policies regarding Environmental Protection, Stormwater Management and Cost
Sharing have been added;
• At many intersections with Regional Corridors, the minimum height of buildings is
four storeys;
• The multiway design for Bloor Street and Courtice Road is no longer a
requirement, but instead encouraged particularly in proximity to the High
Density/Mixed Use areas at Bloor and Courtice Roads;
• Additional Rear Lane policies have been included; and
• Affordable Housing Policies have been strengthened (see Section 9.4.1.)
Affordable Housing Policies
9.4.1. Clarington Council, through Official Plan policy supports the provision of a variety
of housing types, tenure and costs for people of all ages, abilities and income
groups. These Council policies are also reflected in the adopted Affordable
Housing Tool Kit as outlined in the staff report CAO-013-19.
9.4.2. The Clarington Affordable Housing Toolkit has the following recommendations
that are being implemented through this Secondary Plan:
Encouraging affordable housing through Secondary Plan
policies: The Terms of Reference for the Secondary Plan as approved by
Council and agreed to by the Landowners Group includes affordable
housing as a priority for the project.
Page 87
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
Page 17
Expedited approvals: The Secondary Plan includes policy that any project
with a component of rental units designated and approved by CMHC at
80% of the average market rent will be given priority processing.
Accessory Units: The Secondary Plan includes policies that provide for
accessory units in detached or semi-detached units, expanding the supply
of rental units in the community.
9.4.3. Following the statutory public meeting, and after more research, staff included
polices in the Secondary Plan that require either the dedication of land for
affordable housing or contribution of funds to the Municipality to support
development of affordable housing units. In discussions with the Landowners
Group, they have selected the option of providing funds to the Municipality
through a voluntary contribution agreement.
9.4.4. Once Council adopts the Secondary Plan, Planning staff will present to Council's
Task Force on Affordable Housing about how other Secondary Plans will
continue to implement this approach and how the Municipality should treat these
funds.
9.4.5. The Secondary Plan policies for the provision of land or funds for affordable
housing are not linked to additional density.
9.5 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan implements the affordable housing policies of
the Clarington Official Plan as well as the direction of the Clarington Affordable Housing
Toolkit in collaboration with the private sector.
Summary of Revisions to the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
9.6 Like the Secondary Plan, the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines have been
reorganized into a more standardize format. The above described changes to the
Secondary Plan policies has necessitated minor changes. As with the Secondary Plan
policies, there are no major shifts in direction since the Draft Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines were presented at the public meeting.
9.7 All comments received regarding the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines are in
the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines Comments Summary Table in
Attachment 5 to this report. The summary table provides an outline of the comment
received as well as a response as to how the comment/request has been addressed.
Municipality of Clarington Page 18
Report PSD-055-20
10. Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary
10.1 Large scale development proposals can require significant public investment. The
Municipality also needs to understand what the long-term revenue and expenditure
impact of the proposed developments would be before they are approved. The Official
Plan requires that a Financial Impact Analysis (FIA) be undertaken for Secondary Plans.
Accordingly, staff have undertaken a Financial Impact Analysis for the Southeast
Courtice Secondary Plan.
10.2 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan will guide development of approximately 295
hectares of land. The Secondary Plan area is anticipated to undergo significant growth
and development, with a planned population of approximately 12,694 residents and
5,036 residential units including 13 parks (eight neighbourhood parks and five
parkettes), 10 stormwater management facilities and three elementary schools.
10.3 Residential and commercial growth has a significant financial impact to the Municipality
through both the initial investment in infrastructure as well as the annual costs of
providing services to a growing community.
10.4 While there are tools in place to fund capital infrastructure that is required for growth,
the ongoing cost of providing services are not covered by such charges. These services
are borne by the Municipality's taxable assessment; therefore, it is important to
determine if the new assessment growth in the Secondary Plan area will be sufficient to
pay for the ongoing operations which are associated with that growth.
10.5 The FIA includes assumptions and estimates which are based on the best information
available at the time of writing. The actual design of the Secondary Plan, the timing of
the development, type of development, and service impact will all modify the actual
results.
10.6 As summarized by the FIA, it appears that there will be a relatively minor shortfall in the
annual revenue generated to contribute to operating costs, there are impacts of growth
that accrue to the community. On the other hand, economic growth from additional small
businesses needed to service the population, business to business sales, and cultural
diversity are all positive outcomes of this growth that do not impact the Municipality's
bottom line as it does not directly attribute to property tax or user fee revenues.
10.7 The FIA recommends that the Municipality revisit the Development Charges Study
before the five-year required review once all the secondary plans currently underway
are completed in order to ensure that all capital costs are properly included and
recovered.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
11. Next Steps
Page 19
11.1 As with other secondary plans and given the number of documents and comments from
Council. Some technical changes to wording or schedules may take place prior to the
Municipality forwarding the documents to the Region of Durham for approval.
Recommendation #4 requests Council authorize the Director of Planning and
Development Services to finalize the form and content of OPA 124.
11.2 Once Clarington Council adopts OPA 124, it will be forwarded to the Region of Durham
for review and approval. The Region has various options. It may approve, approve with
modifications, deny or make no decision (in other words defer making a decision)
regarding OPA 124 and the Secondary Plan.
11.3 Prior to issuing a decision on OPA 124, it is anticipated that Region of Durham staff will
provide a list of proposed modifications to the Director of Planning and Development
Services. Staff will review those proposed modifications and bring a report to Council
outlining the proposed modifications. Council will then be able to provide comments to
the Region of Durham on the proposed modifications before the Region of Durham
issues its decision.
11.4 Once the Region of Durham issues its decision, the landowners and those people on
the interested parties list will be notified and a 20-day appeal period is provided. Any
person or organization that has provided comments to Clarington Council prior to the
adoption of OPA 124, and/or to the Durham Region prior to issuing its decision, has the
right to appeal all or part of the Official Plan Amendment. Once the OPA is approved
and the appeal period lapses, the Secondary Plan becomes part of the Official Plan and
it would be in full force and effect.
12. Concurrence
Both the Director of Financial Services and Director of Public Works concur with the
recommendations of this report.
Page 90
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-055-20
13. Conclusion
Page 20
13.1 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan will guide the development of a transit
supportive neighbourhood that will be the future home for about 12,000 residents. This
Secondary Plan encourages a diverse range of housing units within walking distance to
shopping, services, schools and amenities. The conservation of the natural
environment and the development of a robust active transportation network is provided
as a foundation for this plan. Densities will be concentrated along the Regional
Corridors (Durham Highway 2, Bloor Street and Courtice Road) while the remainder of
the area will support low density housing.
13.2 It is respectfully recommended that Council Adopt Official Plan Amendment 124 to
include the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines into the Clarington Official Plan.
Staff Contact: Lisa Backus, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2413
Ibackus@clarington.net; Carlos Salazar, Manager csalazar@clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -
OPA 124, Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and UDSG
Attachment 2 —
Sequence of Events
Attachment 3 —
Public Comments Summary Table
Attachment 4 —
Agency Comments Summary Table
Attachment 5 -
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines Comments Summary Table
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 91
Attachment 1 a to Report PSD-055-20
clffftwn
Amendment No. 124
To the Clarington Official Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to include the Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan into the Clarington Official Plan. This Secondary
Plan, including Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines will
facilitate the development of a sustainable, livable and inclusive
community in Courtice.
Key to this Secondary Plan area is the presence and protection of the
Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek valleys and the associated natural
environment. Along with the two Regional Corridors, Bloor Street and
Courtice Road, these are predominant features defining the structure
of the Secondary Plan area.
Although predominantly residential, the Secondary Plan area will
feature a mix, location and intensity of uses that allow many needs to
be met locally, while also having access to broader amenities.
Walking, cycling and transit are all provided for throughout.
The major roads are important transportation routes and they will
feature landscaping, built form, and a mix of uses that are connected
to the interior neighbourhoods. They are designed to have attractive
and inviting spaces.
Location: This Amendment applies to approximately 295-ha area generally
bounded by Hancock Road in the east, the Robinson Creek Valley to
the west and by Durham Highway 2 in the north. The southern
boundary is a future collect road located south of Bloor Street. The
subject lands are entirely within the Courtice urban area.
Basis: Clarington Council authorized the commencement of this Secondary
Plan at a public meeting before Clarington Council in January 2018.
The Secondary Plan has been prepared based on five priorities of
Council. Affordable Housing, Excellence in Urban Design and
Sustainability and Climate Change are key policy directions guiding
the Secondary Plan. This Plan has been integrated with the
Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study as well and
the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process for new
roads. And fundamental to the above has been Public Participation.
The Secondary Plan's first public information centre (PIC) was held at
the South Courtice Arena in June 2018. Over 60 landowners and
members of the public attended this session. At this meeting,
Page 92
attendees were introduced to the Secondary Plan planning and
design process.
Background reports were prepared as part of the Secondary Plan
process. The background reports below highlighted key challenges
and opportunities for Southeast Courtice and provided direction to the
Secondary Plan. The list of reports is as follows:
• Technical Summary Report
• Planning Background
• Affordable Housing Analysis
• Commercial Needs Assessment
• Transportation Report
• Functional Servicing Background Report
• Landscape Analysis
• Agricultural Impact Assessment
• Archaeological Assessment
• Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscape Screening
• Natural Resources Background Analysis, SWS Integration
• Sustainability & Green Principles
Also supporting the Secondary Plan is the Robinson Creek and
Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study. Recommendations stemming
from this study have been incorporated into the Secondary Plan and
will be further addressed through development applications within the
Secondary Plan Area.
Prior to the second PIC, all landowners in the Study area were invited
to an information session. This included a presentation of existing
land use policy and best practices in neighbourhood design. This was
followed by a presentation of three land use options for the Area. The
priorities for all three options included environmental protection, an
active transportation network and diverse housing mix, however each
option explored a unique development objective. This same
information was then presented to the public at the second PIC.
Approximately 120 people attended these two sessions.
Public and landowner input was received through an online
community building tool, surveys, comment forms and roundtable
discussions. The Steering Committee's input has also provided
direction.
The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and the Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines have been created based upon the study
team's analysis and the public consultation process described above.
Page 93
Actual
Amendment:
Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is
shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a threugh.
1. Existing Part Six, Section 3 "General Policies for Secondary Plans" is
hereby amended as follows:
"3. Secondary Plans have been prepared for the following areas:
a) Bowmanville East Town Centre;
b) Bowmanville West Town Centre;
c) Courtice Main Street;
d) Newcastle Village Main Central Area;
e) Port Darlington Neighbourhood;
f) South-West Courtice;
g) Clarington Energy Business Park;
h) Brookhill Neighbourhood;
i) Clarington Technology Business Parks and
j) Foster Northwest and
k) Southeast Courtice."
2. Existing Part Six Secondary Plans is amended by adding a new
Secondary Plan to Part Six as follows:
Page 94
Secondary Plans
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
Municipality of Clarington
Page 95
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan - Recommended
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................1
2 Vision and Objectives.................................................................................................2
2.1 Vision...................................................................................................................2
2.2 Objectives............................................................................................................4
3 Community Structure.................................................................................................5
3.1 Regional Corridor.................................................................................................5
3.2 Prominent Intersections.......................................................................................5
3.3 Urban Residential.................................................................................................7
3.4 Parks and Open Space System...........................................................................8
3.5 Gateways.............................................................................................................9
4 Land Use....................................................................................................................9
4.1 Objectives............................................................................................................9
4.2 General Policies...................................................................................................9
4.3 High Density/Mixed Use.....................................................................................10
4.4 Medium Density Regional Corridor....................................................................11
4.5 Low Density Residential.....................................................................................13
5 Urban Design...........................................................................................................13
5.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................13
5.2 General Policies.................................................................................................14
5.3 Development within Regional Corridors.............................................................16
5.4 Development within Low Density Residential Designation.................................18
5.5 Transition...........................................................................................................18
5.6 Private Amenities...............................................................................................19
Page 96
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan - Recommended
6 Natural Heritage.......................................................................................................19
6.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................19
6.2 General Policies.................................................................................................20
6.3 Environmental Protection Area...........................................................................20
6.4 Environmental Constraints Overlay....................................................................21
7 Parks and Community Facilities...............................................................................22
7.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................22
7.2 Parks..................................................................................................................23
7.3 Elementary Schools...........................................................................................24
7.4 Community and Recreation Facilities.................................................................25
8 Community Culture and Heritage.............................................................................25
8.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................25
8.2 Reflecting the Local Community.........................................................................25
9 Transportation..........................................................................................................26
9.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................26
9.2 Transportation Network......................................................................................27
9.3 Road Network....................................................................................................28
9.4 Arterial Roads....................................................................................................30
9.5 Collector Roads..................................................................................................32
9.6 Local Roads.......................................................................................................33
9.7 Rear Lanes.........................................................................................................34
9.8 Public Transit.....................................................................................................35
9.9 Integration and Quality of Active Transportation Routes....................................36
10 Housing....................................................................................................................38
Page 97
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan - Recommended
10.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................38
10.2 General Policies.................................................................................................38
11 Infrastructure, Stormwater Management and Environmental Performance..............40
11.1 Objectives..........................................................................................................40
11.2 Infrastructure and Utilities...................................................................................41
11.3 Stormwater Management and Low Impact Development...................................41
11.4 Urban Forest and Native Plantings....................................................................42
11.5 Building Technology...........................................................................................43
11.6 Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines......................................................43
12 Implementation and Interpretation............................................................................44
12.1 Environmental Study Area.................................................................................44
12.2 Zoning By-law....................................................................................................44
12.3 Implementation...................................................................................................44
12.4 Interpretation......................................................................................................46
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
1 Introduction
Southeast Courtice represents a major expansion of the Courtice community.
The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan area is approximately 295 hectares in size.
It is comprised of portions of the Emily Stowe, Avondale and Ebenezer
neighbourhoods as identified in Appendix B of the Clarington Official Plan. It is
generally bounded to the north by Durham Highway 2 and Hancock Road to the east,
while the southern boundary is south of Bloor Street and the western boundary is
located east of Prestonvale Road near Robinson Creek.
Prominent features include the presence of a number of regional roads which bisect
and border the area and significant natural heritage features and hydrologically
sensitive features, including the headwaters and tributaries of Tooley Creek and
Robinson Creek.
The Secondary Plan area is anticipated to undergo significant growth and
development, with a planned population of approximately 12,000 residents and
5,000 units. The purpose of the Secondary Plan is to establish goals and policies to
guide development within Southeast Courtice, as it is implemented through
subdivision, zoning and site plan control. Several key themes run throughout this
Secondary Plan:
Sustainability — Southeast Courtice will be developed to minimize the
community's impact on the environment and to protect and celebrate nature. The
Secondary Plan supports sustainability by:
• Setting a high standard of environmental performance for buildings,
infrastructure
and other parts of the built environment;
• Mitigating the community's contribution to climate change while also assuring
its resilience through adaptation measures;
• Supporting lifestyles that result in lower resource consumption and produce
less waste and pollution;
• Creating a community where people can move around by walking, cycling
and transit rather than private automobile; and
• Developing in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding
natural environment.
Liveability — Southeast Courtice will offer an excellent quality of life for residents
Page 99
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
and workers. The Secondary Plan supports liveability by:
• Providing the public and private amenities needed in day-to-day life;
• Creating a pleasant place to be through the design of the built environment
and access to nature;
• Fostering a sense of identity and belonging; and
• Supporting and enabling healthy active lifestyles.
Inclusivity — Southeast Courtice will be a community that everyone can call
home, regardless of age, ability or income. Inclusivity is promoted by:
• Providing a range of housing choices for a diversity of income levels
and household sizes, including affordable housing;
• Creating a community that is fit for all stages of life and people of varying
ability; and
• Reflecting and celebrating the cultural heritage of the area, past and present.
The Urban Design and Sustainable Development Guidelines included as an
Appendix provide further guidance on the implementation of the policies of this
Secondary Plan.
2 Vision and Objectives
2.1 Vision
Southeast Courtice will be a sustainable, liveable and inclusive community. It will
have its own identity, while contributing to the larger Courtice and Clarington
communities. Although predominantly residential, it will feature a mix, location and
intensity of uses that allow many needs to be met locally, while also having access
to broader amenities in the surrounding areas. Walking, cycling and transit will be
attractive and viable alternatives to the car.
A key part of Southeast Courtice's identity will be the presence of nature. The
natural heritage system, including features related to the Robinson and Tooley
Creeks, will be conserved, enhanced, and sensitively incorporated into a parks and
open space system. Trees and landscaped spaces will extend greenery throughout
the area.
The area's major roads will also serve as defining features for Southeast Courtice.
While providing important transportation routes, they will feature landscaping, built
form, mix of uses and connections to the interior of the neighbourhood that make
them attractive and inviting public places. They will serve as community focal points
Page100
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
which join Southeast Courtice together.
In this manner, Southeast Courtice will combine diverse uses, intensities and
places into an integrated and connected whole.
Page 101
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
2.2 Objectives
The goals of sustainability, liveability and inclusivity link all parts of the Secondary Plan
and are pursued in tandem to create a well-balanced community that meets the needs
of its residents and workers while respecting fundamental environmental constraints. To
realize these goals, development within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan area
shall achieve the following objectives:
2.2.1 Foster a sustainable, low -carbon community that is resilient to the potential
impacts of climate change.
2.2.2 Create an efficient land use pattern and urban form which is supportive of transit
provision, enables residents to meet many of their needs locally within walking
distance, and provides good transitions between uses and areas of development
intensity.
2.2.3 Foster a multi -modal community where walking, cycling and transit are viable and
attractive alternatives to travel by automobile.
2.2.4 Protect, maintain and enhance the natural heritage system in a manner which
conserves and enhances its ecological integrity and function.
2.2.5 Provide access within walking distance to an appropriate supply of parks,
schools, community amenities and local retail and services.
2.2.6 Integrate the built and natural environments to create a sense of place and
identity, as well as provide access to nature in an appropriate manner.
2.2.7 Prioritize the creation of an attractive and vibrant public realm, integrated with a
hierarchy of community focal points, to serve as the centre of day-to-day
activities and community life.
2.2.8 Offer a variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures, including affordable housing,
that allow households of various sizes and incomes to find a home within
Southeast Courtice.
2.2.9 Celebrate the cultural heritage of the area in a manner which communicates and
conserves meaningful elements of its landscape and historic evolution.
2.2.10 Phase development in a manner which supports efficient infrastructure
implementation.
Page102
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
3 Community Structure
The Community Structure for the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan establishes a
distribution of uses and intensities of development to achieve the objectives identified in
Section 2 of this Secondary Plan. The components of the Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan that define its Community Structure are identified below.
3.1 Regional Corridor
3.1.1 Bloor Street, Courtice Road and Highway 2 and the lands adjacent to them are
Regional Corridors. They are Priority Intensification Areas and the routes for
future transit service. Regional Corridors align with the Medium Density Regional
Corridor and High Density/Mixed Use designations shown on Schedule A.
3.1.2 Regional Corridors shall be the location of the highest densities, tallest buildings
and greatest mixing of uses, in order to concentrate population in areas with
good access to transit and amenities.
3.1.3 Development along Regional Corridors shall achieve an overall density of 85 units
per net hectare.
3.1.4 Regional Corridors shall be the location of commercial retail and service uses to
serve the community. Commercial retail and service uses shall be concentrated
to reinforce community focal points, while ensuring a good level of amenity
within walking distance of all residential areas.
3.1.5 Regional Corridors are located along the principal transportation routesthrough
and within the community. These routes will feature the highest frequency and
most direct transit connecting the area to the rest of Clarington and Durham
Region.
3.1.6 The principal transportation routes along Regional Corridors also contribute to
local connectivity, joined to a modified grid network of streets that connects to the
rest of the neighbourhood.
3.1.7 Given volumes of vehicular traffic, particular care shall be given to creating an
environment that is safe, comfortable, attractive and efficient for users of active
transportation.
3.1.8 Within Regional Corridors, the public right-of-way and private built form shall be
designed to create important and inviting public spaces which contribute
significantly to the identity of the area and serve as community focal points.
3.2 Prominent Intersections
3.2.1 Prominent Intersections are located at Bloor Street and Trulls Road, Bloor Street
Page103
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
and Courtice Road, and Highway 2 and Courtice Road.
Page104
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
3.2.2 Prominent Intersections shall serve as community focal points, both visually in
terms of building height, massing and orientation, architectural treatment and
materials, and landscaping, and functionally in terms of destination uses and
public spaces and amenities such as street furniture and public art.
3.2.3 Within Regional Corridors, the greatest heights and densities shall occur at
Prominent Intersections and the nodes which surround them. These areas are
also encouraged to have the greatest concentration of commercial retail and
service uses.
3.2.4 Among these nodes, a hierarchy will be established as follows:
a. Bloor Street and Courtice Road shall feature the greatest heights and
densities and the primary concentration of retail and service uses. The
provision of retail and service uses shall allow residents to meet many of
their retail and service needs within the local area;
b. Highway 2 and Courtice Road shall feature a similar intensity of
development as the node above, although over a smaller area. Existing
levels of retail and service uses will be maintained in this area; and
c. Bloor Street and Trulls Road shall feature built form not less than 4 storeys
in height and are encouraged to include retail and service uses that
provide amenity to the surrounding neighbourhoods.
3.2.5 Privately owned publicly -accessible plazas shall be located at Prominent
Intersections to contribute to their visual prominence, reinforce their role as
community focal points, improve the relationship of built form to the public right-
of-way, and contribute to the area's identity. Alternative locations that provide a
similar level of amenity may be considered to satisfy this requirement.
3.3 Urban Residential
3.3.1 Urban Residential areas are predominantly residential areas, outside of the
Regional Corridors, which will feature built form of lower density and height in
ground -related units. Urban Residential areas correspond with the Low Density
Residential designation shown on Schedule A.
3.3.2 Urban Residential areas will be the location of many of Southeast Courtice's
larger parks and schools. These amenities will be integrated into areas set apart
from the intensity of the Regional Corridors.
3.3.3 Other compatible uses, including small-scale service and neighbourhood retail
commercial uses and home -based occupations will be permitted.
3.3.4 Urban Residential areas shall combine with other elements of the Community
Structure to create neighbourhoods at a walkable scale which contain a mix of
Page 105
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
land uses and housing types, provide access to local retail and services, and are
within a short walking distance to a Neighbourhood Park.
3.4 Parks and Open Space System
3.4.1 The parks and open space system comprise: Environmental Protection Areas
and associated areas, parks and other outdoor civic uses, and stormwater
management ponds. Together, they provide spaces that support the ecological
functions and hydrological functions of the area, serve as venues for outdoor
community and recreational life, and, through trails and crossings, contribute to
pedestrian and cycling networks.
Environmental Protection Areas and Associated Areas
3.4.2 Environmental Protection Areas are the primary component of the parks and
open space system. The conservation and enhancement of Environmental
Protection Areas will bring the imprint of the area's natural features and original
geography into the development of Southeast Courtice in a way that defines
Community Structure and identity.
3.4.3 The features of the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek systems contribute
particularly strongly to Community Structure and connect to a broader sub -
watershed beyond the Secondary Plan area boundaries. The Robinson Creek
defines the western boundary of the Secondary Plan area. The Tooley Creek
forms the basis for naturalized corridors that run through much of the Secondary
Plan area.
3.4.4 Access to Environmental Protection Areas and associated areas through the
development of public trails will be undertaken in a manner which conserves their
ecological integrity. Environmental Protection Areas will serve as the backbone of
network of parks, trails and open spaces.
Parks
3.4.5 Parks are vital public spaces connecting to a broader public realm network. A
quantity and quality of park space shall be provided that meets the needs of
residents and enables a variety of opportunities for passive and active recreation.
3.4.6 Parks shall be located to achieve a number of objectives:
a. By locating adjacent to Environmental Protection Areas, parks will foster a
connection to natural areas, contribute to the identity of Southeast
Courtice as a community close to nature, create a visual connection to the
larger open space system and link into a system of trails;
b. By locating adjacent to other outdoor civic uses, like school grounds,
parks will create larger open spaces and realize co -benefits in terms of
Page106
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
amenities;
c. Ensure that the entire community has good access to parks within a short
walking distance of their homes; and
d. Ensure good access and visibility from public streets.
Stormwater Management Ponds
3.4.7 Where appropriate, stormwater management ponds will be treated as public
assets and part of the parks and open space system. Their amenity and
ecological value will be realized as: areas of passive recreation through the
inclusion of paths and trails; areas of ecological value as enhanced wildlife
habitat through appropriate planting; and visual extensions of other components
of the parks and open space system.
3.5 Gateways
3.5.1 Gateways shall be located at major arterials along the eastern edge of the
Secondary Plan area and feature landscaping that highlights entry into the
Courtice area. The primary gateway shall be located at Hancock Road and
Highway 2, with a secondary gateway located at Hancock Road and BloorStreet.
4 Land Use
4.1 Objectives
4.1.1 Realize efficient and transit -supportive urban densities by achieving targets of 50
people and jobs per gross hectare.
4.1.2 Feature a mix of uses and a variety of locations that enable residents to meet
many of their needs within walking distance.
4.1.3 Locate the highest intensity of development and greatest mix of uses along
Regional Corridors to foster access to commercial amenities and transit.
4.1.4 Provide levels of commercial retail and service uses to meet local needs without
detracting from the Courtice Urban Centre located outside the Secondary Plan
area near the intersection of Trulls Road and Highway 2.
4.2 General Policies
4.2.1 The pattern of land use is identified in Schedule A of the Secondary Plan. Minor
alterations which maintain the general intent of the policies of this Secondary
Plan may occur without amendment through the development approval process
in accordance with policies 24.1.2 and 24.1.3 of the Clarington Official Plan.
4.2.2 The following land use designations apply within the Secondary Plan Area:
Page107
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
a. High Density/Mixed Use;
b. Medium Density Regional Corridor;
c. Low Density Residential;
d. Neighbourhood Parks;
e. Parkettes; and
f. Environmental Protection Areas.
4.2.3 Schedule A also includes two overlays that establish areas where further study is
required before development as per the underlying designation is permitted:
a. Environmental Constraints; and
b. Environmental Study Area.
4.2.4 The consolidation and integrated development of properties within the Secondary
Plan area shall be encouraged.
4.2.5 New development shall provide a range of unit sizes, in terms of number of
bedrooms, within multiple -unit buildings.
4.2.6 Drive -through facilities are not a permitted use in any land use designation.
4.2.7 Service stations are not a permitted use in any land use designation.
4.3 High Density/Mixed Use
4.3.1 Lands designated as High Density/Mixed Use are located within the Regional
Corridor.
4.3.2 The High Density/Mixed Use designation allows for the greatest concentration of
density and mix of uses in the Secondary Plan Area along portions of Regional
Corridors. The areas designated High Density/Mixed Use are nodes that shall
serve as community focal points located at Prominent Intersections.
Permitted Uses
4.3.3 The predominant use of lands with the High Density/Mixed Use designation is
housing in mid- and high-rise building forms combined with concentrations of
retail and service uses, including professional offices and medical office uses.
4.3.4 Permitted dwelling types shall include:
a. Apartment buildings; and
Page108
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
b. Dwelling units within a mixed use building.
4.3.5 The High Density/Mixed Use designation supports mixed use buildings with
commercial uses located within a building podium and/or at -grade.
4.3.6 Stand alone retail, service or office is not permitted within this designation.
Height and Density
4.3.7 Building heights shall be a minimum of 7 storeys and a maximum of 12 storeys.
4.3.8 Development on lands designated High Density/Mixed Use shall have a net
density target of 120 units per net hectare.
4.3.9 The highest and most dense forms of development shall be located fronting the
Regional Corridor. Development shall provide a transition, locating less dense
and lower scale buildings in locations adjacent to lower density designations.
4.3.10 Notwithstanding policy 4.3.7 of this plan, development at the Prominent
Intersection of Bloor Street and Courtice Road may permit heights greater than
12 storeys, subject to the following conditions:
a. The development is complementary with the scale of surrounding buildings;
b. There is high -quality architectural design and treatment to create a
signature, landmark development;
c. The massing of the development includes a podium and tower element. The
floor plate of the tower element is no greater than 750 square metres to
ensure a slim profile and fast-moving shadow;
d. Development ensures comfortable conditions on surrounding pedestrian
spaces in terms of wind; and
e. No incremental shadow impacts are created on adjacent public parks or
other sunlight sensitive land uses.
4.4 Medium Density Regional Corridor
4.4.1 Lands designated as Medium Density Regional Corridor are generally located
within the Regional Corridor.
Permitted Uses
4.4.2 The predominant use of lands within the Medium Density Regional Corridor
designation are a mix of housing types and tenures in mid -rise building forms.
Retail and service uses shall be provided at strategic locations to reinforce the
Community Structure and provide access to local amenities within walking
distance for residents of the surrounding areas.
4.4.3 Permitted dwelling types shall include:
Page109
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
a. Apartment buildings;
b. Townhouses;
c. Stacked townhouses;
d. Dwelling units within a mixed use building;
e. Accessory apartments, as per Policy 6.3.5 of the Clarington Official Plan;
and
Other dwelling types that provide housing at the same or higher densities
as those above.
4.4.4 Retail and service uses including professional offices and medical office uses
shall only be permitted on the ground floor of a mixed use building with an
entrance and frontage onto an arterial road.
4.4.5 A concentration of retail and service uses, including professional and
medical offices, is encouraged to reinforce the Prominent Intersection of
Bloor Street and Trulls Road.
Height and Density
4.4.6 Building heights shall be a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys.
4.4.7 Development on lands designated Medium Density Regional Corridor shall have a
net density target of 60 units per net hectare.
4.4.8 The highest and most dense forms of development shall be located fronting the
Regional Corridor. Development shall provide a transition, locating less dense
and lower scale buildings in locations adjacent to the Low Density Residential
designation within the Urban Residential area.
4.4.9 Within the Medium Density Regional Corridor designation, the highest and
densest forms are encouraged to be located at the intersections of a Regional
Corridor with an arterial or collector road to provide built form and housing type
variety along the Regional Corridors.
4.4.10 Within the Medium Density Regional Corridor designation buildings and
townhouses less than 4 storeys in height are not permitted within 50 metres of
the following:
a. The intersection of Bloor Street and Trulls Road;
b. The intersection of Courtice Road and Sandringham Drive;
c. The intersection of Courtice Road and the future East-West Collector located
south of Bloor Street;
Page110
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
d. The northeast corner of the intersection of Courtice Road and future
Meadowglade Road;
e. The southeast and southwest corners of the Bloor Street and Farmington Drive
intersection; and
f. The intersection of Highway 2 and the future North -South collector road
located between Courtice Road and Hancock Road.
4.5 Low Density Residential
Permitted Uses
4.5.1 The predominant use of lands within the Low Density Residential designation
shall be a mix of housing types and tenures in low-rise building forms.
4.5.2 The following residential building types are permitted:
a. Detached dwellings;
b. Semi-detached dwellings;
c. Townhouses; and
d. Accessory apartments, as per Policy 6.3.5 of the Clarington Official Plan.
4.5.3 Detached and semi-detached dwelling units shall account for 80 percent of
the total number of units in Low Density Residential designation, with units in
other building types accounting for the remaining 20 percent.
4.5.4 Other uses, including small scale service and neighbourhood retail commercial
uses, which are supportive of and compatible with residential uses, are also
permitted in accordance with Policies 9.3.1, 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 of the Clarington
Official Plan.
Height and Density
4.5.5 Buildings within the Low Density Residential designation shall not exceed 3
storeys in height.
4.5.6 Development on lands designated Low Density Residential shall have a
minimum net density of 13 to a maximum net density of 25 units per net
hectare.
5 Urban Design
5.1 Objectives
Page111
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
5.1.1 Realize attractive and harmonious built form which creates visual interest and
contributes to a positive public realm.
5.1.2 Prioritize the creation of a positive public realm, of which public streets are an
essential component, which is the focus of day-to-day activities and community
life through building orientation, massing and height, animating uses, materiality,
street furniture, landscaping, and public art.
5.1.3 Establish a modified grid pattern of streets, complemented by off-street mid -block
connections and trails, to serve as a network of fine-grained connectivity between
all parts of the Secondary Plan area and, where appropriate, to surrounding
areas.
5.1.4 Provide a good transition between areas of different development intensity and
uses.
5.2 General Policies
5.2.1 Development shall distribute heights, densities and concentrations of varied uses
as per the policies of this Secondary Plan to realize diversity within the built
environment and create community focal points.
5.2.2 Development shall provide good transitions between areas of different height,
density and uses within the Secondary Plan area and to the areas and uses
outside its boundaries.
5.2.3 A modified grid network of streets and the associated pattern of blocks shall
serve to integrate and link high, medium and low density areas into a unified
urban fabric.
5.2.4 The highly connected network of streets shall be supplemented by mid -block
pedestrian connections and trails to further enhance the pedestrian permeability
of the area, the efficiency and variety of pedestrian routes and access to transit.
5.2.5 Development shall contribute to the creation of a high quality public realm which
is safe, comfortable, visually -pleasing and animated, supports active
transportation and community life, and contributes to the distinct character of
Southeast Courtice.
5.2.6 Streets, mid -block connections and trails are important parts of the public realm.
In addition to serving as routes, they shall serve as public places in their own
right and a venue for community life. They shall link Southeast Courtice together,
and with other public places create a public realm network.
5.2.7 Built form shall be massed and sited to frame streets and public spaces in a
consistent manner.
5.2.8 To support the animation of the public realm and enhance the pedestrian
environment, the primary orientation of buildings and the location of main
Page112
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
pedestrian entrances shall be on a public street. Reverse frontage development
generally shall not be permitted within the Secondary Plan Area.
5.2.9 To avoid a garage -dominated streetscape where lot frontages are narrow, public
rear lanes are permitted and encouraged.
5.2.10 The site planning of parking accessed from a rear laneway shall produce an
attractive and safe rear lane streetscape, providing for both vehicular and
pedestrian safety and landscape opportunities.
5.2.11 More broadly, development shall be sited and building elevations and site plans
designed to create an animated frontage or flankage of streets, mid -block
connections and public spaces to achieve animation and passive surveillance,
through the location of building entrances and outdoor amenity areas, street
furniture, and transparent glazing.
5.2.12 Variation in building typology, architectural detailing and massing shall be used to
create built form variation that is harmonious and that avoids repetition which can
reduce the visual interest of streetscapes.
5.2.13 Buildings should be sited to avoid front -to -back and/or overlook conditions and
where this cannot be achieved, impacts should be minimized with appropriate
screening through architectural or landscape treatment.
5.2.14 Development shall limit the negative impacts of parking and loading on the public
realm.
5.2.15 Development shall enhance the experience of the community within its natural
setting, linking the Regional Corridor and lower density areas to the parks and
open space system.
5.2.16 Air conditioning units, utility metres and similar features should not be visible
from the public realm and/or well integrated, recessed and screened.
5.2.17 Development within the Secondary Plan Area shall be developed in accordance
with the urban design policies of this Secondary Plan. Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines shall accompany this Plan and be used as guidance in
the interpretation and implementation of the Secondary Plan's policies.
5.2.18 Views to key landmarks and natural features shall be maintained and created
through the layout of the street network, the creation and reinforcement of the
parks and open space network, the establishment and landscaping of gateways,
the siting of buildings and the design of sites.
5.2.19 Public art is encouraged to be incorporated into private development and public
infrastructure in order to foster a stimulating public realm and contribute to the
area's sense of identity.
Page113
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
5.3 Development within Regional Corridors
5.3.1 The urban design policies in this section pertain to lands designated High
Density/Mixed Use and Medium Density Regional Corridor.
Intensity and Transitions
5.3.2 Within the Regional Corridors the greatest heights and highest density buildings
shall be located on the Regional Corridor frontage, with height and density
decreasing as a transition to lower density designations, parks and
Environmental Protection Areas. The Municipality may require that applications
for development include an analysis as part of the development review process
to address applicable angular plane guidance.
5.3.3 Along the Regional Corridor, the greatest heights and densities will occur
primarily at Prominent Intersections and secondarily at the intersection of
Regional Corridors with other arterials.
5.3.4 Development may be required to undertake technical studies including a wind
study and/or sun/shadow study which demonstrate mitigation of potential shadow
or wind impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian routes, public spaces and
adjacent development to the satisfaction of the Municipality.
Public Realm and Connections
5.3.5 Development shall be located to frame the street with a consistent street wall
and provide a continuous streetscape.
5.3.6 The primary orientation of development will be toward the Regional Corridor.
5.3.7 Side and rear elevations visible from the public realm shall have attractive fagade
treatments using high quality materials.
5.3.8 Development shall provide a balance of hard and soft landscaping.
5.3.9 Mid -block pedestrian connections shall be provided at regular intervals to the
Regional Corridor to improve access from interior neighbourhoods.
5.3.10 Gridded rectilinear lot dimensions shall be established within the Regional
Corridor, where feasible.
Plazas
5.3.11 In reference to policy 3.2.5, plazas should be provided in areas that complement
the public realm of the Prominent Intersections and encourage public
accessibility. Plazas are open spaces designed for public use and defined by
surrounding buildings and/or streets.
Page114
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
5.3.12 Plazas should:
a. Be accessible and visible along the Regional Corridors in order to
enhance usability;
b. Optimize the siting and design to enhance views to public streets or utilize
mid -block connections to connect with the street network;
c. Be programmed for casual use and be a place for small gatherings;
d. Be defined by adjacent buildings with at least one edge open to the public
sidewalk or mid -block connection; and
e. Be designed with small-scale elements to create a human scale with
ample seating and pedestrian -scale lighting.
Parking, Loading and Mechanical Structures
5.3.13 Parking and loading facilities shall be located at the side or rear of buildings, to
promote an attractive public realm and encourage pedestrian activity.
5.3.14 Off-street parking areas shall be configured to reduce their visual impact when
viewed from the public realm or adjacent residential lots by:
a. Locating parking facilities underground or within a parking structure that is
integrated within a residential, mixed use or commercial building;
b. Establishing joint access to parking lots on adjoining properties where
feasible;
c. Using hard and soft landscaping within the parking area to reduce the
visual impact of large parking surfaces;
d. Screening and buffering parking areas adjacent to residential properties
using a combination of opaque fencing or walls and landscaping;
e. Screening parking areas through the use of low decorative fences, walls
and landscaping; and
f. Locating site access at the rear or side of properties fronting the Regional
Corridor.
5.3.15 Loading, servicing and other functional elements are encouraged to be integrated
within the building envelope. Where this is not possible, these elements shall not
be located adjacent to public spaces and shall be screened from view to avoid
visual impact to the public realm or surrounding residential areas.
5.3.16 Garbage and recycling facilities shall be integrated within a building envelope,
where applicable.
Page115
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
5.3.17 All major rooftop mechanical structures or fixtures including satellite dishes
communications antenna shall be suitably screened and integrated with the
building, where feasible. Parapets may be utilized to accommodate such
screening.
5.4 Development within Low Density Residential Designation
5.4.1 In Low Density Residential areas, the following policies shall apply:
a. Dwelling units shall have their main entrance visible and accessible from
the public street;
b. Garages are encouraged to be accessed from a rear lane, particularly for
townhouses and/or lots less than 9 metres wide;
c. Where garages are located at the front of the building facing a street, they
shall be integrated in a manner which does not dominate the streetscape;
d. Driveways shall not exceed the width of the garage;
e. Front yards shall have an appropriate amount soft landscaping to create
an attractive and vegetated streetscape, allow permeability for stormwater
and achieve sustainability objectives;
The maximum number of contiguously attached townhouses shall be six;
g. Buildings on corner lots or abutting parks shall have windows, materials
and architectural treatments consistent with the front elevation where
sides or flankage of buildings is visible;
h. Front and exterior side yard porches shall be encouraged, and
Back lotting onto Arterial and Collector Roads is prohibited.
5.4.2 Individual site access for any permitted residential use adjacent to an arterial
road generally shall not be permitted. Rear lanes shall be the preferred option for
accessing such sites.
5.4.3 The boundary between areas designated Low Density Residential and Medium
Density Regional Corridor shall generally be a public street with buildings of
each designation fronting onto the street.
5.4.4 Policies 5.3.14 to 5.3.17, pertaining to parking, loading, and mechanical, apply to
the development of townhouses within the Low Density Residential designation.
5.5 Transition
5.5.1 Where new development abuts a lawfully existing use, mitigation measures
including transition setbacks or buffers shall be provided from the adjacent
Page116
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
lawfully existing use in accordance with the appropriate studies and in keeping
with the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines.
5.5.2 Where new development abuts designated Employment Areas, a buffer and
other measures shall be undertaken to provide visual separation and ensure the
long term feasibility of employment uses.
5.5.3 Applications for new development may be required to undertake studies to
ensure compatibility with uses adjacent or in the vicinity in accordance with the
Province's D-6 Series Guidelines, addressing such adverse impacts as noise,
vibration, dust and odour or the location of industrial facilities on adjacent
employment lands.
5.5.4 Where new development abuts designated Prime Agricultural land, mitigation
measures including transition setbacks or buffers shall be provided from the
adjacent designation in accordance with the Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines. Any required mitigation shall be provided for within the Urban Area.
5.6 Private Amenities
5.6.1 New multi -unit residential development shall provide shared space for both
indoor and outdoor amenities.
5.6.2 Courtyards and privately owned publicly -accessible amenities shall have at least
two points of pedestrian access.
5.6.3 The design and location of pedestrian entrances to courtyards and privately
owned publicly -accessible amenities shall be clearly identifiable as public to
encourage public use through their siting and the use of design elements.
6 Natural Heritage
6.1 Objectives
6.1.1 Protect, maintain and enhance the natural heritage system, including its ecological
integrity and function.
6.1.2 Protect natural heritage features and functions from incompatible development.
6.1.3 Incorporate the natural heritage system into the parks and open space system.
6.1.4 Use the landscape to contribute to a sense of place and integrate the natural
heritage system in a manner which defines community identity.
6.1.5 Where appropriate, realize the amenity of the natural heritage system in terms of
low -intensity recreation and active transportation and pedestrian permeability of
the neighbourhood through trails and linkages.
Page117
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
6.1.6 Maintain ecological functions while integrating the natural heritage system with
the stormwater management system.
6.2 General Policies
6.2.1 All development shall adhere to the policies of the Clarington Official Plan, as it
pertains to the policy areas of the Natural Heritage System in Section 3.4, the
Watershed and Subwatershed Plans policies in Section 3.5, the Hazards policies
in Section 3.7 and the Environmental Protection Areas policies in Section 14.4.
6.2.2 In addition to policy 6.2.1, the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed
Study (Subwatershed Study) shall form the basis for any study undertaken
regarding the natural heritage system. More detailed studies may refine on a
site by site basis the recommendations from the Subwatershed Study however
the study must address the matters raised by the Subwatershed Study including
linkages.
6.2.3 For those properties not assessed for Headwater Drainage Features in the
Subwatershed Study or where agricultural fields have gone fallow,
Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments may be required prior to any
development in order to accurately assess hydrologic functions of these
features.
6.2.4 Revegetation of riparian corridors that are less than 30 metres wide is
encouraged.
6.3 Environmental Protection Area
6.3.1 Lands designated Environmental Protection Area are shown on Schedule A.
6.3.2 Environmental Protection Areas include natural heritage features, hydrologically
sensitive features, lands within the regulatory flood plain of a watercourse,
headwater drainage features with a "Protection" classification and hazard lands
associated with valley systems, including slope and erosion hazards. Areas
associated with Environmental Protection Areas support their ecological integrity
and include vegetation protection zones and other natural heritage areas.
6.3.3 Stormwater management ponds shall not be permitted to be developed in lands
designated Environmental Protection Area. Once constructed, stormwater
management ponds shall be designated Environmental Protection Area and be
zoned appropriately.
6.3.4 The delineation of the boundary of lands designated as Environmental
Protection Area are approximate and shall be detailed through appropriate
studies prepared as part of the review of development applications in
accordance with the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official
Plan.
Page118
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
6.3.5 The Municipality may require Environmental Protection Areas to be conveyed to
a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the development approval
process at minimal or no cost to the receiving public authority. Conveyance of
lands designated Environmental Protection Area and associated vegetation
protection zones shall not be considered as contributions towards the parkland
dedication requirements under the Planning Act.
6.4 Environmental Constraints Overlay
6.4.1 Environmental Constraints are shown as an overlay on Schedule A.
6.4.2 Environmental Constraints include features identified as "Moderate Constraint
Areas" in the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study. These
features are not currently identified as Environmental Protection Areas but have
potential ecological and/or hydrological value that requires site -specific
assessment prior to development. They include:
a. Wetlands over 0.5 ha that are isolated and/or of lower sensitivity/quality;
b. Category 1 and 2 Hedgerows identified as linkages;
c. Vegetation protection zones;
d. Species -at -risk setbacks;
e. Complex Ecological Land Classification units containing both high/medium
constraint and low constraint features;
f. Agricultural/pasture lands with evidence of hydrological function;
g. Areas providing candidate/unconfirmed species -at -risk habitat or significant
wildlife habitat; and
h. Headwater drainage features with a "Conservation" or "Mitigation"
classification.
6.4.3 The presence and precise delineation of these features and the level of
development acceptable shall be determined through an Environmental Impact
Study prepared as part of the review of development applications in accordance
with the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan.
6.4.4 If the Environmental Impact Study establishes that development can proceed,
then the underlying designation shall apply over those lands without the
requirement for an amendment to this Plan. Mitigation measures may be
recommended to offset impacts.
6.4.5 If the Environmental Impact Study determines that development may not
proceed the underlying designation shall not apply and lands will be
Page119
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
considered to be designated Environmental Protection Area and will be
zoned appropriately.
6.4.6 The Environmental Impact Study shall identify the extent of vegetation protection
zones and other protective measures as per the policies of this Secondary Plan
and the Clarington Official Plan.
6.4.7 The Subwatershed Study referenced in Policy 6.2.2 also identifies "Low
Constraint Areas", comprising features in which development intrusion is not
restricted by existing policies and regulations. It is encouraged that these
features be incorporated into site -level plans where possible to avoid net loss of
natural cover.
6.4.8 The Subwatershed Study referenced in Policy 6.2.2 identifies and assesses a
number of Headwater Drainage Features. Those identified as "protection" are
included in the Environmental Protection Area designation. For those Headwater
Drainage Features identified as "conservation", applications for development
shall:
a. Maintain, relocate and/or enhance the drainage feature and its riparian
corridor;
b. If catchment drainage will be removed due to diversion of stormwater
flows, restore lost functions through enhanced lot level controls as
feasible;
c. Maintain or replace on -site flows using mitigation measures and/or
wetland creation, if necessary;
d. Maintain or replace external flows to the extent feasible; and
e. Use natural channel design techniques to maintain or enhance the overall
productivity of the reach.
6.4.9 Headwater Drainage Features that have been relocated and the associated
riparian corridors established by permissions in policy 6.4.8 shall be considered
to be designated Environmental Protection Area and shall be zoned
appropriately to prohibit development.
7 Parks and Community Facilities
7.1 Objectives
7.1.1 Provide a quantity and quality of park space that meets the needs of residents
and enables a variety of opportunities for passive and active recreation.
7.1.2 Use the design of parks and open spaces to create unique places that contribute
to the area's sense of identity.
Page120
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
7.1.3 Integrate parks into a broader open space and public realm networks.
7.1.4 Provide appropriate levels of service in terms of schools and community facilities.
7.1.5 Locate schools, parks and other community amenities to promote safe and
convenient access by walking and cycling.
7.2 Parks
7.2.1 Parks shall be provided as part of an integrated and connected parks and open
space system.
7.2.2 Parks shall be integrated and connected into a broader public realm network that
also includes civic/institutional uses, streets, mid -block connections, trails and
privately owned publicly -accessible spaces.
7.2.3 The park system, as a whole, shall provide a variety of opportunities for passive
and active recreation and be comprised of well -designed spaces that contribute
to the area's sense of identity.
7.2.4 The following types of parks are included in the Parks designation:
a. Neighbourhood Parks; and
b. Parkettes.
7.2.5 Parks shall be established in accordance with the following:
a. Neighbourhood Parks are parks of between 1.5 and 3 hectares in size that
provide a variety of amenities, including sports fields. They are located in
central locations to allow for good accessibility by walking. All planned
school sites shall, wherever feasible, have a Neighbourhood Park abutting
them to provide areas of shared amenity; and
b. Parkettes are parks of between 0.5 and 1.0 hectares in size that provide a
variety of amenities, but do not contain sports fields. Parkettes contribute
to the variety of leisure and recreational amenities in the community and
improve accessibility to park space by walking.
7.2.6 Dedication of lands for Neighbourhood Parks and Parkettes shall be in
accordance with the Clarington Official Plan.
7.2.7 The locations of Neighbourhood Parks are shown on Schedule A. The precise
size and location of Neighbourhood Parks shall be determined at the time of
development review and approval, based on the parkland provision requirements
of Section 18 of the Clarington Official Plan.
7.2.8 The locations of some Parkettes are shown on Schedule A. The precise number,
size and location of Parkettes shall be determined at the time of development
Page 121
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
review and approval, based on the parkland provision requirements of Section 18
of the Clarington Official Plan.
7.2.9 Parks are encouraged to be bordered by public streets, Environmental Protection
Areas, other natural heritage areas, other public facilities such as schools, and
the flanks of residential uses. Residential and commercial uses backing onto
parks shall be minimized.
7.2.10 Areas conveyed for parkland purposes will be programmable lands.
7.2.11 Environmental Protection Areas, associated vegetation protection zones and
stormwater management areas shall not be conveyed to satisfy parkland
dedication requirements under the Planning Act.
Privately Owned Publicly -Accessible Spaces
7.2.12 In addition to the publicly owned lands which form the Parks designation,
development is encouraged to include privately owned publicly -accessible
spaces that contribute to the sense of place in the community and the quality of
the urban environment.
7.2.13 Privately owned publicly -accessible spaces can include public squares, plazas,
courtyards, walkways and passages, atriums, arcades and parklike spaces. They
contribute to the urban environment by creating spaces for social interaction,
adding to visual interest, improving mid -block permeability and complementing
adjacent land uses.
7.2.14 Public access to privately owned publicly -accessible spaces will be secured
through the development approval process.
Courtice Memorial Park
7.2.15 Courtice Memorial Park will serve as a landmark outdoor space for the larger
Courtice community and will be expanded through parkland dedication
associated with the development process.
7.2.16 The park shall be located with a minimum of two frontages along major arterial
roads.
7.2.17 The park shall use its location adjacent to the natural heritage system to provide
direct linkages to the Regional and Municipal Open Space System.
7.2.18 The park shall incorporate elements, such as plaques, pathway markers, public
art and landscape features, into the park design to reflect and celebrate the
cultural heritage of the area.
7.3 Elementary Schools
7.3.1 The location of school sites is shown symbolically on Schedule A and shall be
Page122
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
further delineated through the development review process or during site
selection by a School Board.
7.3.2 The school sites shown on Schedule A shall not preclude the selection of
alternate school sites by a School Board.
7.3.3 School sites will be developed in accordance with the relevant policies of Section
18.5 of the Clarington Official Plan.
7.3.4 In the event that all or part of a school site should not be required by a School
Board, the Municipality of Clarington shall be given the first opportunity to
purchase all or part of the school site.
7.3.5 Elementary school sites shall be located centrally to promote accessibility by
walking and, where feasible, adjacent to planned Neighbourhood Park sites.
7.3.6 Where a school site adjoins a Neighbourhood Park, the school site shall be
designed to facilitate potential joint use between the Municipality and the
respective School Board.
7.4 Community and Recreation Facilities
7.4.1 The Municipality shall undertake an update of its plan for community and
recreation facilities based on the projected population of the Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan area.
7.4.2 Future community facilities shall be located in highly accessible areas that can be
accessed by pedestrians and cyclists, as well as by automobile.
7.4.3 The co -location of elementary schools with day care centres and community
centres shall be considered.
8 Community Culture and Heritage
8.1 Objectives
8.1.1 Encourage the conservation, protection, enhancement and adaptive reuse of
cultural heritage resources.
8.1.2 Incorporate cultural heritage into community design and development.
8.2 Reflecting the Local Community
8.2.1 The conservation and enhancement of significant cultural heritage resources
shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 8 of the Clarington Official Plan
and all relevant Provincial legislation and policy directives.
Page123
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
8.2.2 Ten properties of cultural heritage value or interest have been identified within or
adjacent to the Secondary Plan area:
a. Properties at 1805 & 1811 Highway 2, 2840 Hancock Road (adjacent to
Secondary Plan area), and 2149 Courtice Road are identified as Secondary
Resources on the Municipality of Clarington Heritage Register;
b. The Lower Alsworth House at 1738 Bloor Street and Ebenezer United
Church at 1669 Courtice Road (adjacent to Secondary Plan area) are
identified as Primary Resources on the Municipality of Clarington Heritage
Register;
c. Properties at 1798 Highway 2, 1604 Bloor Street and 1678 Bloor Street are
Identified as `Candidate' resources by the Clarington Heritage Committee;
and
d. Property at 2433 Courtice Road has been identified as an additional
potential built heritage resource during a field review.
8.2.3 The Municipality will determine if a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report is
required for any properties that are identified on the Municipality of
Clarington's Cultural Heritage Resource List and any properties that have
been identified as having potential Cultural Heritage Value or Interest.
8.2.4 A Heritage Impact Assessment, that includes measures to avoid direct impacts,
and actions to avoid or reduce indirect impacts such as shadowing, isolation,
obstruction of views, change in land use, or land disturbances, shall be
conducted prior to development on or adjacent to properties for which a Cultural
Heritage Evaluation Report has been conducted and determined that the
properties meet the criteria for cultural heritage value or interest as prescribed in
O. Reg. 9/06.
8.2.5 The naming and design of parks, public spaces and prominent streetscapes shall
have regard for the evolved cultural and natural heritage landscape. These
features and amenities shall incorporate local heritage or natural influences
including historic names, interpretive features, vernacular building elements,
plantings and historic drainage patterns.
9 Transportation
9.1 Objectives
9.1.1 Foster a community where walking, cycling and transit are viable and attractive
alternatives to travel by automobile.
9.1.2 Establish a streets and blocks pattern that creates fine-grained connectivity
throughout the community.
Page 124
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
9.1.3 Create routes for active transportation that are direct and efficient and offer high
levels of connectivity with multiple choice of routes.
9.1.4 Establish a network that integrates interior lower density neighbourhoods and the
higher density Regional Corridors where transit will be most frequent and direct.
9.1.5 Use mid -block connections and trails to augment the network established by
streets to improve permeability for users of active transportation.
9.1.6 Wherever possible, continue the pattern of fine-grained connections to
surrounding urban areas.
9.1.7 Design streets as complete streets to ensure that all kinds of traffic can use them
in a safe and comfortable manner: motorists, transit users, cyclists, pedestrians
and people with accessibility challenges. Prioritize active modes of transportation
and the needs of the most vulnerable users.
9.1.8 Design streets as important public places. Create environments which are safe,
inviting, comfortable and visually -pleasing for pedestrians and other forms of
active transportation.
9.1.9 Create efficient routes for through traffic along major arterials.
9.1.10 Connect Southeast Courtice to the local and regional transit networks and
provide levels of service that make transit a viable and attractive mode of
transportation.
9.2 Transportation Network
9.2.1 The transportation network in Southeast Courtice facilitates the movement of
people and goods through an integrated, efficient, comfortable, safe, and
accessible transportation system. The Transportation Network provides a full
range of convenient, practical, and enjoyable mobility options.
9.2.2 The transportation network includes multiple components including the Public
Transit Network, Active Transportation Network and Road Network.
9.2.3 The transportation network in the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan area shall
be developed in accordance with Schedule B Transportation, Parks and Open
Space and the policies of this Secondary Plan, with further guidance provided in
the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines and the Southeast Courtice
Transportation Report.
9.2.4 The Transportation Network shall include public roads, public rear lanes, transit,
and designated bicycle and pedestrian routes and facilities.
9.2.5 Development proposals and all public roads shall be designed to connect with
the existing road network to create a rectilinear grid pattern of roads that defines
development blocks and establishes a highly interconnected and permeable
Page 125
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
network that supports active transportation and maximizes accessibility and
support for transit. The rectilinear grid pattern may be modified to accommodate
natural heritage areas and other constraints. Connectivity by active transportation
throughout the Secondary Plan area and to surrounding areas shall be further
enhanced by mid -block connections and trails through and across Environmental
Protection Areas.
9.2.6 The grid pattern shall integrate areas of various development intensity and uses.
9.3 Road Network
9.3.1 The road network serves as the primary framework for all forms of mobility and
connectivity in Southeast Courtice. The road network includes a hierarchy of
street types which is consistent with the hierarchy established through the
Clarington Official Plan. These street types have specific characteristics and
include the following classifications consistent with Schedule B:
a. Arterial Roads: arterial roads are higher -order roadways designed to
efficiently move large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds over
long distances. Because of their scale and the opportunities that they
provide for enhanced connectivity, arterial roads contribute to the primary
structure of the community. Arterial roads in Southeast Courtice are to
accommodate vehicular traffic, transit and goods movement, and are
designed to be context sensitive and support active transportation
objectives in accordance with the policies of this plan. Arterial roads may be
under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham or the Municipality.
b. Collector Roads: collector roads are under the jurisdiction of the
Municipality. They provide for key linkages with arterial streets. Collector
roads should support walking and cycling and can support local transit.
c. Local Roads: local roads carry lower volumes of vehicular traffic, provide a
safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists and provide direct access to
individual properties.
d. Rear Lanes: rear lanes provide access to private garages or parking spaces
and may provide direct access to secondary suites. Rear lanes provide
relief to the local street system and promote through traffic movements on
arterial and collector roads.
General Policies Applying to All Roads
9.3.2 The alignment of arterial and collector roads is shown on Schedule B. These
alignments are approximate and will be built according to detailed planning and
engineering studies and through completion of Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment. Changes to the alignments which the Municipality determines are in
keeping with the intent of this Secondary Plan shall not require an amendment to
this Plan.
Page126
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
9.3.3 Roads shall be designed as complete streets to ensure that all kinds of traffic can
use them in a safe and comfortable manner: motorists, transit users, cyclists,
pedestrians and people with accessibility challenges. Active modes of
transportation and the needs of the most vulnerable users shall be prioritized.
9.3.4 Roads shall be designed to be important public places and create environments
which are safe, inviting, comfortable and visually -pleasing for pedestrians and
other forms of active transportation.
9.3.5 All public rights -of -way are encouraged to promote the use of Green
Infrastructure including perforated pipes, rain gardens and bioswales.
9.3.6 All arterial, collector and local roads shall also be planned to include
a vibrant and healthy tree canopy, consisting of primarily native
plantings. The tree canopy will provide shade and enhance and
establish a vibrant urban environment. A tree canopy plan shall be
prepared for each plan of subdivision. In order to maximize the
amount of tree planting and to minimize the removal of in -situ trees,
the co -location of utilities is encouraged.
Existing Roads
9.3.7 Arterial roads including Bloor Street, Courtice Road, Highway 2, Trulls Road and
Hancock Road are existing roads within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
Area. Existing roads provide a framework for future enhancements and will
generally be improved consistent with the policies of this Secondary Plan.
9.3.8 The conveyance of land consistent with the widening of the rights -of -way shown
in this plan shall be required to permit the development of lands adjacent to
existing roads. Additional dedication for road widenings may be required, such as
for grading, drainage and stormwater management, auxiliary turn lanes, transit
provisions and utilities.
9.3.9 Hancock Road will be realigned according to Schedule B of this plan. The
development of lands abutting or adjacent to this route shall consider the new
alignment of Hancock Road.
New Roads
9.3.10 Several street extensions are provided through this Secondary Plan including the
Granville Drive, Farmington Drive, Meadowglade Road and Sandringham Drive
extensions.
9.3.11 Two new collector roads are also provided as shown on Schedule B including a
north -south road connecting Highway 2 and Bloor Street and an east -west road
connecting Courtice Road with the Granville Drive extension located south of
Bloor Street.
9.3.12 All new roads, public or private, will be built to be consistent with the policies of
Page127
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
this plan. Additional dedication for road widenings may be required, such as for
grading, drainage and stormwater management, auxiliary turn lanes, transit
provisions and utilities.
9.3.13 New local roads will be established in a modified grid pattern in accordance with
the policies of this plan.
9.4 Arterial Roads
9.4.1 Courtice Road and Bloor Street are Type A arterial roads. Highway 2 is a Type B
arterial road. These roads and adjacent lands form the Regional Corridor
component of the Community Structure.
9.4.2 Courtice Road and Bloor Street are encouraged to be developed as Multi -Ways
as detailed in the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines. The design of the
Multi -Ways will balance the functional requirements of a Type A arterial road and
a local road. Multi -Ways realize the following objectives:
a. Fulfill the function of a Type A arterial road as an efficient and high -volume
route for a range of travel modes and include the following considerations:
i. Through lanes shall be appropriately dimensioned to ensure the
efficient movement of vehicular traffic; and
ii. Transit infrastructure such as bus shelters should be
accommodated within the side medians.
b. Fulfill the function of a local road through the establishment of local
service lanes adjacent and parallel to the Type A arterial road which:
Allows the grid network of internal local and collector roads to
connect to the service lanes at more frequent intervals than
would be permitted by a Type A arterial road. The Multi -Way will
support high levels of permeability and accessibility between low,
medium and high density areas; and
ii. Creates a traffic -calmed lane that buffers built form, public spaces
and active transportation routes from higher speed through lanes.
c. Create an attractive urban corridor which functions as a successful public
place, a community focal point, as well as a safe and comfortable
environment for active transportation and access to transit including
specific consideration of the following:
i. Slow traffic in proximity to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure
through the use of a service lane and other traffic calming
measures as needed;
ii. Utilize a planting and furnishing zone adjacent to the roadway
Page128
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
where required;
iii. Accommodate on -street parking, where appropriate;
iv. Connect the pedestrian streetscape with adjacent public plazas;
v. Provide landscape plantings, shade trees and street furniture;
vi. Provide a sidewalk on both sides of the right-of-way;
vii. Provide appropriate lighting of the pedestrian realm; and
viii. Provide segregated bicycle routes clearly identified by signage.
9.4.3 Multi -Ways within the Secondary Plan Area shall be designed following the
principles of complete streets provided in Policy 19.6.4 of the Clarington Official
Plan and shall incorporate segregated bicycle infrastructure, provide public
transit infrastructure and integrate the principles of universal design to facilitate
access for all abilities.
9.4.4 The Municipality of Clarington will work with the Region of Durham to design and
stage the implementation of the Multi -Way concept on the portions of Courtice
Road and Bloor Street within the Secondary Plan area, and shall consider its
extension beyond the Secondary Plan area's borders.
9.4.5 On -street parking shall be considered within the Municipal portion of the
Multi -Way rights -of -way on Bloor Street and Courtice Road.
9.4.6 As a new road configuration which may include portions of the right-of-way
under Regional and Municipal jurisdiction, Multi -Ways may require a new
approach to the interpretation of existing road policies and standards which
focuses on their intent in the evaluation of the full right-of-way.
9.4.7 On segments of Bloor Street and Courtice Road where a Multi -Way
configuration is not deemed feasible, alternative design solutions should be
implemented that achieve the objectives for the Multi -Way established in Policy
9.4.2, with regard to Durham Region guidelines and the requirements of
Arterials Type A as identified in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official
Plan, and will consider the following elements:
a. Type A arterial rights -of -way serve a wide variety of functions and
shall carefully balance safety, visual amenity and pedestrian
considerations;
b. Dedicated bikeways with clearly identified signage and/or pavement
markings shall be provided;
c. Transit oriented design elements shall be accommodated including transit
shelters, accessible sidewalk connections and curb cuts to access transit
Page129
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
stops;
d. Regular planting of street trees is encouraged to create a comfortable and
desirable pedestrian environment;
e. Appropriate lighting will be provided to enhance the safety and comfort of
the pedestrian streetscape;
Lighting shall be downcast to reduce light pollution; and
g. Strategies to accommodate on -street parking shall be considered,
particularly in proximity to Prominent Intersections.
9.4.8 Arterial roads identified as Arterial B or Arterial C on Schedule B will generally be
designed according to the requirements for Arterials Type B or Arterials Type C
respectively in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official Plan and will be
consistent with the requirements set forth in the Urban Design Guidelines for
Southeast Courtice and will consider the following elements:
a. A two-way dedicated bicycle path including appropriate signage and/or
pavement markings;
b. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the right-of-way;
c. Transit oriented design elements shall be accommodated including transit
shelters, accessible sidewalk connections and curb cuts to access transit
stops;
d. Regular planting of street trees is encouraged to create a comfortable and
desirable pedestrian environment;
e. Appropriate road scale lighting shall be provided at the pedestrian scale to
contribute to the safety and comfort of the streetscape; and
f. Lighting shall be downcast to reduce light pollution.
9.4.9 Improvements to Highway 2, Bloor Street, and Courtice Road are to meet the
planning, engineering, design, and approval requirements of the Region of
Durham and the intent of this Secondary Plan.
9.5 Collector Roads
9.5.1 Collector roads shall be designed in accordance with the road classification
criteria in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official Plan and include the
following design standards:
a. A minimum of two through lanes shall be provided, the right-of-way may
include a turning lane at junctions and intersections;
Page130
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
b. A clearly marked on -street bicycle lane shall be provided on collector routes
on both sides of the right-of-way;
c. Landscaping and tree plantings are encouraged within the right-of-way;
d. A sidewalk shall be provided on both sides of the right-of-way set back from
the curb or otherwise buffered from active lanes of traffic;
e. Appropriate lighting shall be provided to contribute to the safe function of
the roadway as well as the safe and appropriate lighting of the pedestrian
realm; and
f. Lighting should be downcast to reduce light pollution.
9.5.2 Collector roads shall be designed to incorporate passive and physical traffic
calming measures where appropriate to reduce speeds and improve safety.
9.5.3 The intersection of collector roads on Highway 2, Bloor Street, and Courtice
Road are to meet the planning, engineering, design, and approval requirements
of the Region of Durham.
9.6 Local Roads
9.6.1 Local roads shall be established on a modified rectilinear grid pattern to realize
high connectivity and permeability across the Secondary Plan area.
9.6.2 Draft plans of subdivision shall have regard for the design guidelines for local
roads, lanes and green streets contained in the Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines.
9.6.3 Local roads shall be designed to incorporate passive and physical traffic calming
measures to reduce speeds and improve safety.
9.6.4 Local roads shall be designed in accordance with the road classification criteria
in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official Plan and include the following
design standards:
a. On -street parking lane shall be available on either side of the right-of-way;
Page 131
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
b. Parking lanes may have permeable paving and be broken by landscaped
curb extensions as a pedestrian facility and traffic calming measure;
c. Sidewalks are encouraged on both sides of a local road;
d. Appropriate lighting shall be provided to contribute to the safe function of
the roadway as well as the safe and appropriate lighting of the pedestrian
realm; and
e. Lighting should be downcast to reduce light pollution
9.6.5 The design and location of local roads shall also be consistent with Policy
19.6.23 of the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan.
9.6.6 An east -west right-of-way shall be established as a local road, located north of
Bloor Street, extending east of Trulls Road and providing an easterly connection
from Trulls Road extending to the Farmington Drive extension. This route shall
be established as a public right-of-way through the development approval
process.
9.6.7 An east -west right-of-way shall be established as a local road, located north of
Bloor Street, extending west of Trulls Road and providing a westerly connection
from Trulls Road to the Granville Drive extension. This route shall be established
as a public right-of-way through the development approval process.
9.6.8 The east -west local road connecting the Granville Drive extension to Trulls Road
and from Trulls Road to the Farmington Drive extension, north of Bloor Street,
shall perform as a collector road to provide a connection between residential
neighbourhoods and community uses. There shall be an emphasis on creating
safe and pedestrian -focused environments.
9.7 Rear Lanes
9.7.1 Public rear lanes are permitted and encouraged to support safe and
attractive streets by eliminating the need for driveways and street -facing
garages.
9.7.2 Public rear lanes can provide alternative pedestrian routes through a community
and shall provide a safe environment for pedestrian and vehicle travel.
9.7.3 Public utilities may be located within public rear lanes subject to functional and
design standards established by the Municipality.
9.7.4 Rear lanes shall be designed in accordance with the road classification criteria in
Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official Plan and include the following
design standards:
Page132
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
a. Lanes shall allow two-way travel and incorporate a setback on either side of
the right-of-way to the adjacent garage wall;
b. Lanes shall provide access for service and maintenance vehicles for
required uses as deemed necessary by the Municipality and may include
enhanced laneway widths and turning radii to accommodate municipal
vehicles including access for snowplows, garbage trucks and emergency
vehicles where required;
c. Laneways shall be clear of overhead obstruction and shall be free from
overhanging balconies, trees and other encroachments.
d. Lanes shall intersect with public roads;
e. No municipal services, except for local storm sewers, shall be allowed,
unless otherwise accepted by the Director of Public Works;
f. No Region of Durham infrastructure shall be permitted;
g. Lanes should be graded to channelize snow -melt and runoff;
h. The design of lanes shall incorporate appropriate elements of low impact
design including permeable paving where sufficient drainage exists;
i. Lanes should be prioritized where development fronts onto an arterial or
collector road network;
j. Access for waste collection and emergency service vehicles is to be
accommodated;
k. Access to loading areas should be provided from rear lanes;
I. Appropriate lighting shall be provided to contribute to the safe function of
the roadway as well as the safe and appropriate lighting of the pedestrian
realm; and
m. Lighting should be downcast to reduce light pollution.
9.8 Public Transit
9.8.1 The Public Transit Network will enhance the community of Southeast Courtice
and will support the creation of a sustainable, liveable, and active community.
9.8.2 The Municipality shall ensure that transit facilities are integrated early and
appropriately throughout Southeast Courtice by including Durham Region Transit
in all development pre -application meetings, and ensuring that transit
requirements are addressed through municipal capital works and private
development applications.
Page133
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
9.8.3 The design of transit stops shall incorporate appropriate amenities and shall
consider transit shelters, seating, tactile paving, bike racks, curb cuts and
appropriate lighting.
9.8.4 To facilitate the creation of a transit -supportive urban structure, the following
measures shall be reflected in development proposals, including the subdivision
of land:
a. Transit -supportive densities provided on lands
within the Regional Corridor in keeping with
municipal density targets;
b. An active transportation network that promotes direct pedestrian access to
transit routes and stops;
c. Transit stops located in close proximity to activity nodes and building
entrances;
d. Provision for transit stops and incorporation of bus -bays where
appropriate into road design requirements; and
e. Where feasible, the integration of transit waiting areas in buildings located
adjacent to transit stops.
9.9 Integration and Quality of Active Transportation Routes
9.9.1 Principles of active transportation promote all self -powered forms of mobility. The
active transportation network provides opportunities for active transportation and
enhances mobility by providing for an alternative to local automotive
transportation.
9.9.2 The policies of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan are an extension of the
Municipality's Active Transportation Network and are intended to ensure the local
provision and ongoing development of an active transportation network which
connects residents of differing abilities to destinations and other modes of
transportation such as public transit.
9.9.3 The active transportation network includes both on- and off-street facilities
including trails, sidewalks, separated bicycle lanes and on -street bicycle lanes.
Elements of the Active Transportation System are shown on Schedule B of this
plan.
9.9.4 All road infrastructure within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan area shall
promote the safety and visibility of vulnerable road users.
9.9.5 The active transportation network may be provided within road rights -of -way as
well as through trails and mid -block connections. Active transportation
connections across barriers (natural and related to infrastructure) shall be
Page 134
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
planned at appropriate walking/cycling intervals to reduce barriers between areas
and increase accessibility for all ages and abilities.
9.9.6 To support increased network connectivity, provide relief from continuous
facades and to establish secondary view corridors connecting prominent arterial
or collector roads, mid -block connections shall be established throughout the
Secondary Plan Area and in particular through high and medium density blocks
within the Regional Corridor.
9.9.7 Destinations such as natural areas, parks, schools, recreation areas and stores
and connections with areas outside the Secondary Plan area boundaries will be
integrated through the on- and off-street active transportation network including
segregated and on -street bike lanes and multi -use trails.
9.9.8 All collector and local roads shall also be planned to include a vibrant and healthy
tree canopy, consisting of primarily native plantings. The tree canopy will provide
shade and enhance and establish a vibrant urban environment. A tree canopy
plan shall be prepared for each plan of subdivision. In order to maximize the
amount of tree planting and to minimize the removal of in -situ trees, the co -
location of utilities is encouraged.
Trails
9.9.9 Trails serve as a key form of off-street connectivity within the community of
Southeast Courtice. They allow for recreation and active transportation, creating
off-street linkages between destinations as well as providing safe and enjoyable
access to the parks and natural heritage systems.
9.9.10 As outlined in policy 18.4.3 of the Clarington Official Plan, Municipal trails will be
developed within two classifications - primary and secondary trails.
9.9.11 The design of the recreational trail should reflect the function and nature of the
type of open space it occupies.
9.9.12 Primary trails are multi -use trails that provide for a variety of recreational uses
and occasional vehicular access for maintenance purposes. They shall generally
adhere to the following design principles:
a. Primary trails shall be barrier free and have multiple access points;
b. Entrances should be clearly demarcated with gateway features such as
public art where appropriate;
c. Washrooms, parking, furniture including benches and bins, signage,
interpretive facilities and lighting should be provided to enhance safety and
support use by all ages and abilities; and
d. Primary trails shall allow for two-way cyclist or pedestrian passage.
Page 135
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
9.9.13 Secondary trails provide access to natural areas and, where appropriate,
stormwater management areas. They integrate these areas into the park and
open space network and support passive recreation opportunities in these
environments. Secondary trails are narrower than primary trails and usually have
a surface of crushed aggregate or woodchip.
9.9.14 Trails and creek crossings will be minimized within Environmental Protection
Areas to conserve the ecological function and hydrological function of the
features comprising the natural heritage system.
9.9.15 Trail location shall be the subject of an Environmental Impact Study, where
appropriate.
9.9.16 Trails identified on Schedule B shall be assessed as part of an Environmental
Impact Study being undertaken on adjacent lands.
9.9.17 Trails should generally follow the alignment indicated on Schedule B. The precise
classification and alignment of trails will be confirmed through the development
approvals process.
9.9.18 Additional trails may be identified through the development approvals process to
augment the trail system identified on Schedule B.
10 Housing
10.1 Objectives
10.1.1 Offer a variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures, that allow households of
various sizes and incomes to find a home within Southeast Courtice.
10.1.2 Encourage the provision of affordable housing and rental housing.
10.1.3 Foster aging in place by encouraging a range of housing that can meet the needs
of Courtice residents during all phases of life.
10.2 General Policies
10.2.1 A variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures shall be provided in Southeast
Courtice to meet the needs of a diverse population and households of various
sizes, incomes and age compositions. This housing mix is encouraged to
include purpose-built rental and seniors housing.
10.2.2 Affordable housing is encouraged to locate within the Regional Corridors to
provide residents excellent access to public transit.
10.2.3 Affordable housing, including subsidized non -market housing units, is
encouraged to be integrated within neighbourhoods and combined in
developments that also provide market housing to provide opportunities for a
Page136
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
range of housing tenures and prices that support diversity.
10.2.4 New affordable housing and purpose-built rental housing should incorporate
barrier -free, universal or flex design features in both common and living areas.
10.2.5 The Municipality should collaborate with public and non-profit housing providers
to encourage a supply of subsidized non -market housing units to be included
within the housing mix in the Secondary Plan area.
10.2.6 To support the provision of affordable housing units, the Municipality will explore
other potential incentives such as reduced or deferred development charges,
reduced application fees, grants and loans, to encourage the development of
affordable housing units. The reduction or deferral of Development Charges
shall be done in consultation with the Region of Durham. The Municipality will
also encourage Durham Region to consider financial incentives for affordable
housing.
10.2.7 As an incentive for the provision of affordable housing, as defined in Section 24.2
of the Clarington Official Plan, reductions in the minimum parking requirement
under the Zoning By-law may be considered by the Municipality on a site -by -site
basis where housing that is affordable is provided as part of a development
proposal.
10.2.8 To facilitate the development of affordable housing units within the Secondary
Plan area and in the Municipality, the Landowners Group in the Secondary Plan
Area shall provide at their choice either land or a contribution of funds to the
Municipality for the development of affordable, public or non-profit housing in the
community.
10.2.9 The land to be conveyed as provided in Section 10.2.8 shall have an
approximate size of 1.5 hectares, be fully serviced and be gratuitously
conveyed free and clear of encumbrances. Conveyance shall occur at the time
of approval of the first plan of subdivision within the Secondary Plan area.
10.2.10 The contribution of funds as provided in Section 10.2.8 will be through a
contribution agreement to be negotiated between the Municipality and the
Landowners Group. The contribution of funds shall be paid by the Landowners
Group upon the approval of the Secondary Plan and upon the first approval of
a development application in the Secondary Plan area at a rate of $400.00 per
unit.
10.2.11 A range of unit sizes are encouraged within apartment and multi -unit buildings,
including those suitable for larger households and families.
10.2.12 An accessory apartment is permitted within the Secondary Plan Area within a
detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or townhouse subject to the
following:
Page137
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
a. Only one accessory apartment is permitted within the dwelling;
b. One additional parking space is required for the accessory apartment in
accordance with the Zoning By-law;
c. Sufficient water supply and sanitary servicing capacity exists;
d. The accessory apartment complies with the provisions of the Ontario
Building Code, Ontario Fire Code and any other relevant regulations; and
e. The accessory apartment is registered with the Municipality.
10.2.13 One additional accessory apartment shall be permitted in a detached
accessory building with access to a rear lane. The additional accessory
apartment is encouraged to be in the form of a unit on the second storey of a
detached garage with access to the rear lane. This unit is subject to the
following:
a. One additional parking space is required for the accessory apartment in
accordance with the Zoning By-law;
b. Sufficient water supply and sanitary servicing capacity exists;
c. The accessory apartment complies with the provisions of the Ontario
Building Code, Ontario Fire Code and any other relevant regulations; and
d. The accessory apartment is registered with the Municipality.
10.2.14 Reduction of parking requirements for accessory apartments may be
considered if the proposed unit is deemed to have excellent access to transit.
10.2.15 The Municipality will give priority to development applications that include
affordable housing units that are being funded by federal and provincial
government programs or non-profit groups.
11 Infrastructure, Stormwater Management and
Environmental Performance
11.1 Objectives
11.1.1 Incorporate infrastructure and utilities in a manner that is sensitive to the quality
of the public realm.
11.1.2 Reduce the impact of development on hydrologic and ecological systems through
the use of the principles of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure.
Page138
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
11.1.3 Extend greenery throughout Southeast Courtice through native plantings, which
include a diversity of tree species that contribute to the urban forest and a vibrant
and healthy tree canopy.
11.1.4 Promote the use of technologies and methods which improve the environmental
performance of development.
11.2 Infrastructure and Utilities
11.2.1 Telecommunications/communications utilities, electrical stations or sub -stations,
mail boxes or super mail boxes and similar facilities should be incorporated and
built into architectural and landscaping features, rather than being freestanding.
Where feasible, these shall be compatible with the appearance of adjacent uses
and include anti -graffiti initiatives.
11.2.2 Super mailboxes shall not be located in a municipally owned park.
11.2.3 Sanitary sewer alignments are subject to change as future detailed design work is
completed as part of development applications.
11.3 Stormwater Management and Low Impact Development
11.3.1 Stormwater management facilities shown on Schedule A and B are illustrative
and final location and sizing shall be determined through the development
application process.
11.3.2 Proposed stormwater management quality, quantity, erosion control and water
balance for ground water and natural systems shall be assessed during the
development approval process to determine the impact on the natural heritage
system and environmental features.
11.3.3 The submission of the following plans and reports shall be required to determine
the impact of stormwater quality/quantity, erosion and water balance of the
proposed development. All reports shall be prepared in accordance with the
Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study including:
a. Stormwater Management Report and Plan;
b. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;
c. Servicing Plans;
d. Grading Plans;
e. Geotechnical reports;
f. Hydrogeologic reports; and
g. Other technical reports as deemed necessary.
Page139
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
11.3.4 The Stormwater Management Report and Plan identified in Policy 11.3.3 shall
apply a range of stormwater management practices including Low Impact
Development techniques to ensure water quality control, baseflow management,
water temperature control and the protection of aquatic habitat. The Stormwater
Management Report and Plan shall explore and consider the feasibility of, and
opportunities to, implement such Low Impact Development measures as:
a. Permeable hardscaping;
b. Bioretention areas;
c. Exfiltration systems;
d. Bioswales and infiltration trenches;
e. Third pipe systems;
f. Vegetation filter strips;
g. Green roofs (multi -unit buildings);
h. Rainwater harvesting; and
i. Other potential measures.
11.3.5 Stormwater management plans shall demonstrate how the water balance target
set in the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study is achieved.
11.3.6 Stormwater management for all development shall be undertaken on a volume
control basis and shall demonstrate the maintenance of recharge rates, flow
paths and water quality to the greatest extent possible. Peak flow control and the
maintenance of pre -development water balance shall be demonstrated.
11.3.7 High Volume Recharge Areas shall maintain a pre -development water balance.
11.3.8 Development of all detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings shall
demonstrate the use of an adequate volume of amended topsoil or equivalent
system to improve surface porosity and permeability over all turf and landscaped
areas beyond 3 metres of a building foundation and beyond tree protection
areas.
11.4 Urban Forest and Native Plantings
11.4.1 Together, new development and public realm improvements shall establish an
urban tree canopy throughout the Secondary Plan area to minimize the heat
island effect, provide for shade and wind cover and contribute to a green and
attractive environment.
11.4.2 New development and public realm improvements are required to use native
Page140
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
plant species wherever possible, particularly along rights -of -way and pedestrian
trails.
11.4.3 New development and public realm improvements shall only use native plantings
within 30 metres of Environmental Protection Areas.
11.4.4 All private development shall be supported by landscape plans which
demonstrate how the development will contribute to the urban forest, improve the
health and diversity of the natural environment, support other local plant and
animal species and further enhance the connectivity of the built environment to
natural heritage features and hydrologically sensitive features.
11.4.5 All private development shall contribute to the woodland cover target for the
watershed in keeping with the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed
Study and in accordance with Environment Canada's target for woodland cover.
11.4.6 A diversity of tree species shall be planted in parks and along rights -of -way to
provide a healthy and more robust tree inventory that is less prone to insects and
diseases.
11.4.7 Selection of tree species within the Secondary Plan area will contribute the
Municipality's species diversity objectives.
11.4.8 Where trees and shrubs are destroyed or harvested pre -maturely prior to proper
study and approval, compensation will be calculated at a 3:1 ratio.
11.5 Building Technology
11.5.1 Buildings shall be constructed with attractive and durable materials that conserve
energy by lowering maintenance and replacement costs.
11.5.2 New development shall consider the use of renewable energy sources.
11.5.3 New development shall consider the use of technologies such as green roofs and
reflective roof surface materials with high thermal reflectivity.
11.6 Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
11.6.1 The Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines contained in Appendix A and
described in Policy 12.3.8 and 12.3.9 provide direction in the form of design
guidance and strategies to implement the vision and objectives of the Secondary
Plan. If there is a conflict between the Secondary Plan policy and the Guidelines,
Secondary Plan policy prevails.
Page 141
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
12 Implementation and Interpretation
12.1 Environmental Study Area
12.1.1 Lands identified as Environmental Study Area are identified on Schedule A. The
lands generally bound by Trulls Road in the west, Courtice Road in the east,
Bloor Street in the South and Meadowglade Road to the north and shown on
Schedule A have been identified as an Environmental Study Area.
12.1.2 The Environmental Study Area identifies an area that contains complex natural
features and functions, many of which require additional study to define. An
Environmental Impact Study shall be prepared for the Area, in accordance with
the policies of the Official Plan.
12.1.3 Until the Environmental Impact Study has been completed in accordance with
Policy 12.1.2, land uses within the Environmental Study Area shall be limited to
existing lawful/permitted uses.
12.1.4 Following the completion of the required study to the satisfaction of the
Municipality, the Environmental Study Area may be modified as deemed
appropriate by the study, without amendment to this Plan, and the underlying
land use designation will apply.
12.1.5 The Zoning By-law shall be amended as appropriate following the completion of
the required study to implement new land use permissions for the study area.
12.2 Zoning By-law
12.2.1 A Zoning By-law shall implement the policies of this Secondary Plan.
12.3 Implementation
12.3.1 The policies of this Secondary Plan shall be considered when making decisions
related to development of the lands within the Southeast Courtice Secondary
Plan Area. The policies of this Secondary Plan shall be implemented by
exercising the powers conferred upon the Municipality by the Planning Act, the
Municipal Act and any other applicable statues, and in accordance with the
applicable policies of the Official Plan.
12.3.2 Detailed studies prepared in support of a development application may refine on
site by site basis the recommendations of the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek
Subwatershed Study however the study must address the issues raised by the
Subwatershed Study.
12.3.3 The Municipality will monitor the policies of this Secondary Plan as part of the
regular Official Plan review and propose updates as deemed necessary.
Page142
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
12.3.4 It is not possible or desirable to recognize all existing uses in the Secondary
Plan. An existing use of land, building or structure which is lawfully in existence
prior to the passage of the implementing Zoning By-law and which does not
conform to this Secondary Plan, but continues to be used for such purposes,
shall be deemed to be legal non -conforming.
12.3.5 Non -conforming uses, legal or otherwise, shall be encouraged to relocate or
redevelop so that the subject land may be used in conformity with the policies of
this Secondary Plan and the provisions of the implementing Zoning By-law.
12.3.6 Inherent to the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan is the principle of flexibility,
provided that the general intent and structure of the Plan are maintained to the
satisfaction of the Municipality. As such, it is the intent of the Municipality to
permit some flexibility in accordance with Official Plan policy 24.1.5 in the
interpretation of the policies, regulations and numerical requirements of this
Secondary Plan except where this Secondary Plan is explicitly intended to be
prescriptive.
12.3.7 The Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines, including the Demonstration
Plan, are contained as an appendix to this Secondary Plan.
12.3.8 The Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines provide specific guidelines for
both the public and private sectors. They indicate the Municipality of
Clarington's expectations with respect to the character, quality and form of
development in the Southeast Courtice community. The Demonstration Plan
illustrates the planning principles that are inherent to the Secondary Plan. It is
one example of how the Secondary Plan might be implemented within the
Secondary Plan area. The Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines and
Demonstration Plan have been approved by Council, however, do not require
an amendment to implement an alternative design solution, or solutions at any
time in the future.
12.3.9 Engineering infrastructure shall follow the schedule within the Municipality's and
Region's capital budget, as agreed to by the landowners' group.
12.3.10 All new development within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan area shall
proceed on the basis of the sequential extension of full municipal services
through the Regional and Municipal capital works programs and plans of
subdivision.
12.3.11 Development applications for lands abutting the arterial road and collector roads
shown in Schedule B shall require that lands be dedicated for road widenings
as determined by the Municipality or Region.
12.3.12 The conveyance of additional land or the contribution of additional funds to
facilitate the development of affordable housing beyond the provisions in
policies 10.2.8, 10.2.9 and 10.10.10 shall not be utilized as a means to
increase the number of units permitted by the Secondary Plan or as a means to
Page143
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan — Recommended
not implement the policies of the Secondary Plan.
12.3.13 Approval of development applications shall be conditional upon commitments
from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of development to the
timing and funding of the required road and transportation facilities, parks and
community facilities. These works shall be provided for in the subdivision and
site plan agreements. Phasing of the development, based on the completion of
the external road works, may be required by the Municipality of Clarington.
12.3.14 Approval of development applications shall also be conditional upon
commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of
development to the timing and funding of required stormwater management,
sanitary sewer and water supply facilities. These works shall be provided for in
subdivision and site plan agreements. Phasing of development, based on the
completion of external sewer and water services, may be implemented if
required by the Municipality of Clarington.
12.3.15 The Secondary Plan recognizes that comprehensive planning requires the
equitable sharing amongst landowners of costs associated with the
development of land. It is a policy of this Secondary Plan that prior to the
approval of any draft plan of subdivision, applicants/landowners shall have
entered into appropriate cost sharing agreements which establish the means by
which the costs (including Region of Durham costs) of developing the property
are to be shared. The Municipality may also require, as a condition of draft
approval, that proof be provided to the Municipality that landowners have met
their obligations under the relevant cost sharing agreements prior to registration
of a plan of subdivision.
12.4 Interpretation
12.4.1 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan has been prepared to align with the
policies of the Official Plan. The policies of this Secondary Plan, along with Maps
and Appendices shall be read and interpreted in conjunction with the policies of
the Official Plan.
12.4.2 In the event of a conflict between the Official Plan and this Secondary Plan, the
policies of the Secondary Plan shall prevail.
12.4.3 The boundaries shown on Schedule A to this Plan are approximate, except
where they meet with existing roads, river valleys or other clearly defined
physical features. Where the general intent of this Secondary Plan is maintained
to the satisfaction of the Municipality, minor boundary adjustments will not require
an amendment to this Secondary Plan.
12.4.4 Where examples of permitted uses are listed under any specific land use
designation, they are intended to provide examples of possible uses. Other
similar uses may be permitted provided they conform to the intent and all
applicable provisions of this Secondary Plan.
Page 144
Legend
SECSP Boundary
0 High Density/Mixed Use
0 Medium Density Regional Corridor
= Low Density Residential
V NP Neighbourhood Park
Parkette
0 Environmental Protection Area
Environmental Constraint
0 Environmental Study Area**
Watercourse
Elementary School
',b Prominent Intersection
Stormwater Management Facil
WF),
9
Street
Schedule A — Land Use
- Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan -
Note: *Final SWF locations to be determined by Robinson Tooley Subwatershed Study / Landowners
**Area subject to further environmental study
I
■
■
Sandringham Drive i
NP I boa
6e,
_0
0
C:
LL
0 — — —
P
Street
0
CU
0 U
0
M -= i Q) .0
0
Q
------ --------- ----------
Legend
- iSECSP Boundary moommonom Arterial A (Dedicated Bicycle Lane) Schedule B - Transportation, Parks
=Environmental Protection Area —Arterial B (Dedicated Bicycle Lane)
Environmental Constraint -Arterial C (Dedicated Bicycle Lane) and Open Space
Collector (On -Street Bicycle Lane)
=Environmental Study Area" ............ Trail - Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan -
Neighbourhood Park Watercourse
Parkette Note: *Final SWF locations to be determined by Robinson Tooley Subwatershed Study / Landowners
.� Elementary School **Area subject to further environmental study
0 Stormwater Managevnt FaIh(SWF)*
Attachment 1 b to Report PSD-055-20
A=COM
SOUTHEAST COURTICE
URBAN DESIGN &
SUSTAINABILITY
GUIDELINES
Prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd.
Prepared for the Municipality of Clarington
GaMigon
Page147
This page is intentionally blank
Page148
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 09
1.1
PURPOSE
12
1.2
INTERPRETATION
12
1.3
RELATED DOCUMENTS
13
2.0
VISION & OBJECTIVES
15
2.1
VISION
16
2.2
OBJECTIVES
16
3.0
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
19
3.1
REGIONAL CORRIDORS
21
3.2
PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS
22
3.3
URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
23
3.4
PARKS & OPEN SPACES
24
3.5
GATEWAYS
25
4.0
STREET & BLOCK PATTERN
27
5.0
BUILT FORM
31
5.1
HIGH- AND MID -RISE BUILDINGS
32
5.1.1
Siting and Orientation
33
5.1.2
Heights, Massing and Transition
34
5.1.3
Pedestrian Circulation
36
5.1.4
Landscaping, Lighting and Other Amenities
37
5.1.5
Access, Servicing and Storage
38
5.1.6
Parking
39
5.2
LOW-RISE BUILDINGS
40
5.2.1
General Site and Building Design
40
5.2.1.1
Lot Size and Variety
40
5.2.1.2 Siting and Orientation
41
5.2.1.3 Height, Massing„ Transition and Design Variety
42
5.2.2
Low-rise Building Typologies
43
5.2.2.1
Single- and Semi-detached Dwellings
43
5.2.2.2 Townhouses
45
5.2.2.3 Stacked Townhouses and Low-rise Apartment Buildings
47
Page149
03
6.0 PUBLIC REALM 51
6.1
PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
54
6.1.1
Network & Hierarchy
54
6.1.2
Neighbourhood Parks
54
6.1.3
Parkettes
58
6.1.4
Privately Owned Publicly -accessible Spaces
60
6.2
SCHOOLS
61
6.3
ROADS
63
6.3.1
Type A Arterials (Bloor Street & Courtice Road)
66
6.3.2
Type B Arterials (Trulls Road)
69
6.3.3
Type C Arterials (Meadowglade Road & Hancock Road)
70
6.3.4
Collector Roads
71
6.3.5
Local Roads
72
6.3.6
Rear Lanes
73
6.4
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
75
6.4.1
Pedestrian Network
77
6.4.1.1
Sidewalks
77
6.4.1.2
Mid -block Pedestrian Connections
78
6.4.1.3
Pedestrian Crossings
79
6.4.2
Cycling Network
80
6.4.3
Trail Network
81
6.5
TRANSIT
82
7.0
CULTURAL & NATURAL HERITAGE
85
7.1
CULTURAL HERITAGE
86
7.2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS
87
8.0
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
91
9.0
TRANSITION ZONES
95
9.1
DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS
96
9.2
DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO EMPLOYMENT LANDS
97
10.0
IMPLEMENTATION
99
10.1
COMPREHENSIVE BLOCK PLANS
100
10.2
URBAN DESIGN STUDIES
100
10.3
PERIODIC REVIEW OF GUIDELINES
100
Page150
04
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Existing Context
11
Figure 2: Related Documents
13
Figure 3: Demonstration Plan
17
Figure 4: Community Structure
20
Figure 5: Regional Corridors
21
Figure 6: Prominent Intersections
22
Figure 7: Urban Residential Areas
23
Figure 8: Parks and Open Spaces
24
Figure 9: Gateways
25
Figure 10: Existing Street and Block Pattern in Courtice
28
Figure 11: Street and Block Pattern
29
Figure 12: Land Uses that Permit High- and Mid -rise Buildings
32
Figure 13: Example of High-rise Building
32
Figure 14: Example of Siting and Orientation
33
Figure 15: Height, Massing and Transition of High- and Mid -rise Buildings
35
Figure 16: Example of Sidewalk
36
Figure 17: Example of Landscaping
37
Figure 18: Example of Access, Servicing and Storage
38
Figure 19: Example of Screened Structured Parking
39
Figure 20: Land Uses that Permit Low-rise Buildings
40
Figure 21: Example of Siting and Orientation
41
Figure 22: Example of Height, Massing, Transition and Design Variety
42
Figure 23: Example of Single -detached Dwellings
43
Figure 24: Example of Semi-detached Dwellings
43
Figure 25: Example of Accessory Apartment
44
Figure 26: Example of Townhouses
45
Figure 27: Example of Townhouses
46
Figure 28: Example of Stacked Townhouses
47
Figure 29: Example of Low-rise Apartment Buildings
48
Figure 30: Example of Low-rise Apartment Buildings
49
Figure 31: Conceptual Demonstration of Public Realm Components
53
Figure 32: Neighbourhood Parks
54
Figure 33: Example of Neighbourhood Park
55
Figure 34: Example of Neighbourhood Park Amenities
56
Figure 35: Existing Entrance of Courtice Memorial Park
57
Figure 36: Parkettes
58
Figure 37: Example of Parkettes
59
Figure 38: Example of Privately Owned Publicly -Accessible Spaces
60
Figure 39: Schools
61
Page 151
05
Figure 40: Example of School
62
Figure 41: Road Network
63
Figure 42: Example of Green Street
65
Figure 43: Type A Arterial (Multi -Way) Cross-section and Plan
67
Figure 44: Type A Arterial (Alternative) Cross-section and Plan
68
Figure 45: Type B Arterial Cross-section and Plan
69
Figure 46: Type C Arterial Cross-section and Plan
70
Figure 47: Collector Road Cross-section and Plan
71
Figure 48: Local Road Cross-section and Plan
72
Figure 49: Rear Lane Cross-section and Plan
73
Figure 50: Example of Rear Lane
74
Figure 51: Active Transportation Map
75
Figure 52: Example of Integrated Active Transportation Network
76
Figure 53: Example of Sidewalk
77
Figure 54: Example of Mid -block Pedestrian Connection
78
Figure 55: Example of Pedestrian Crossing
79
Figure 56: Example of Bicycle Path
80
Figure 57: Example of Trail
81
Figure 58: Example of Transit Infrastructure
82
Figure 59: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
86
Figure 60: Environmental Protection Areas
87
Figure 61: Example of Environmental Protection Area
88
Figure 62: Example of Bio-retention Area
92
Figure 63: Example of Stormwater Management Pond
93
Figure 64: Transition Zones
97
Page152
06
This page is intentionally blank
Page 153
07
Page 154
M()
INTRODUCTION
The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
(Secondary Plan) area is approximately 295
hectares in size. It is comprised of portions
of the Emily Stowe, Avondale and Ebenezer
neighbourhoods. It is generally bounded to the
north by Durham Highway 2, Hancock Road to
the east, south of Bloor Street to the south and
east of Prestonvale Road near Robinson Creek
to the west. Prominent features include the
presence of several Regional roads which bisect
and border the area and significant natural
heritage and hydrological features, including
the headwaters and tributaries of Tooley Creek
and Robinson Creek. The planned population
for Southeast Courtice is approximately 11,800
residents and approximately 4,900 units.
Further to the north-west of Southeast Courtice,
at the intersection of Trulls Road and Highway
7, is the planned Urban Centre. The lands to the
north and west of the Secondary Plan Area are
predominantly low -density residential. Portions
of the lands to the south are contained within
the Courtice Urban Area and are comprised of
agricultural, commercial and employment uses;
Highway 401 lands and a proposed Courtice
GO station. The lands to the east comprise
a narrow strip of non -farm, estate residential
units and agricultural lands, wooded areas
and stream courses. There are existing parks
and community facilities within the Secondary
Plan Area, including the Courtice Flea Market,
Courtice Memorial Park, Hope Fellowship
Church and Family Worship & Outreach Center.
The Urban Design & Sustainability Guidelines
(Guidelines) build on the Municipality of
Clarington Council's sustainable `green lens'
approach to achieve sustainable development
through community design, an interconnected
system of parks and open spaces, efficient
street and block patterns and environments
that promote walking and cycling. Both the
Secondary Plan and Guidelines emphasize
several key themes, including sustainability,
liveability and inclusivity.
Southeast Courtice is to be developed by
minimizing the community's impact on the
environment. This is to be achieved by setting
a high standard of environmental performance
of built form, supporting lifestyles that consume
fewer resources, providing mobility options other
than the private automobile and developing in a
manner that is compatible with the surrounding
environment. The community is to offer an
excellent quality of life for its residents and
workers. This is to be achieved by providing a
range of amenities for day-to-day life, fostering
a strong sense of identity and supporting active
lifestyles. Southeast Courtice will also be a
community for everyone. This is to be achieved
by providing a range of housing choices for a
diversity of income levels and household sizes,
creating a community for all stages of life and
celebrating the community's cultural heritage.
Please refer to Figure 1 to see the existing
context of Southeast Courtice.
Page156
10
y+ .. _ -rT•^•. N �f� Jam.
w ice• .
qr
.: ourtco Secondary chool
' �Y 'wi•. � � 4
Courtice North Public School �
Clarington Public Library, C.vurtiic�. ; $ranch
'LR^_ �• !£ It's Worth Repeati
Sayan Islamic Centre-Coyrtice Ma§ id
q.. '+, y
Roy Nichols Motors
Avondale Park..
ngton Fire Station
46
Lydia.Tru LP.ublic School
5ti ,3;
Good. SheP 14P C. 'S.
Hal Trinity C.S.S*
,' k•..
�e W&D Courtice Memoriat Park
TruTls Free li Ahodi CKrurch
Glenabbey Park
:y `' Courtice Flea Market Ebenezer united Church
'- Hope Fellowship Church
�.Plid School
y 1 � rR � •
•F
South Courtice Arena
F.• �� Rosswell Park
' .. aY l r, .0[ �y I ���E
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the Guidelines is to prepare the
Municipality of Clarington for future development
within the community of Southeast Courtice.
The Guidelines provide direction in the form
of design guidance to establish the vision and
objectives articulated in the Secondary Plan.
The Guidelines are intended to guide and
promote new development that achieves the
following:
• Protects and enhances the natural heritage
system and other environmental features;
• Creates a vibrant, walkable and complete
community;
• Ensures high -quality built form and parks
and open spaces to create pleasant public
and private realms; and
• Promotes health and safety by promoting
active transportation and in doing so,
relieves vehicular congestion by providing
other options to get around.
The Guidelines are to be used as an evaluation
tool for development applications. They are to be
used by:
• Municipal council and committees when
evaluating if an application meets the
Municipality's vision for development in
Southeast Courtice;
• Municipal staff and external agencies
when reviewing development applications
and as a reference for design decisions
for Municipality -proposed studies and
projects;
• The development industry including but
not limited to developers, consultants and
property owners to demonstrate how their
proposals align with the Municipal vision
for Southeast Courtice; and
• The public for use of greater awareness
of the benefits of urban design in their
community.
1.2 INTERPRETATION
The Guidelines are intended to provide guidance
of the policies of the Clarington Official
Plan (Official Plan) and Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan. It provides further guidance
on the policy directions for urban design,
streets, parks and open spaces, built form and
sustainability. The Guidelines provide further
guidance at subdivision, zoning and site plan
control stages to ensure that high levels of urban
design and sustainability are achieved.
The Guidelines are to be read in conjunction
with the policies of the Official Plan, particularly
Section 5: Creating Vibrant and Sustainable
Places and Section 9: Livable Neighbourhoods
and read in conjunction with the policies of the
Secondary Plan, particularly Section 5: Urban
Design. Furthermore, the Guidelines should
be read in conjunction with the Official Plan;
Clarington Zoning By-law (Zoning By-law);
Priority Green, Clarington's Green Development
Framework and Implementation Plan; and
Clarington General Architectural Design
Guidelines.
Should a conflict occur between the Clarington
General Architectural Design Guidelines and the
Guidelines, the guidance direction of the latter
shall prevail.
Page158
12
1.3 RELATED DOCUMENTS
The Guidelines and Secondary Plan are not to
be read in isolation. The documents are subject
to further higher -tier land use planning policies
and plans, both from the Municipality, Durham
Region and the Province and include the
following, as seen in Figure 2:
• Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;
• Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, 2019;
• Durham Regional Official Plan, 2017; and
• Municipality of Clarington Official Plan,
2018.
Figure 2: Related Documents
Other relevant documents that provide guidance
and direction include the following:
• Priority Green - Green Development
Framework & Implementation Plan, 2015;
• Clarington's Green Community Strategy,
2010; and
• It's All Connected: Actions to Foster a
Community -Wide Culture of Sustainability
in Clarington, 2014.
Additionally, the Guidelines and Secondary Plan
are integrated with and respond to the adjacent
neighbourhoods of Southwest Courtice and the
Courtice Employment Lands. The documents
also incorporate recommendations from the
Robinson Tooley Subwatershed Study, 2020.
Page159
13
Page160
M()
VISION
& OBJECTIVES
2.1 VISION
Southeast Courtice will be a sustainable, liveable
and inclusive community. It will have its own
identity while contributing to the larger Courtice
and Clarington communities. Southeast Courtice
will feature a mix of uses, across different
intensities, to allow needs to be met locally while
having access to amenities in the surrounding
areas. As part of encouraging healthy, active
lifestyles, alternatives to getting around will be
provided through walking, cycling and transit.
Southeast Courtice's road network is a defining
feature, not only as important transportation
routes but also as places that will feature high -
quality built form, landscaping and connections
to the interior of the neighbourhood to make
them inviting and attractive public places. A
key part of Southeast Courtice's identity is the
presence of nature. The natural heritage system
will be conserved, enhanced and sensitively
incorporated into an interconnected system of
parks and open spaces to improve and extend
greenery throughout the community.
Please refer to Figure 3 for the Demostration
Plan that provides the overall vision for
Southeast Courtice.
2.2 OBJECTIVES
In order to realize the vision for Southeast
Courtice, the Guidelines shall support the
Secondary Plan to achieve the following
objectives:
• Create an efficient land use pattern and
urban form which is supportive of transit,
enables residents to meet many of their
needs within walking distance and provides
good transitions between uses and areas of
development intensity.
• Foster a multi -modal community where
walking, cycling and transit are viable and
attractive alternatives to travel by automobile.
• Protect, maintain and enhance the natural
heritage system in a manner which
conserves and enhances its ecological
integrity and function.
• Provide access within walking distance to
parks, schools, community amenities and
local retail and services.
• Integrate the built and natural environments
to create a sense of place and identity,
as well as appropriately provide access to
nature.
• Prioritize the creation of an attractive and
vibrant public realm, integrated with a
hierarchy of community focal points, to serve
as the focus of day-to-day activities and
community life.
• Offer a variety of housing forms, sizes
and tenures, including affordable housing,
that allow households of various sizes and
incomes to find a home within Southeast
Courtice.
• Foster a sustainable, low -carbon community,
resilient to the potential impacts of climate
change.
• Celebrate the cultural heritage of the area
in a manner which communicates and
conserves meaningful elements of its
landscape and historic evolution.
• Phase development in a manner
which supports efficient infrastructure
implementation.
Page162
16
Legend
High Density/Mixed Use
Medium Density Regional Corridor
Low Density Residential
Neighbourhood Park
Hi h
*. ►
it
b waY 2
_
Parkette
Environmental Protection Area
,40
to•
'
Environmental Constraint
---
Environmental Study Area
.....
_
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Special Local Road
Local Road
Rear Lane
. . . . . . . .
Mid -Block Pedestrian Connection
....
Trail
i
•
Stormwater Management Facility
1
Elementary School
Prominent Intersection
Gateway
.. .......i...
...i......L
.�.
i..
L.
L.
L..
L.
■
•
-
. -
=.
r
*4*
♦
_♦
��
Bloor Street
.......
a�
=
U
■
0
Figure 3: Demonstration Plan
Page163
17
Page 164
COMMUNITY
STRUCTURE
The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
provides the framework for the development
of a new complete, compact, walkable, friendly
and accessible neighbourhood for Southeast
Courtice. The Guidelines identify and guide the
components that structure the community and
include the following:
• Regional Corridors
• Prominent Intersections
• Urban Residential Areas
• Parks and Open Spaces
• Gateways
Legend
Regional Corridor
Urban Residential Areas
Neighbourhood Park
_ Parkette
Environmental Protection Area
<�I Prominent Intersection
Gateway
Figure 4: Community Structure
This section is meant to provide an overview
of the different components of the community
structure; however, they alone do not convey all
the guidance intended. The general guidelines
outlined in this section should also be read
with the relevant subsequent sections of the
Guidelines. Please refer to Figure 4 for the
locations of the components in Southeast
Courtice.
HighWaY2
rad
■
#4V Bloor Street
i0
�JIM
Page166
20
3.1 REGIONAL CORRIDORS
Regional Corridors are the primary component of
the community structure. They are comprised of
Bloor Street, Courtice Road and Highway 2, as
well as the lands adjacent to them. As they are
designated Priority Intensification Areas and are
routes for future transit services, they are the
locations of the highest densities in Southeast
Courtice. The Regional Corridors encourage
compact urban form and development patterns
to support higher densities and transit services,
while fostering vibrant, attractive public and
private realms. Please refer to Figure 5 for the
locations of Regional Corridors in Southeast
Courtice.
GUIDELINES
I
Regional Corridors are the primary
corridors for all transportation modes and
shall be designed to support the highest
densities, tallest built form
mix of uses.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Regional Corridor
Arterial Road
Collector Road
b. Gateways, along Regional Corridors, will
serve as the entries into Courtice, with
appropriate landscaping and consideration
of views.
c. Development within the Regional Corridors
shall incorporate a high -quality built
form through appropriate architectural
and landscape treatment to provide a
complementary interface between the
public and private realms.
d. Regional Corridors will connect to the
road and active transportation networks
to promote connectivity and permeability
throughout Southeast Courtice.
e. The Regional Corridors of Bloor Street
and Courtice Road are encouraged to be
designed as Multi -Ways, in accordance to
the right-of-way requirements of Type A
Arterials.
Figure 5: Regional Corridors
Page167
21
3.2 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS
Within Regional Corridors, the greatest
heights and densities shall occur at Prominent
Intersections and the nodes which surround
them. A Prominent Intersection is generally the
area comprising the extent a block length in all
directions at these intersections. These areas
shall also have the greatest concentration of
commercial retail and service uses.
Planning for nodes should take into
consideration their ability to support transit
ridership by coordinating the intensity and mix
of uses alongside existing or planned levels
of transit service. A hierarchy of Primary and
Secondary Nodes is established based on built
form, heights, densities, uses and locations in
Southeast Courtice. Please refer to Figure 6
for the locations of Prominent Intersections in
Southeast Courtice.
GUIDELINES
a. Prominent Intersections shall bE
to be community focal points ar
articulated through built form m
and density, architectural treatrr
landscaping and the design of F
owned publicly -accessible plazE
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Regional Corridor
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Prominent Intersection (Primary Node)
Prominent Intersection (Secondary Node)
Figure 6: Prominent Intersections
b. Primary Nodes shall be characterized by
the greatest heights and densities, with
a concentration of retail and commercial
uses.
c. Secondary Nodes shall be characterized
by high- to medium -density built form with
ground -floor retail either framing a public
square or fronting a linear plaza. It shall
be articulated by high -quality landscape
design to support wayfinding and a sense
of place within the community.
d. At Prominent Intersections, there are to be
privately owned publicly -accessible plazas
that act as community focal points and
improve the interface between public and
private realms.
Page168
22
3.3 URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Urban Residential Areas are predominantly
residential neighbourhoods located outside
of the Regional Corridors and include lower -
density built form and building heights. Urban
Residential Areas will promote compact ground -
related housing and provide smaller -scale
commercial needs. They will also be supported
by schools, parks and local movement networks,
including trails, Collector and Local roads.
Urban Residential Areas contain a mix of land
uses and housing types, have access to smaller -
scale service and retail needs, and are within
400 metres (or a 5-minute walking distance)
to a Neighbourhood Park or Parkette. The
neighbourhoods will help implement the vision
of Southeast Courtice to become a complete,
compact community. Please refer to Figure 7
for the locations of Urban Residential Areas in
Southeast Courtice.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Urban Residential Areas
- Arterial Road
Collector Road
GUIDELINES
a. New development shall not negatively
impact the existing established
neighbourhoods in Courtice.
b. Neighbourhoods will be connected to the
surrounding areas by the street and active
transportation networks to encourage
permeability and connectivity.
c. Higher -density built form is encouraged
along Arterial and Collector Roads.
d. Neighbourhoods will provide opportunities
to encourage small-scale service and
neighbourhood retail.
Figure 7: Urban Residential Areas
Page169
23
3.4 PARKS & OPEN SPACES
The parks and open space system comprise
of Environmental Protection Areas and parks,
along with stormwater management ponds.
Together, they provide spaces that support social
vibrancy, community gathering and recreation,
while supporting the ecological and hydrological
function of the community. The parks and
open space system will also be functional,
safe and interconnected as a system within
Southeast Courtice. Please refer to Figure 8
for the locations of Parks and Open Spaces in
Southeast Courtice.
GUIDELINES
I
I
c
The Environmental Protection Areas are
the primary structuring component of the
parks and open space system.
The Environmental Protection Areas are
to be protected, preserved and enhanced
to improve ecological diversity and
environmental stability while improving
access and opportunities for appropriate
low -intensity recreation.
Parks and open spaces shall be designed
to promote accessibility and usage for all
ages and abilities. Therefore, they shall be
bordered by public streets and other public
facilities.
Legend
■ Secondary Plan Boundary
Neighbourhood Park
_ Parkette
Environmental Protection Area
- Arterial Road
Collector Road
Figure 8: Parks and Open Spaces
d. Parks will be located strategically for high
visibility throughout the community so
that most residents are within a 5-minute
walking distance to a Neighbourhood Park
or Parkette.
e. The design of parks should provide
amenities such as entrance features,
visitor drop-off area, pedestrian -scale
lighting and wayfinding.
f. Built form adjacent to parks and open
spaces, through architectural and/or
landscape treatment, will maintain a visual
and/or physical connection to parks and
open spaces.
g. Areas with stormwater management
facilities are to be integrated with parkland
to visibly create a continuous green space
with appropriate measures implemented
for public safety.
1119
' WaY 2
Page170
24
3.5 GATEWAYS
Gateways mark the arrival into Courtice from
the surrounding area. They are located along
Hancock Road where it intersects at both
Highway 2 and Bloor Street. Their locations offer
opportunities to create key landmarks in the
community, with consideration of views. Please
refer to Figure 9 for the locations of Gateways
in Southeast Courtice.
Legend
- Secondary Plan Boundary
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Gateway
GUIDELINES
a. Gateways should feature high -quality
landscape design that includes elements
that enhance the public realm, including
wayfinding or landscape features that
mark the entry into the community.
b. Gateways should be designed to identify
the intersection as an entry point into the
community.
c. Gateways can, but are not limited to,
being smaller park -like spaces with street
furniture, lighting and plantings.
Figure 9: Gateways
Page 171
25
Page 172
STREET &
BLOCK PATTERN
The street and block pattern defines and
structures the community. It can directly
influence development opportunities, mobility
options and neighbourhood character. Southeast
Courtice is designed to establish a modified grid
pattern of streets, complemented by off-street
mid -block connections and trails to serve as a
network of fine-grained connectivity throughout
the community. Blocks should be designed to be
flexible and accommodate intensification over
time.
Related to the street and block pattern are
lot sizes. Throughout Southeast Courtice, it is
encouraged to have a mix of lot sizes to promote
a variety of built form, development types and
urban design. Lot sizes also have a direct impact
on density, affordability and development costs.
Figure 11 provides a conceptual demonstration
of the streets and blocks, establishing the layout
of the modified grid pattern.
1
Figure 10: Existing Street and Block Pattern in Courtice
GUIDELINES
a. A modified grid pattern of streets and
blocks shall be implemented to connect
within Southeast Courtice and connect
out to surrounding areas to facilitate direct
routes while respecting natural features
and topography.
b. Where a natural feature restricts the
development of a grid pattern, the pattern
of streets and blocks shall be designed to
facilitate the efficient movement of people
and goods, while promoting connectivity
and permeability.
c. Block lengths should be a maximum of
200 metres.
d. In Urban Residential Areas, mid -block
pedestrian connections are required for
blocks longer than 200 metres.
e. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets are
discouraged, however where deemed
necessary, pedestrian connectivity and
sightlines should be preserved.
f. Variation in block sizes with a mix of
building typologies is encouraged.
g. Provide simple and rectilinear lot shapes
so as not to limit design and siting options.
h. Corner lots should have adequate width to
permit appropriate building setbacks from
both streets.
i. Rear lanes are encouraged where
driveways and front -yard garages are to
be restricted, notably behind properties
fronting along Arterial Roads.
Page174
28
Legend
Arterial A
-- • - Service Road
Arterial B
Arterial C
Collector
Special Local R
Local Road
— — Rear Lane
Mid -Block Pede
Figure 11: Street and Block Pattern
Page175
29
Page 176
!J�11■■J���
Page 177
5.1 HIGH- AND MID -RISE
BUILDINGS
High- and mid -rise buildings are important in
establishing a compact, walkable and transit -
oriented community in Southeast Courtice. They
also provide the greatest densities and uses
for residents and jobs and play a significant
role in contributing to the creation of a vibrant
community. High- and mid -rise building
typologies include mixed -use and apartment
buildings.
They will provide a high degree of architectural
character that is suitable for their location. As
noted in the Secondary Plan, high-rise buildings
have heights between 7 to 12 storeys, and
mid -rise buildings have heights between 3 to
6 storeys. High-rise buildings are permitted
on lands designated as High Density/Mixed
Use, while mid -rise buildings are permitted on
lands designated as Medium Density Regional
Corridor. Please refer to Figure 12 for the
locations of these land use designations.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
_ High Density/Mixed Use
Medium Density Regional Corridor
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Figure 13: Example of High-rise Building
Figure 12: Land Uses that Permit High- and Mid -rise Buildings
Page178
32
5.1.1 SITING AND ORIENTATION
Siting and orientation are important as they
determine the relationship and interface
between the public and private realms, as well
as adjacent properties and the streetscape.
GUIDELINES
e. All building elevations exposed to the
public realm should be well -articulated
with architectural detail.
f. Buildings shall have their main pedestrian
entrances directly fronting onto the street
to allow for safe, convenient access.
C
a. Buildings shall be oriented along the street,
park and/or open space to establish a
street wall that frames the street and
creates a vibrant public realm.
b. Buildings shall be sited to create
continuous building frontages at street
level, increase the efficiency of services,
consolidate open spaces, minimize internal h
circulation and maximize views.
c. Back -lotting is not permitted in order to
provide an appropriate lively street frontage
and foster an animated streetscape with
eyes on the street.
d. Building setbacks shall establish a strong
relationship to the street and define the
street edge as the interface between the
public and private realms with high -quality
pedestrian infrastructure such as shaded
seating, lighting and landscape elements.
Building projections such as awnings
and canopies are encouraged for their
beneficial impact on the public realm
for shelter and protection from the
elements. They are permitted to project
a maximum of 2 metres from the main
building face and feature designs that
are complementary to the architectural
treatment of the building.
Mixed -use buildings should have separate
entrances for residential and non-
residential uses.
Mixed -use buildings with upper -floor
office use should be accessed from
a consolidated lobby entrance that is
secondary to the appearance of retail
entrances.
Mixed -use buildings should prioritize retail
and office uses at -grade with ground -floor
units incorporating individual entrances
that are directly accessible from the public
street or pedestrian walkway.
Figure 14: Example of Siting and Orientation
Page179
33
5.1.2 HEIGHTS, MASSING AND
TRANSITION
The height, massing and transition of a building
play a significant role in its emphasis and design
quality. These considerations inform how a
building is perceived from the public realm,
along the streetscape, adjacent properties and
within the overall community.
GUIDELINES
a. Buildings should be scaled and massed
to establish a desirable relationship to the
public realm, including the street, parks
and open spaces.
b. The greatest heights and massing should
be concentrated along the frontage
of Regional Corridors, particularly
at Prominent Intersections, where
intensification is most appropriate. The
intersections of Regional Corridors with
other Arterial Roads are expected to have
greater heights and massing, however not
more than at Prominent Intersections.
c. The massing of buildings should be
oriented in a sustainable manner and the
least energy -consuming. A consideration
of microclimates and shadows must be
factored in the design given their impact
on sensitive adjacent and/or surrounding
land uses.
d. Buildings should be designed to establish
a distinct base, middle and upper
components to visually break up their
vertical massing.
i. The base should reinforce a human -
scale environment at street level and
provide visual interest through materials,
colours, fenestration, articulation and
architectural detailing.
ii. The base of buildings that are 7
storeys or higher should incorporate a
podium to further define the human -
scale environment at street level with
step backs for the middle and top
components.
iii. The middle component, as the largest
component, should be designed to
promote visual interest and should be
sized, shaped and oriented to minimize
shadowing.
iv. Where a building height is 7 storeys or
higher, the middle component shall be
stepped back between 1.5 to 4 metres.
The depth of the stepback should
be proportionate to the height of the
building in relation to the width of the
right-of-way.
v. The top component should contribute
to the signature, landmark character,
particularly at Prominent Intersections.
vi. The top component shall provide
screening for any mechanical rooftop
equipment. The screening materials
should be complementary to the rest of
the building design.
e. The height and massing of buildings
should transition between areas of higher
densities to those of lower densities, which
include areas not on Regional Corridor
frontages, lands designated as Medium
Density Regional Corridor and Low Density
Residential, parks and Environmental
Protection Areas.
f. Transitions should consider, but are not
limited to, angular planes, microclimates,
shadows, wind and noise.
Page180
34
Top ComponE
Middle
Component
ABHUM
High-rise Mixed -use
Building
a
G
High-rise id-rir
Mixed -use 0 uildin
Building
F91.01
D p III
High-rise
Mixed- se u
Buildir g Area
ading
Loading -- -
�Arca
II _
Y-.
High-rise —
. Mixed -use
Building
High-rise Mixe -
u use Building id-ri
I Buildin
Prod7inerif
Intersection
Q
t
_
Mid -rise Building Low-rise Building
,o Local Road Q
C1
zi L
ij
:7
`
r,
c� Q
ear Lane c,
U
O
J
p Mid -rise
Building
"a
IL
Service RoadG
G
Regional Corridor
_ 0 _ -I�j ❑ n
Figure 15: Height, Massing and Transition of High- and Mid -rise Buildings
Page 181
35
5.1.3 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION c. Pedestrian walkways can be in the form
of mid -block pedestrian connections
and should be provided at regular
Pedestrian circulation is the movement of
intervals to improve access to the rear
pedestrians through the provision of connections
of developments fronting onto Arterial
between buildings and adjacent streets, open
Roads, as well as further into the interior of
spaces and parking areas. Pedestrian circulation
neighbourhoods.
should be direct and free of barriers while
d. Within the Regional Corridor, mid -block
prioritizing pedestrian movement. Their design
pedestrian connections are to be provided
should be consistent with the landscape design
at intervals, a maximum of 100 metres
of the site and should contribute to the character
from cross streets, to improve pedestrian
of the larger area.
permeability and connectivity.
e. Pedestrian walkways should be provided
along the full length of a non-residential
GUIDELINES
building or faQade.
a. Clear, direct and accessible walkways
should be provided from the sidewalk to
the main entrance of buildings.
b. Pedestrian walkways should connect
building entrances, parking areas, transit
shelters and adjacent developments.
Iq
Figure 16: Example of Sidewalk
Page182
36
5.1.4 LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING
AND OTHER AMENITIES
Landscape design of the property should be
complementary to the architectural style of the
building, as well as the character of the broader
area. Lighting and other amenities such as signage
and furnishings provide safety and comfort. Their
design should be consistent with the landscape
and building designs.
GUIDELINES
a. Landscape design should incorporate street
trees within the public boulevard. The
retention of existing mature trees should be
incorporated into the design, where possible.
b. Streetscape elements including but not
limited to seating, lighting and landscaping
should be provided along street frontages to
provide a consistent urban character.
c. The development of urban public spaces,
including Privately Owned Publicly -
accessible Spaces, is encouraged along the
Regional Corridor, particularly at Prominent
Intersections.
d. A clear hierarchy of public, semi-public and
private outdoor spaces should be provided.
e. A range of outdoor amenity areas should
be incorporated in the design of buildings,
including but not limited to private outdoor
amenity areas such as terraces and balconies
or common outdoor amenity areas such
as courtyards, accessible rooftops and
forecourts.
f. Landscaping should include hard and soft
landscape elements, including but not limited
to plantings, decorative walls/fencing and
permeable paving materials.
g. Where transitions exist from between higher -
density and lower -density developments,
landscaping should be used to buffer
potential negative impacts.
h. Landscaping should be used to screen
parking areas.
i. All light fixtures should be LED,
pedestrian -scaled and conform with the
Municipality's lighting standards.
j. Light fixtures should be `dark sky'
compliant.
k. Parking areas, driveways and walkways
should be adequately lit for the location's
purpose and context, with low-level,
pedestrian -scaled lighting.
I. Signage and other wayfinding techniques
should be designed to be characteristic
of the architectural identity of the
development.
m. Site furnishings should be incorporated
into the private realm at building entrances,
along pedestrian walkways and mid -block
pedestrian connections, in Privately Owned
Publicly -accessible Spaces, and at other
convenient desired locations.
n. Site furnishings should reflect the intended
use of the space and the number of users.
Figure 17: Example of Landscaping
Page183
37
5.1.5 ACCESS, SERVICING AND
STORAGE
The access, servicing and storage areas provide
valuable functions to buildings; however, their
presence can disrupt pedestrian circulation and
create unsightly places. The design of such
areas should therefore prioritize pedestrians
while providing for appropriate siting, orientation
and screening.
GUIDELINES
a. Direct access for servicing and storage
from Arterial Roads shall not be permitted.
b. Primary vehicular and servicing access,
including but not limited to driveways, shall
be provided from side streets or rear lanes.
c. Vehicular traffic through the site shall be
minimized by locating servicing and loading
bays close to vehicular entrances.
Figure 18: Example of Access, Servicing and Storage
d. Buildings may require setbacks from
adjacent parking access to provide visibility
to the street for entering/exiting.
e. Garbage and recycling storage shall be
located within the building envelope and
screened from public view and located
away from the public realm.
f. Wall enclosures of servicing areas should
be constructed of materials that are
complementary to the building's materials.
g. Utility box locations should be buried
or located so as to minimize their visual
impact on the public realm.
h. Noise attenuation measures should be
provided where service areas are adjacent
or may impact sensitive land uses.
Page184
38
5.1.6 PARKING
Vehicular parking, just like servicing, provides
a building with functionality, however, it can
disrupt pedestrian circulation and create
negative impacts on the building and public
realm. The design of parking areas therefore
need to prioritize pedestrian circulation and
incorporate appropriate siting, orientation and
screening to minimize its impact. As cycling is
promoted throughout the community, bicycle
parking facilities should be provided. The
provision of bicycle parking and amenities will
promote active transportation.
GUIDELINES
a. Direct access for parking areas from
Arterial Roads shall not be permitted. They
shall be accessed from side streets, Local
Roads or Rear Lanes.
b. Parking is encouraged to be underground,
particularly for developments within
the Regional Corridor. Where deemed
not practical, structured parking is next
preferred, followed by surface parking.
c. Parking areas should be located at the
side or rear of buildings.
d. Parking areas are encouraged to be
landscaped with permeable paving and
plantings to discourage the use of wholly
hard -surfaced areas.
e. Structured parking should be appropriately
screened with complementary materials
to the building's materials. The exterior
should be designed to appear as a
seamless extension of the building fagade.
f. Surface parking areas should be arranged
in compact formations with high -quality
soft landscaping along the edges,
particularly adjacent to the public realm.
g. Parking areas for residents and visitors,
and accessibility spaces for both, should
be demarcated with appropriate signage.
h. Accessible parking spaces should have
direct access to building entrances and
should not be placed across a drive aisle.
i. Pedestrian circulation should be given
priority in the design of all parking
areas with clearly marked, direct routes.
Wherever possible, pedestrian routes
should be separated by raised sidewalks.
j. Internal bicycle parking should be located
at grade with direct or ramped access to
the adjacent street.
k. Bicycle parking facilities for visitors should
be covered or sheltered with awnings,
canopies or other elements that provide
shelter.
I. Bicycle racks, where located in the private
realm, should not impede pedestrian
circulation.
Figure 19: Example of Screened Structured Parking
Page185
39
5.2 LOW-RISE BUILDINGS
Low-rise buildings account for the majority of
new development in Southeast Courtice. Low-
rise building typologies include single- and
semi-detached dwellings, townhouses, stacked
townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings.
A high degree of architectural character is
envisioned for low-rise buildings throughout
Southeast Courtice. As noted in the Secondary
Plan, building heights for low-rise buildings
will vary depending on the relevant land use
designation. Generally, with some exception
noted in the Guidelines, low-rise buildings are
not to exceed 3 storeys. Low-rise buildings are
permitted on lands designated as Low Density
Residential. Certain forms of low-rise buildings
are also permitted on lands designated as
Medium Density Regional Corridor. Please refer
to Figure 20 for the locations of these land use
designations.
5.2.1 GENERAL SITE AN
BUILDING DESIGN
The following guidelines are intend
generally apply to all new low-rise
developments in Southeast Courtic
guidelines should be read in conjur
the guidelines for the specific low -
typologies in Section 5.2.2.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Medium Density Regional Corridor
Low Density Residential
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Special Local Road
Figure 20: Land Uses that Permit Low-rise Buildings
5.2.1.1 LOT SIZE AND VARIETY
A diversity of lot sizes and variety are envisioned
in Southeast Courtice. This allows for variation
in scale, massing and form to create visual built -
form interest, while also ensuring a variety of
built form character throughout the community.
GUIDELINES
a. A variety of lot sizes should be provided to
ensure a diversity of housing types, sizes
and designs.
b. Lots should be generally simple and
rectilinear, however, variations are
permitted if deemed necessary by
environmental features, topography,
property boundaries or other limiting
features.
Page186
40
5.2.1.2 SITING AND ORIENTATION
Siting and orientation are important as they
determine the relationship and interface
between the public and private realms, as well
as adjacent properties and the streetscape.
GUIDELINES
a. Buildings are to be oriented along the
street, park and/or open space to establish
a building wall that frames the street or
space and creates a vibrant public realm
for pedestrian activity.
b. Building setbacks should define the street
edge with buildings sited close to the
minimum required front -yard setback.
c. Projections into the front or flankage
yards encouraged for, but not limited to,
porches, porticos, front steps and bay
windows. Projections must comply with
the standards in the Zoning By-law.
d. All building elevations exposed to the
public realm should be well -articulated
with architectural detail.
e. For corner lots, both building elevations
exposed to the public realm should
be given equal architectural design
consideration. Due to their prominence,
architectural elements, including but not
limited to balconies, wraparound porches
and well -articulated fenestration are
encouraged on both exposed elevations.
Figure 21: Example of Siting and Orientation
Page187
41
5.2.1.3 HEIGHT, MASSING,
TRANSITION AND DESIGN VARIETY
Appropriate heights, massing and transitions are
effective in creating comfortable, human -scaled
environments.
GUIDELINES
c. Buildings should be designed to
individually and collectively contribute to
the built form character of the community.
0
a. Buildings should be scaled and massed
to establish a desirable relationship to the e
public realm, including the street, parks
and open spaces.
b. Except at Prominent Intersections or
otherwise identified, within 50 metres
of an intersection of a Regional Corridor
and an Arterial Road or Collector Road,
buildings are encouraged to be a minimum
of 4 storeys in height.
The height difference between adjacent
low-rise buildings on the same block
should not vary by more than 1 storey
to maintain a consistent street wall. The
massing should also be consistent for
buildings on the same block face.
Appropriate transitions in terms of height
and massing should occur between
buildings of different densities, particularly
if they belong in the same block.
Figure 22: Example of Height, Massing, Transition and Design Variety
Page188
42
5.2.2LOW-RISE BUILDING
TYPOLOGIES
5.2.2.1 SINGLE- AND SEMI-
DETACHED DWELLINGS
Single- and semi-detached dwellings are
permitted throughout the community on lands
designated Low Density Residential.
GUIDELINES
a. The siting and massing of dwellings should
be compatible and harmonious with that of
adjacent dwellings.
b. Each dwelling should have appropriate
faQade detailing, materials and colours that
are consistent with its architectural style.
U
Figure 23: Example of Single -detached Dwellings
c. Architectural elements, primarily at the
front elevation or public -facing elevation,
should be proportionate. This includes, but
is not limited to, window sizes and shapes,
balconies, terraces, dormers and rooflines.
d. Front porches or porticos are encouraged
to give prominence to the main entrances.
e. Private outdoor amenity spaces should
be provided primarily in the rear, however,
balconies and terraces may be provided at
the front.
f. Screening elements, including landscaping
and fencing, should be provided between
rear yards.
Figure 24: Example of Semi-detached Dwellings
Page189
43
g. In addition to the above, the following
apply specifically to semi-detached
dwellings:
i. Both halves of the building should
be compatible in terms of design
expression. Symmetrical building
elevations are encouraged; however,
asymmetrical elevations may be
permitted providing it is complementary
and harmonious to the overall dwelling.
ii. The two units should be fully attached
above grade.
h. Garages are encouraged to be accessed
from a Rear Lane. Where there are front -
yard garages, they shall be recessed at
least 1 metre from the front wall of the
main building face.
Figure 25: Example of Accessory Apartment
i. Front double -door garages shall have
two separate openings and doors with
windows to avoid a blank -wall effect.
j. Driveways between adjoining properties
should be buffered by a landscape strip.
k. Utility connections should be concealed
or buried. Where not possible, utility box
locations should minimize their visual
impact on the public realm.
I. Air conditioners are encouraged to be in
the rear yards.
Page190
44
m. Accessory apartments are permitted within
single -detached dwellings, semi-detached
dwellings and townhouses subject to the
following:
i. They are located within the dwelling;
ii. The architectural design is consistent
or complementary to the principal
dwelling, including architectural
treatment, materials and proportions of
architectural details;
iii. There is only one door per facade facing
the street; and
iv. They shall comply with the policies
and standards of the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law.
n. One additional accessory apartment may
be permitted in a detached accessory
building with access to a Rear Lane,
subject to the following:
i. They are encouraged to be on the
second storey of a detached garage;
ii. The architectural design is consistent
or complementary to the principal
dwelling, including architectural
treatment, materials and proportions of
architectural details; and
iii. They shall comply with the policies
and standards of the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law.
5.2.2.2 TOWNHOUSES
Townhouses are permitted on lands designated
as Medium Density Regional Corridor and Low
Density Residential.
GUIDELINES
a. The siting and massing of townhouses
should be compatible and harmonious with
that of adjacent developments.
b. The maximum number of contiguously
attached townhouse units is six.
c. Townhouses should be fully attached
above grade.
d. Each townhouse block should incorporate
massing and design continuity while
also providing visual variety along the
streetscape.
Figure 26: Example of Townhouses
Page 191
45
e. The massing of townhouse blocks should
use appropriate architectural elements,
particularly at exterior walls. Architectural
elements include but are not limited to
entrances, windows, balconies, porches,
steps, dormers, rooflines.
f. Low decorative fencing is encouraged
to define the front -yard property line. Its
material should be complementary to the
architectural design of the townhouses.
g. Clear, direct and accessible walkways
should be provided from the sidewalk to
the main entrance of the units.
h. Pedestrian walkways should connect unit
entrances, parking areas, transit shelters
and adjacent developments.
i. Mid -block pedestrian connections should
be provided at regular intervals between
townhouse blocks in the interior of
neighbourhoods.
j. Landscape design should incorporate
street trees within the public boulevard.
The retention of existing mature trees
should be incorporated into the design,
where possible.
Figure 27: Example of Townhouses
k. Where transitions exist from between
townhouses and lower -density
developments, landscaping should be used
to buffer potential negative impacts.
I. Garages for townhouses are encouraged
to located at the rear and to be accessed
from Rear Lanes. Where front -yard garages
are found, they shall be recessed at least
1 metre from the front wall of the main
building face or the front of the porch.
m. Utility connections should be concealed
or buried. Where not possible, utility box
locations should minimize their visual
impact on the public realm.
n. Air conditioners are encouraged to be in
the rear yards.
Page192
46
5.2.2.3 STACKED TOWNHOUSES
AND LOW-RISE APARTMENT
BUILDINGS
Stacked townhouses and low-rise apartment
buildings are permitted on lands designated as
Medium Density Regional Corridor.
GUIDELINES
a. Stacked townhouses should be fully
attached above grade.
b. Stacked townhouses and low-rise
apartments should be sited close to
the street edge to establish a strong
relationship to the street and provide a
consistent street wall.
c. All units should be provided with private
amenity space in the form of a balcony
for the upper -level units, or an at -grade or
sunken courtyard for the lower -level units.
d. Stacked townhouses and low-rise
apartments should be designed to provide
an attractive built form with careful
consideration to colours and materials
within each development to foster a
cohesive look within each development.
e. Building elevations should incorporate
architectural elements including but not
limited to porches, dormers, gables and
peaked roofs.
f. Pedestrian walkways, including mid -block
pedestrian connections, should provide
safe, direct access between dwelling
entrances, the public street, parking areas
and amenity areas.
Figure 28: Example of Stacked Townhouses
Page193
47
g. Direct access for parking and servicing
from Arterial Roads shall not be permitted
They shall be from Local Roads or Rear
Lanes.
h. Buildings may require setbacks from
adjacent parking access to provide visibility
to the street for entering/exiting.
Parking is encouraged to be underground,
particularly for developments within
the Regional Corridor. Where deemed
not practical, structured parking is next
preferred, followed by surface parking.
Parking areas should be located at the
side or rear of buildings, either served by
side streets, rear lanes or consolidated by
block.
k. Parking areas are encouraged to be
landscaped with permeable paving and
plantings to discourage the use of wholly
hard -surfaced areas.
Structured parking should be appropriately
screened with complementary materials
to the building's materials. The exterior
should be designed to appear as a
seamless extension of the building fagade.
m. Surface parking areas should be arranged
in compact formations with high -quality
soft landscaping along the edges,
particularly adjacent to the public realm.
n. Parking areas for residents and visitors,
and accessibility spaces for both, should
be demarcated with appropriate signage.
o. Accessible parking spaces should have
direct access to building entrances and
should not be placed across a drive aisle.
ir
Figure 29: Example of Low-rise Apartment Buildings
Page194
48
p. Pedestrian circulation should be given
priority in the design of all parking areas
with clearly marked, direct routes. Wherever
possible, pedestrian routes should be
separated.
q. Garbage and recycling storage shall be
located within the building envelope and
screened from public view and located away
from the public realm.
r. Wall enclosures should be constructed of
materials that are complementary to the
building's materials.
s. Utility connections should be concealed
or buried. Where not possible, utility box
locations should minimize their visual impact
on the public realm.
t. Noise attenuation measures should be
provided where service areas are adjacent
or may impact sensitive land uses.
Figure 30: Example of Low-rise Apartment Buildings
Page195
49
Page196
PUBLIC REALM
The public realm includes both public lands
and privately -owned spaces that are publicly
accessible (herein referred to as Privately
Owned Publicly -accessible Spaces in the
Guidelines). The public realm is a vital
component of Southeast Courtice that provides
spaces that support social vibrancy, community
gathering and recreation while supporting the
ecological and hydrological function of the
community.
The design of the public realm must be of
high quality and relate well to the surrounding
context to create a lively, animated community.
The components of the public realm include the
following:
• Parks and open spaces;
• Schools;
• Roads;
• Active transportation (sidewalks,
mid -block pedestrian connections,
pedestrian crossings and cycling and trail
infrastructure); and
• Transit.
It is important to note that the components
of the public realm are to be well connected
with connections and linkages to each other.
Concurrently, the components of the public
realm should also connect and relate well to
adjacent private developments, community
facilities and other community amenities.
Combined, the public realm significantly
contributes to the structure, identity and
character of Southeast Courtice. Please refer to
Figure 31 to see a conceptual demonstration
of the public realm components and their
connections to each other.
Page198
52
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Neighbourhood Park
Parkette
Environmental Protection Area
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Special Local Road
Local Road
— —
Rear Lane
. . . . . . . .
Mid -Block Pedestrian Connection
Trail
1
Elementary School
•I I '
1....F.....I....4...I.....I...
1-1
Highway?
■ i
■ ; I......�... I......I..
•1- r — — — Bloor Street
I....i.. .. 1 0
1 �
U
■ ■ o
• U
Figure 31: Conceptual Demonstration of Public Realm Components
Page199
53
6.1 PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
6.1.1 NETWORK & HIERARCHY
Several high -quality parks and open spaces will
be established in Southeast Courtice that meet
the needs of residents and enable a variety of
opportunities for passive and active recreation.
Parks and open spaces will create unique places
that contribute to an area's identity and will be
integrated into a broader network. A hierarchy of
parks and open space is as follows:
• Neighbourhood Parks;
• Parkettes; and
• Privately Owned Publicly -accessible
Spaces
The parks and open space network is connected
to the natural heritage system, including
Environmental Protection Areas, to be discussed
in a subsequent section of these
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Courtice Memorial Park
_ Neighbourhood Park
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Special Local Road
Figure 32: Neighbourhood Parks
6.1.2 NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS
Neighbourhood Parks provide the opportunity
for each neighbourhood to be unique and
distinguishable from the other through the
development of distinct design and landscaping
treatments. They are generally between 1.5
to 3 hectares in size and provide a variety of
amenities, including sports fields. As focal
points and gathering spaces, they contribute
to the overall community identity of Southeast
Courtice. Please refer to Figure 32 for the
locations of Neighbourhood Parks in Southeast
Courtice, and Figure 33 and Figure 34 for
examples of Neighbourhood Parks.
Page 200
54
Generally, all residents in Southeast Courtice
have access to a Neighbourhood Park within
400 metres (5-minute walking distance). These
parks are predominantly designed to support the
active recreational needs of the community and
have good accessibility to active transportation
that includes trails.
Courtice Memorial Park, an existing
Neighbourhood Park, will be subject to more
specific guidelines because of its purpose as
a larger, landmark park for the community that
celebrates the history of Courtice. At a size
of 4 hectares, it is strategically located at the
south-east corner of the intersection of Courtice
Road and Meadowglade Road and is within a
priority intensification area. Courtice Memorial
Park is also adjacent to an Environmental
Protection Area and therefore has direct linkages
to the greater natural heritage and open space
systems.
GUIDELINES
a. Neighbourhood Parks shall be programmed
areas for active recreation including sports
fields.
b. Neighbourhood Parks are to be located along
Collector Roads to mark a local intersection
or terminus of a street. Where possible, they
should integrate with an adjacent natural
heritage feature.
c. They shall have a minimum of two adjoining
frontages along a street.
d. Development adjacent to a Neighbourhood
Park should be designed to frame the park,
while fronting onto a public road. Where
the side and/or rear yards of adjacent
developments abuts a Neighbourhood Park,
fencing and landscaping should be provided
to demarcate the public and private realms.
Figure 33: Example of Neighbourhood Park
Page 201
55
e. Entrances to the park should be
clearly defined using landscaping and
architectural treatment, pedestrian -scale
lighting and signage to assist in orientation
and use of amenities.
f
C
h
Neighbourhood Parks shall include play
structures, informal playgrounds, seating,
hard -surfaced areas, shaded areas under
tree canopies or open-air structures.
Seating and shade areas should be
designed in coordination with pathways,
seating and play area locations.
Neighbourhood Parks shall be planted
with appropriate plantings and trees, while
ensuring adequate views of them from
public roads.
On -street parking on public roads, adjacent
to Neighbourhood Parks, is encouraged.
Figure 34: Example of Neighbourhood Park Amenities
j. The use of interpretive plaques and
pathway markers shall be encouraged.
k. Highly visible connections should link
park amenities and facilities to the active
transportation network.
I. Neighbourhood Parks should generally
be connected to community facilities and
amenities including but not limited to
schools, community centres, libraries and
other recreational facilities.
m. Neighbourhood Parks shall connect,
wherever possible to other parts of
the parks and open space and active
transportation systems.
Page 202
56
n. The following guidelines apply specifically
to Courtice Memorial Park:
i. New and existing entrances should
be improved and create a focal area
distinguished through distinctive,
signature landscape design, including
public art, pedestrian -scaled lighting,
and seating areas.
ii. New recreational opportunities should
be planned and designed for year-
round, all -season use, including
areas for active outdoor and possible
indoor recreation (e.g. sports fields,
skating rinks, bike paths, etc.) and
non -programmed open space for low -
intensity recreation (e.g. walking trails,
community gardens, seating areas, park
pavilions, interpretive displays, etc.).
ff
iii. Walkways and paths should be
designed throughout the park to
facilitate circulation and emphasize
scenic or interesting views.
iv. New and existing utilities shall be
located discreetly and should be
incorporated into landscape features
and/or screened, where necessary, to
preserve desirable views.
Figure 35: Existing Entrance of Courtice Memorial Park
Page 203
57
6.1.3PARKETTES
Parkettes supplement the Neighbourhood Parks
to ensure a variety of amenities and spaces
are available within 400 metres (or 5-minute
walking distance) of all residents. Parkettes
are small components of the parks and open
space network, ranging from 0.5 to 1 hectare,
and can be designed with a combination of
soft -surfaced and hard -surfaced materials. Like
Neighbourhood Parks, they are also connected
to the greater active transportation network.
Please refer to Figure 36 for the locations of
Parkettes in Southeast Courtice.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Parkette
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Special Local Road
Figure 36: Parkettes
GUIDELINES
a. Parkettes are intended to be
unprogrammed spaces, however, they may
have play structures and programmed
areas for low -intensity, passive recreation.
b. Parkettes shall be dispersed throughout
the community and may be required
should allocation be deemed necessary.
c. Parkettes shall connect, wherever possible
to other parts of the parks and open space
and active transportation systems.
d. Parkettes should be located on visible road
frontages with entrances visibly defined
through landscape treatment and built
form elements.
Page 204
58
e. Terminating vistas at Parkettes should be
highlighted through landscape treatment
and/or built form elements.
f. Where located adjacent to natural features,
they should provide views and passive
transitions from the surrounding developed
area to the natural heritage system.
g. Landscape design of Parkettes should
feature seating, walkways and paths,
signage, benches, stonework, planters,
structures, gardens, ornamental planting,
and other elements that contribute to the
character of the neighbourhoods they are
within.
h. Adjacent development shall front onto a
public road and be oriented to Parkettes.
i. Back -lotting of development adjacent to
Parkettes is not encouraged and should be
minimized.
j. The use of interpretive plaques and
pathway markers shall be encouraged.
Figure 37: Example of Parkettes
Page 205
59
6.1.4 PRIVATELY OWNED
PUBLICLY -ACCESSIBLE
SPACES
Privately Owned Publicly -accessible Spaces
are intended to enhance the public realm by
providing defined spaces for social interaction
They can include public squares, plazas,
courtyards, walkways, passages, atriums,
arcades and park -like spaces. Their locations
are primarily on lands designated as High
Density/Mixed Use and Medium Density
Regional Corridor. They will contribute to
creating a sense of place and contribute to a
visually pleasing streetscape.
Privately Owned Publicly -accessible Spaces
are encouraged to be places for cultural events,
public art, farmers' markets, and smaller -scale
outdoor events. They shall be highly visible
from the street designed to support year-round
activity. Privately Owned Publicly -accessible
Spaces are to create destinations at the
interface of the public realm while supporting
and anchoring adjacent retail, commercial, civic
or cultural uses.
GUIDELINES
a. Privately Owned Publicly -accessible
Spaces shall have highly visible entries
and be located within Regional Corridors,
particularly at Prominent Intersections and
Gateways.
b. They should be sited adjacent to key
pedestrian connections and destinations
to reinforce their role as community focal
points, complementing the public realm of
the Regional Corridor.
c. They shall ensure a visually pleasing
streetscape and contribute to the public
realm through high -quality architectural
and landscape design that creates a good
integration with adjacent built form.
Figure 38: Example of Privately Owned Publicly -Accessible Spaces
Page 206
60
no
e
f
C
In
Privately -Owned Publicly -accessible
Spaces should incorporate amenities
that allow for gathering and interaction
including but not limited to accessible
seating, garbage and recycling receptacles,
bicycle facilities, pedestrian -scaled lighting,
trees and decorative planting.
The installation of public art is encouraged,
particularly at Prominent Intersections.
The use of wayfinding and signage is
encouraged and should be legible and
comprehensible for a wide range of users
including but not limited to the use of
graphics and high visibility.
The use of interpretive plaques and
pathway markers shall be encouraged
to recognize significant, lost or relocated
heritage buildings and sites.
Privately Owned Publicly -accessible
Spaces are encouraged to front a public
road, however, they may form part of the
transition zone from the rear parking areas
to the street -fronting public realm.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
_ Neighbourhood Park
Arterial Road
Collector Road
Special Local Road r
1 Elementary School
1
1
6.2 SCHOOLS
Elementary schools are planned throughout
Southeast Courtice and play an important role
in the development of complete communities,
while also providing educational services to
students and the community. As community
hubs, they are encouraged to be located in
highly accessible areas with co -location of
other facilities that benefit the community,
including parks, open spaces and community
and recreation facilities. Based on the projected
population for Southeast Courtice, three
elementary schools are needed and are centrally
located within neighbourhoods. Please refer
to Figure 39 for the locations of schools in
Southeast Courtice.
1
L--i—i-----iji---i-- A-----i
1
a
IN
Bloor Street
Figure 39: Schools
Page 207
61
GUIDELINES
a. Schools shall be centrally located within
the neighbourhood to achieve a 5-minute
walking distance to most residents.
b. Lot sizes for Schools should generally
be a minimum of 2.5 hectares and be
rectangular.
c. Schools shall not be permitted to have
frontage on or access to Type A Arterials.
d. Schools may be permitted to have frontage
on or access to Collector Roads or Type
B or C Arterial Roads, with the ability
to create a minimum of two driveway
locations for entrances and exits.
Figure 40: Example of School
e. Schools shall be accessible by various
modes of transportation, including transit,
walking and cycling.
f. The design of schools and public rights -of -
way adjacent to schools should consider
the safety of students and shall include:
i. Visibly marked bicycle routes with
appropriate signage;
ii. Visibly marked pedestrian crossings
with appropriate lighting and signage,
iii. Sidewalks on both sides of the street
on public roads within the vicinity,
particularly where crossings are
required;
iv. Pick-up and drop-off facilities located in
the side yards of the property or where
traffic congestion can reasonably be
minimized; and
Page 208
62
C
h
k
v. Parking areas shall be limited to being
in the interior side or rear yards, with
the exception for accessibility needs.
Schools provide an important source of
green space and programmed outdoor
space for the community.
Schools are encouraged to be co -located
with Neighbourhood Parks to share sports
fields and other recreational amenities and
facilities.
Development abutting Schools shall be
demarcated by appropriate fencing or
other methods, as per the relevant school
board's policies, by the proponent of said
development.
Schools shall connect, wherever possible
to other parts of the parks and open space
and active transportation systems.
Schools should generally be connected
to community facilities and amPnitiP-,
including but not limitec
Legend
Environmental Protection A
Arterial A
-- • - Service Road
Arterial B
Arterial C
Collector
Special Local Road
Local Road
— — Rear Lane
......•• Mid -Block Pedestrian Conn
6.3 ROADS
Transportation in Southeast Courtice facilitates
the movement of people and goods through
an integrated, efficient, comfortable, safe, and
accessible transportation network. Please refer
to Figure 41 for the transportation network,
including roads and mid -block connections that
together provide the framework for the street
and block pattern.
Throughout Southeast Courtice, roads shall be
designed to be complete streets which form a
network to facilitate the movement for people
and goods in an integrated, safe, comfortable
and accessible manner. The road network will
prioritize connectivity and will allow for different
users and modes of transportation, including
pedestrians, cyclists, transit and vehicles.
Figure 41: Road Network
Page 209
63
The road network includes a hierarchy of street
types, as follows:
• Arterial Roads
• Collector Roads
• Local Roads
• Rear Lanes
The following guidelines conform to the Region
of Durham's Arterial Corridor Guidelines for
Regional Corridors and provide further guidance
to achieve complete streets and the intended
built form and public realm for the different road
types. The guidelines in this section should be
read in conjunction with Section 5: Built Form
to understand the relationship between the
transportation network and intended built form.
GUIDELINES
a. All street types shall be broken into the
following general components of the public
right-of-way:
i. Boulevard: this is considered part of the
public realm of streets and generally
consists of a sidewalk (with applicable
offset), planting and furnishing zone and
bicycle path.
ii. Roadway: this is part of the public realm
that is dedicated to the movement of
transportation and include travel lanes
for vehicles; dedicated or shared bicycle
lanes; and lanes for street parking.
b. All street types shall be designed as
complete streets, which ensure all modes
of transportation (motorists, pedestrians,
cyclists and transit users and people with
accessibility challenges) can be used
safely and comfortably.
c. The planting and furnishing zones shall
be appropriately landscaped with native
street trees and other plantings for, but
not limited to, shade, street furniture and
transit shelters.
d. There will be adequate lighting that is
appropriately scaled for the specific
condition of the road types and adjacent
development for a safe, comfortable
pedestrian environment. All lighting shall
be downcast to reduce light pollution.
e. All public rights -of -way are required to
promote the use of green infrastructure
and create a green street, which includes:
i. Natural elements, including but not
limited to the planting of trees, green
walls and other types of landscaping.
ii. Low Impact Development techniques,
include but are not limited to permeable
paving, rainwater harvesting systems,
bioswales and infiltration trenches.
f. The use of green infrastructure is
permitted within the public rights -of -way,
which include the boulevard and roadway,
to best achieve the desired effects of such
infrastructure.
g. Sidewalks shall be accommodated on all
street types and generally on both sides of
the street.
Page 210
64
h. The minimum width of sidewalks shall
generally be 2 metres.
i. Sidewalks should not immediately abut any
component of the roadway. A planting and
furnishing zone should serve as a buffer in
between.
j. Cycling infrastructure shall be
accommodated on all street types, except
for Local Roads and Rear Lanes.
k. A two-way bicycle path shall be
accommodated on Type B Arterials and
Type C Arterials.
I. Shared bicycle lanes (i.e. sharrows) are
permitted only for Type A Arterials and
only in the service lane of the Multi -Way
design.
m.On-street parking is permitted only on
service lane of Type A Arterials and Local
Roads and should function as a buffer
between travel lanes with faster -moving
vehicles and the boulevard to maintain a
comfortable streetscape.
n. Snow storage shall be considered in
locations that minimize impacts to the
streetscape and traffic.
Figure 42: Example of Green Street
Page 211
65
6.3.1TYPE A ARTERIALS (BLOOR STREET & COURTICE ROAD)
Type A Arterials are Courtice Road and Bloor
Street and are encouraged to be developed as
Multi -Ways. The Multi -Way design will fulfil
the function of Type A Arterials as an efficient
and high -volume route for different modes of
transportation, while also allowing for a lower -
volume service lane running adjacent.
A Multi -Way design is beneficial to Southeast
Courtice because it separates high -volume
vehicular traffic from local access along service
lanes. The design also allows for a traffic -
calmed public realm immediately adjacent
to built from. This allows for a more dynamic
streetscape and pedestrian environment that
achieves the vision of a vibrant, walkable, mixed -
use community along Courtice Road and Bloor
Street. These two Arterial Roads are also where
the highest densities and tallest developments
are supported. The need for a comfortable
public realm is therefore best achieved with a
Multi -Way design.
Please refer to Figure 43 for a cross-
section and plan of Type A Arterials and the
components that comprise the right-of-way for a
Multi -Way design. Please refer to Figure 44 for
a cross-section and plan of Type A Arterials and
the components that comprise of the right-of-
way without a Multi -way design.
GUIDELINES
a. The boulevards of Type A Arterials should
be treated as community space which
includes sidewalks, planting and furnishing
zones, on -street parking and service lanes.
b. The planting and furnishing zones
should be planted with street trees and
include pedestrian -scale lighting and site
furnishings.
c. Service lanes should feature special paving
to enhance aesthetics. The paving should
also provide stormwater management
benefits and include but are not limited to
permeable paving.
d. Curb extensions, where warranted and
feasible, should be provided at key
intersections where higher pedestrian
activity is anticipated.
e. Should a Multi -Way design be deemed not
feasible, the following components shall be
provided in the right-of-way in accordance
with Durham Region standards and
guidelines:
i. Boulevard: sidewalk, bicycle path and
planting and furnishing zones with
regular planting of street trees and
plantings to create a comfortable
environment.
ii. Roadway: travel lanes and, where
feasible, on -street parking, particularly
at Prominent Intersections.
Page 212
66
Figure 43: Type A Arterial (Multi -Way) Cross-section and Plan
Property Line — — — — — — — —
Sidewalk (with offset)
----------------- - ---------
Planting and
Furnishing Zo
Street Parki
------------- ----
Service Lane wi
Bicycle Sharrows `
--------------- `K----
:f,
Planting and
Furnishing Zone
--------------
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Planting Median/
Turning Lane
--------------------------------------- ------
Travel Lane MOO -
Travel Lane
--------------
Planting and
Furnishing Zone
Service Lane with
Bicycle Sharrows , S
---------------x��------- - ------ ---- -
Street Parki'
Planting and '� o
Furnishing Zo �}� >
-------------- ------------ --- - 0Sidewalk (with offset) '' 0
Property Line "—.NN6 & —
F
O 0 O O
❑ o
,.
PagR 2,1? a n o Cz] F_
Figure 44: Type A Arterial (Alternative) Cross-section and Plan
o m M ;
i N, a_ i J J i
M: W nA
i ; U +7 > >
1 c m c
1 ; Li
0
1 _
� c
Co ;
16 J
Q) bq
bD
Q)
_0 a)
M
J
6
J
co U
W N
cn
4--
MD
>
N
>
+ C
o
CU
C
�E
U)
? 1
E
1
LL
1
JI ;
it Boulevard Roadway
�1
01 40m ROW
1
1
�J
Boulevard 1i
1�
10
1� r
Page 214
68
6.3.2TYPE 6 ARTERIALS (TRULLS ROAD)
Type B Arterials ensure a balance between
the efficient movement of vehicles and transit
while enhancing the comfort and safety of
pedestrians and cyclists. Trulls Road is a Type B
Arterial and acts as a major connection from the
1
ap
Q)
1 iN
bA
J
�L
i C i
1 �_ ici
-
•.
c6
-r
p
f r•�
,f�
yam`
.'�•.
�. �
'
r
'•
1
Boulevard
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Urban Centre into Southeast Courtice. They are
intended to support medium- and low -density
development. Please refer to Figure 45 for a
cross-section and plan of Type B Arterials and
the components that comprise the right-of-way.
Q)
J
J
J ;
WN ;
�
>
>
>
= M
O
)
+
Roadway
30m ROW
11111M
IJ
Boulevard 1
1�
a
10
Figure 45: Type B Arterial Cross-section and Plan
Page 215
69
6.3.3TYPE C ARTERIALS (MEADOWGLADE ROAD & HANCOCK ROAD)
Type C Arterials are Meadowglade Road and
Hancock Road. They are generally designed
to move moderate volumes of traffic at slower
speeds at relatively shorter distances. Type C
Arterials run along the edge of neighbourhoods
1 a)
moo;76o;
Co
1
N
N
np N
J
1
1
� :
7)
c
c
>
1 i
icn.
>
�E
co
co
1
I.E :
m
1
1 i
12 i
i
d
�
.�r
1
i
T 1
Boulevard
and are intended to support medium- and low -
density developments. Please refer to Figure 46
for a cross-section and plan of Type C Arterials
and the components that comprise the right-of-
way.
-0 (D
—
; (D
1
J
N
N
1
>
c =
i �
: bw
;
1
1
d
0
I
�
1
IJ
Roadway Boulevard
1�
26m ROW
la
Figure 46: Type C Arterial Cross-section and Plan
Page 216
70
6.3.4 COLLECTOR ROADS
Collector Roads connect to Arterial Roads and
provide primary connections to Local Roads.
Please refer to Figure 47 for a cross-section
and plan of Collector Roads and the components
that comprise the right-of-way.
—(D N z I
N CU 0 C C (6 C C N
1 O C6 O c6 c6 C6 M (6 O O
1 0 WN _ _j WN o
U0 ,
1 > > ) 7— =
E 1
i1 I i
CLI Boulevard Roadway Boulevard I Q-
01 I 0
Page 217
Figure 47: Collector Road Cross-section and Plan
VAI
6.3.5 LOCAL ROADS
Local Roads are designed to create intimate,
GUIDELINES
pedestrian -scale streetscapes that promote
a. A Special Local Road running east -west
walkability and residential uses. They discourage
between Farmington Drive and Granville
high speeds and through traffic. Please refer to
Drive, north of Bloor Street, shall be designed
Figure 48 for a cross-section and plan of Local
to provide the functional requirements of a
Roads and the components that comprise the
Collector Road.
right-of-way.
b. Local Roads are permitted to have on -street
parking on both sides of the street, where
desired. Should it not be required on both
sides, the planting and furnishing zones shall
be made larger to maintain a 20-metre right-
of-way width.
1 a� ap aD
o
1 0 � o
o o � o f
c
1 U) �
r 1
C O
a 1 20m ROW a
Figure 48: Local Road Cross-section and Plan
Page 218
72
6.3.6 REAR LANES
Rear Lanes support safer and more attractive
public streets by locating site access, parking
and servicing from a Rear Lane. As such, they
are promoted throughout Southeast Courtice.
Rear Lanes also reduce the number of curb -
cuts on a public street while maximizing the
exposure of building frontages to create a livelier,
more attractive streetscape. Rear Lanes are
encouraged to be provided to eliminate the need
for front -yard garages and front -yard driveways
for lower -density residential buildings. Please
refer to Figure 49 for a cross-section and
plan of Rear Lanes and the components that
comprise the right-of-way.
GUIDELINES
a. Rear Lanes are prioritized for higher -
density and/or mixed -use developments
that front onto Arterial Roads and Collector
Roads. Parking, servicing and loading
areas from these developments should be
accessed from Rear Lanes.
b. Where low- and medium -density
residential developments are dominant,
Rear Lanes are encouraged to eliminate
the need for front -yard garages and front -
yard driveways.
c. Rear Lanes must abut a public road and
shall not immediately connect to another
Rear Lane.
d. Garages fronting onto Rear Lanes should
be carefully arranged in groupings to
encourage an attractive visual environment.
e. The architectural design, massing,
detailing, materials and colours of garages
should compliment and reflect the principal
dwelling. A variety of garage heights and
roof slopes is encouraged.
f. In locations of high public exposure, such
as flankage lots, lots adjacent to walkways,
and end lots, the exposed flankage face
of the rear garage should be given the
same design consideration as the principal
dwelling with compatible architectural
elements, details and materials.
�co
CD
co
1
J J
1 N N 1
> > 1
E2 E2
1 . 1
I 1 1
1 1
1
1
Roadway
8.5m ROW
Figure 49: Rear Lane Cross-section and Plan
Page 219
73
g. Garages should be sited to allow for
access and drainage from the rear yard of
the unit to the laneway plus opportunities
for landscaping along laneways.
h. Both parking pads and garages shall be
set back from the lot line separating the
rear yard from the laneway.
i. A house number is to be identified on
both, the garage elevation facing a lane or
the main entrance elevation facing a public
street or park.
j. Parking pads should be screened from the
rear by a fence and/or landscaping.
k. Landscaping and fencing along or adjacent
to Rear Lanes should be coordinated
and finished with materials, colours and
vegetation compatible with the principal
dwelling.
Figure U. Example of Rear Lane
Page 220
74
6.4 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
Active transportation in Southeast Courtice
promotes alternative modes of transportation
to motorized vehicles. Opportunities will be
provided to the community to access more
mobility options and utilize specific infrastructure
design to create a comfortable, well connected
environment that aims to improve safety. Active
transportation refers to all human -powered
forms of transportation, including but not limited
to walking and cycling. It will be designed to be
inclusive for all users and abilities.
Legend
The active transportation network consists of
the pedestrian, cycling and trail networks, which
comprise of both on- and off-street facilities.
Please refer to Figure 51 for a conceptual
demonstration of the active transportation
network.
Environmental Protection Area
Bicycle Sharrow
m m Bicycle Path
Bicycle Lane
Special Local Road
Local Road
— — Rear Lane
........ Mid Block Pedestrian Connection
■■■■ Trail■■■■■■��
....Id.. _i..
YN ■
.. •�#
•��...i..
■ I
I
;
�� I
I
....I.....I.....�..■..I.....C..
■
■: ■ In
♦: .
■
■
■ ! :.I...
-r�
■ �.......
High way 2
4of
'r
Bloor Street
■
i....i..■...
■ U
�......... ..... .J....J..■... ..... ! ■. .............
Figure 51: Active Transportation Map
Page 221
75
GUIDELINES
a. The active transportation network will
be well-connected and complement the
road network to foster connectivity and
permeability throughout the community.
b. Infrastructure must promote improved
safety and visibility of vulnerable road
users.
c. The connections of sidewalks and trails
to major destinations, neighbourhood
facilities such as parks and schools and
transit stops should be improved and
maintained to encourage year-round, all -
season use.
d. Implement wayfinding methods that
include signage to direct users at key
intersections, landmarks and attractions,
for both on- and off-street facilities.
e. The active transportation network can also
connect to/through both public and private
spaces, including mid -block connections
and Privately Owned Publicly -accessible
Spaces.
1
Figure 52: Example of Integrated Active Transportation Network
Page 222
76
6.4.1 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
Southeast Courtice shall promote a safe and
comfortable pedestrian environment that is well-
connected to foster walkability and healthier
lifestyles. Sidewalks, mid -block pedestrian
connections and pedestrian crossings are
components of the pedestrian network.
Please refer to Figure 51 for a conceptual
demonstration of the pedestrian network.
6.4.1.1 SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks provide dedicated, safe and barrier -
free pedestrian movement throughout the length
of streets and blocks.
GUIDELINES
a. Sidewalks should provide a well-defined,
clear, predictable and unobstructed path
and shall generally be a minimum width of
2 metres, consistent across blocks.
b. Sidewalks shall generally be provided on
both sides of all road types and relate
directly to the adjacent buildings and uses.
c. Sidewalks should connect with other public
realm components such as parks and open
spaces and should link directly to trails,
wherever possible.
d. Where sidewalks meet with other public
realm components, they should be
designed to serve all users including but
not limited to children, elders and those
with accessibility needs. Grading and
sloping should be minimized to facilitate
ease of movement.
Figure 53: Example of Sidewalk
Page 223
77
e. Sidewalks should link to Privately Owned
Publicly -accessible Spaces and community
facilities and amenities including but not
limited to schools, community centres,
libraries and recreational amenities.
f. Boulevards adjacent to sidewalks should
provide space for pedestrian amenities
such as seating, transit shelters and active
transportation facilities such as bicycle
racks.
g. Planting and furnishing zones adjacent
to sidewalks should provide landscaping
to act as a buffer between sidewalks and
travel lanes within the roadway.
6.4.1.2 MID -BLOCK PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIONS
Mid -block pedestrian connections break up
long blocks and provide opportunities for greater
pedestrian access, connectivity and permeability
throughout Southeast Courtice
GUIDELINES
a. Mid -block pedestrian connections shall
further promote connectivity and enhance
permeability through each block by being
located at regular intervals, particularly
within Urban Residential Areas where
block lengths may be longer and greater
pedestrian connectivity and permeability is
desired.
b. Wherever possible, mid -block pedestrian
connections should connect to parks
and open spaces, as well as important
community facilities and amenities by
other public realm components including
but not limited to sidewalks and trails.
c. Mid -block pedestrian connections shall be
barrier -free with appropriate wayfinding
and other signage.
d. Mid -block pedestrian connections may
also help connect the public realm of
public roads to important functional areas
of the development that are in the rear,
including but not limited to parking, loading
and servicing areas.
e. Mid -block pedestrian connections can
be Privately Owned Publicly -accessible
spaces.
f. Within Regional Corridors, mid -block
pedestrian connections are not intended to
be publicly owned.
-- - -
Figure 54: Example of Mid -block Pedestrian Connection
Page 224
78
6.4.1.3 PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Pedestrian crossings provide opportunities for
safe, convenient and barrier -free pedestrian
movement across streets within Southeast
Courtice.
GUIDELINES
a. Pedestrian crossings shall ensure
continuity of the pedestrian network and
be continuous throughout the community.
b. Pedestrian crossings shall connect to other
components of the public realm including
but not limited to sidewalks, mid -block
pedestrian connections, trails, parks and
open spaces.
c. Where pedestrian crossings meet with
other public realm components, they
should be designed to serve all users
including but not limited to children, older
adults and those with accessibility needs.
Grading and sloping should be minimized
to facilitate ease of movement.
d. Pedestrian crossings should be designed
with safety in mind, with appropriate
signage and markings, particularly at
Prominent Intersections, Gateways and
parks and open spaces.
e. At key intersections, pedestrian crossings
should be paved with distinctive colours,
textured materials or markings to enhance
visibility and minimize conflicts between
pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
f. At signalized intersections, signalization for
pedestrian crossings should be prioritized,
particularly along Arterial Roads and
Collector Roads where there is higher
anticipated pedestrian traffic.
g. Pedestrian crossings shall comply with
Municipal and AODA standards.
Figure 55: Example of Pedestrian Crossing
Page 225
79
6.4.2CYCLING NETWORK
Cycling is promoted throughout Southeast
c. Adjacent planting and furnishing zones
Courtice. Throughout the community, dedicated
shall have street trees to provide for shade
and/or shared cycling infrastructure is provided
and comfort.
at most road types except Local Roads and
d. Shared cycling infrastructure with vehicular
Rear Lanes. Throughout the community, cycling
traffic shall provide clear signage and
opportunities are provided to offer a healthy
markings. On Collector Roads, the bicycle
lifestyle and to create more opportunities
lane may be painted a different colour to
to get around. Please refer to Figure 51 for
distinguish it from vehicular use.
a conceptual demonstration of the cycling
e. Cycling routes shall have appropriate
network.
wayfinding at key intersections, landmarks
and community facilities and amenities.
GUIDELINES
a. Bicycle lanes shall generally be a minimum
width of 1.8 metres, except for Type A
Arterials where the cycling infrastructure
is a sharrow (i.e. shared with the service
lane).
b. Bicycle paths, found on Type B Arterials
and Type C Arterials, should be 3 to 4
metres in width to accommodate two -
directional travel.
Figure 56: Example of Bicycle Path
f. Where cycling infrastructure meets with
other public realm components, they
should be designed to serve all users and
accessibility needs. Grading and sloping
should be minimized.
g. Where cycling infrastructure is shared
with multiple users, clear signage shall be
provided to indicate shared or dedicated
cycling with/from other users.
h. The design of cycling infrastructure will
follow the required design standards and
guidance.
Page 226
80
6.4.3 TRAI L NETWORK
Trails contribute to enjoyment and interpretation
of the community's natural heritage system.
They offer opportunities for low -intensity
recreation that is connected by the active
transportation network. Please refer to Figure
51 for a conceptual demonstration of the trail
network.
GUIDELINES
a. Trails should be seamlessly incorporated
into the active transportation network
including but not limited to sidewalks, mid -
block connections, pedestrian crossings
and cycling infrastructure.
b. Trails will connect to parks and open
spaces, including but not limited to
providing through access and connecting
areas for passive recreation. Trails are
generally permitted to be located adjacent
to Environmental Protection Areas.
c. Where trails meet with other public realm
components, particularly sidewalks and
pedestrian crossings, they should be
designed to serve all users including but
not limited to children, older adults and
those with accessibility needs. Grading
and sloping should be minimized to
facilitate ease of movement.
d. Trails shall have multiple access points and
demarcated entrances.
e. Amenities for trails, including but not
limited to parking, washrooms, furniture,
waste and recycling bins, signage,
interpretive facilities and lighting are
encouraged.
f. Trails should be a minimum width of 2
metres to provide barrier -free access.
Where trails are for multiple users, trails
should be sized appropriately.
g. Where trails are provided for multiple
users, clear signage shall be provided to
indicate shared or dedicated uses.
h. The material of trails should be sensitive
to the preservation and protection of the
surrounding natural heritage while being
designed to accommodate maintenance
equipment.
i. The design and construction of trails shall
comply with AODA standards.
Figure 57: Example of Trail
Page 227
81
6.5 TRANSIT
Development in Southeast Courtice is
b. Transit stops shall be near active
encouraged to be developed in a transit -oriented
transportation nodes and other focal
manner with transit -supportive developments
points of the community, including but
of high- and medium -density along Arterial
not limited to parks and open spaces,
Roads. The availability of transit services in the
and building entrances of mixed -use,
community increases transportation options
retail and commercial developments.
and opportunities to get around. Transit plays
c. Where feasible, primarily along Regional
an important role in the creation of sustainable,
Corridors, transit waiting areas should
liveable and active communities.
be integrated into adjacent buildings and
The following guidelines should be read in
designed to be integrated into Prominent
conjunction with Section 5: Built Form to
Intersections, Privately Owned Publicly -
understand the appropriate types of built form
accessible Spaces and mid -block
and densities to achieve transit -supportive
connections.
development across Southeast Courtice.
d. Transit signage shall be legible and
prominent.
e. Wayfinding and appropriate signage
GUIDELINES
throughout the community will indicate
a. Transit stops and facilities shall incorporate
transit stops and facilities.
appropriate amenities, including but not
f. Transit stops and facilities should be
limited to transit shelters, seating, tactile
prioritized for existing and all new
paving, bicycle racks, curb cuts and
developments along Courtice Road,
appropriate lighting.
particularly at its intersection with Bloor
Street, to create a strong transit corridor
that connects to the future GO station.
r- -
Figure 58: Example of Transit Infrastructure
Page 228
82
This page is intentionally blank
Page 229
Page 230
CULTURAL&
NATURAL
HERITAGE
7.1 CULTURAL HERITAGE
Cultural heritage resources are buildings,
structures and landscapes with strong
community significance. They create a unique
sense of place and differentiate one place
from another. There are three cultural heritage
landscapes and seven built heritage resources
that were identified within Southeast Courtice
and in the surrounding areas.
The following guidelines for the conservation of
potential cultural heritage resources are intended
to ensure adverse impacts are minimized and
appropriately mitigated, and will be applied in
conjunction with site -specific evaluations of
cultural heritage resources, as required.
GUIDELINES
a. Where a Cultural Heritage Evaluation
Report is required, site design and location
of buildings and structures shall not disrupt
or produce anticipated negative impacts to
potential cultural heritage resources.
b. New development on or adjacent to built
heritage resources shall be designed to be
sympathetic to and harmonious with such
resources through measures, including but
not limited to, complementary massing,
setbacks, architectural design and
materials.
c. Heights and densities of buildings may be
limited on developments on or adjacent to
identified cultural heritage resources.
Legend 1
Secondary Plan Boundary
Arterial Road I Q BHR5
Collector Road
d. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report will
determine whether a cultural heritage
resource be retained for its original use
in the original location or whether new
development on or adjacent to built
heritage resources should retain and
integrate some of the built heritage into
the proposal through built form and/or
landscaping.
e. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report will
determine whether new development on
or adjacent to cultural heritage landscapes
should conserve the cultural heritage
landscape, including but not limited to
residences, agricultural structures and
facilities, fence lines, mature trees and
other historic reminders.
f. Interpretive plaques, pathway markers,
special features shall be considered, where
applicable, to recognize significant, lost or
relocated heritage buildings and sites.
BHR3 Q
Highway 2
*CHL1
I
�BHR1
p BHR7
QBHR2
Q BHR4
QBHR6 QCHL2
MOTIMMMIll
CHL3
OBuilt Heritage Resource
OCultural Heritage Landscape
1
L1-1-1-1-1-1 ......� _ _I
Figure 59: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
Page 232
86
a
U
O
U
Bloor Street
7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AREAS
Environmental Protection Areas (EPAs) are
recognized as the most significant components
of the community's natural environment and
include natural heritage features, hydrologically
sensitive features, lands within the regulatory
flood plain of a watercourse and hazard lands
associated with valley systems. EPAs are the
primary structuring component of the parks and
open space system. Please refer to Figure 60
for the locations of EPAs.
Environmental Constraints are identified in the
Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed
Study Phase 1 Report by Aquafor Beech Ltd.
Moderate Constraints includes environmentally
sensitive features. Such areas require and
are subject to future study, with the intent to
determine the appropriate management and/
or protection action, and the suitability of the
underlying designation.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Neighbourhood Park
_ Parkette
Environmental Protection Area
Environmental Constraint
--- Environmental Study Area
Arterial Road
Collector Road
GUIDELINES
a. The location of parks should act as
an extension of EPAs to create an
interconnected network while maintaining
drainage patterns and topography, limiting
watercourse crossings and balancing a
connected grid network of roads.
b. Where parks, trails and adjacent
development connect to EPAs, its
interface, access and usage will be
undertaken in a manner that maintains
their ecological integrity and shall comply
with CLOCA policies and regulations.
c. Developments adjacent to EPAs should
optimize public exposure and views
to them through the provision and
incorporation of parks and trails to provide
access and additional linkages to the
natural heritage system.
High'"Y 2
Bloor Street
2
0
U
0
U
Figure 60: Environmental Protection Areas
Page 233
87
d. Development, including the road network,
will consider drainage patterns and
topography around EPAs, including limited
watercourse crossings.
e. Back -lotting of development onto EPAs is
discouraged, however, may be permitted
if it enables an optimal street and block
pattern.
f. Parks and trails shall only be permitted
adjacent to EPAs and where provided,
shall enhance connections and linkages to
including but not limited to parks and other
community recreational facilities.
g. Vegetation protection zones should be
identified, protected and enhanced. They
should be used to extend and, where
possible, connect the EPAs.
h. Where vegetation protection zones require
restoration, they should be planted with
native, non-invasive and self-sustaining
vegetation.
Figure 61: Example of Environmental Protection Area
Page 234
88
This page is intentionally blank
Page 235
89
Page 236
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
Throughout Southeast Courtice, development
is intended to be designed to conserve and
manage stormwater through Low Impact
Development techniques. These include
but not limited to naturalized stormwater
management ponds, bioswales, infiltration
trenches, vegetated filter strips and permeable
materials. Stormwater management facilities
are primary pieces of public infrastructure and
are to be located throughout the community.
In addition to their primary function of water
quality and quantity control, stormwater
management facilities should be designed to
maintain the environmental and ecological
integrity of the natural heritage system. They
should be designed to provide a benefit to
the environmental health and integrity of the
community.
Figure 62: Example of Bio-retention Area
GUIDELINES
a. Buildings should collect and reuse
rainwater in the building and/or for on -site
irrigation.
b. Landscaping should include native and
drought -tolerant species. Irrigation for
landscaping should be subgrade for
treatment of grey water.
c. Landscaped areas should be located to
optimize the potential of water infiltration.
d. Impervious surfaces should be
minimized, subject to engineering design
considerations, particularly for surface
parking areas.
e. Stormwater should be collected, filtered
and reused on -site through permeable
landscape design. The locations for
permeable design include but are not
limited to walkways, patios, plazas,
driveways, parking areas and some
components of the public road rights -of -
way, where feasible.
f. Designated snow storage areas should
be provided to limit the entry of salt and
other toxic substances into the stormwater
sewer system. They are encouraged to be
in filter strips and bioswales.
g. Bio-retention areas, both on publicly- and
privately -owned lands, are encouraged
to capture and treat stormwater runoff,
where feasible. They can be integrated
into a range of landscape areas including
medians and cul-de-sac islands, and
boulevards. A variety of planting and
landscape treatments should be employed
to integrate them into the character of the
landscape.
h. Bio-retention areas should be designed
to filter runoff either through infiltration or
collection in a perforated under -drain and
discharged to the storm sewer system.
Page 238
92
i. Bio-retention areas should be designed to
provide wildlife habitat and enhance the
aesthetic of new developments, where o
feasible.
j. Rain gardens are encouraged to detain,
infiltrate and filter runoff discharge from
roof leaders, wherever feasible.
k. Soakaways or infiltration trenches, galleries
or chambers; wherever feasible; should
be constructed below -grade and are p
encouraged to manage stormwater runoff.
I. Vegetated Filter Strips are encouraged,
wherever feasible, but preferred to treat
runoff from roads, roof downspouts and
low traffic parking areas, and can be used
for snow storage.
m. Bioswales are encouraged, wherever
feasible, particularly for treating road runoff
in areas that are not in high -density urban
areas.
n. Rainwater harvesting systems are
encouraged, where appropriate, and should
incorporate treatment technologies to
improve the quality of rainwater before
and/or after storage and include provisions
Figure 63: Example of Stormwater Management Pond
for periods of insufficient rainfall and
excessive rainfall.
Stormwater management ponds should
be developed as naturalized ponds, which
incorporate native planting and reflect
natural plant associations to minimize
maintenance, create natural habitats
for pollinator species, and enhance
biodiversity.
Stormwater management ponds should be
integrated with parkland and treated as
an extension of the parks and open space
system. Stormwater management ponds
are not to be located in parkland. They are
not permitted within the Environmental
Protection Areas.
q. Plant materials for ponds should include
a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees,
shrubs and aquatic species and seeding.
r. Where development is adjacent to a
stormwater management pond, access for
maintenance shall be provided.
Page 239
Page 240
TRANSITION
ZONES
Southeast Courtice abuts lands that are
adjacent to agriculture and designated
employment lands, subject to future
secondary planning and development. The
guidelines in this section provide further
guidance relating to development adjacent to
these areas. As Southeast Courtice continues
towards full build -out, the impacts of
development that are adjacent to those areas
must be minimized.
9.1 DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT
TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS
The lands that comprise the Secondary Plan
Area and are subject to these Guidelines are
fully within the urban boundary. The lands to
the east, towards Highway 418, are outside
the urban boundary and comprise non -farm,
estate residential units and agricultural lands,
wooded areas and watercourses. These
lands were historically the cleared portions
of lands designated as Prime Agricultural
that surrounds the community. They were
used for the production of crops and the
rearing of livestock. Much of the wooded
areas are associated with steep -sided valleys,
watercourses and marshlands. Please refer
to Figure 64 for the location of designated
prime agricultural lands.
Development adjacent to agricultural lands
should consider the sensitivity of these lands
and their uses and protect their viability in
the long term. Planning trends within the
Municipality could foresee these areas
being incorporated into the urban area
boundary. During the interim period, the
following guidelines shall be used to consider
development at the interface between urban
and agriculture uses while protecting these
lands for their foreseeable longer -term
agricultural viability.
GUIDELINES:
a. Buffers, including but not limited to trees,
native vegetation and naturalized ponds,
natural heritage features or roads, should
form the transition and interface between
urban development and agricultural lands.
b. Demarcation features, including but not
limited to walls, fences, berm or signage,
should be used between the different
types and densities of land uses to reduce
the potential for trespassing and potential
vandalism.
c. Lower -density development should form
a transition between higher -density
development and agricultural lands.
d. Surface and/or groundwater monitoring
shall be implemented for developments
in areas where agricultural operations
use surface or groundwater as part of
their practice. This will monitor water
quality to maintain appropriate quality
for the irrigation and rearing of crops and
livestock.
e. Stormwater runoff from urban development
shall not flow and/or drain into adjacent
agricultural lands.
Page 242
96
9.2 DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT
TO EMPLOYMENT LANDS
Employment lands are an important part of
communities as they create economic and
employment opportunities. As such, the impacts
of adjacent residential development and vice -
versa should be minimized. Southeast Courtice
is bounded by the Courtice Employment Lands
to the south, with a portion of these lands
forming part of the Major Transit Station Area of
the proposed Courtice GO Station. Please refer
to Figure 64 for the location of employment
lands.
GUIDELINES
a. Adjacent development should not impact
the long-term feasibility of employment
lands. Appropriate setbacks, sound
buffering, and screening should be
considered for development adjacent to
employment lands.
_I
Adjacent development should not prevent
access to the appropriate infrastrur+ irp
necessary for servicing of employr
lands.
Legend
Secondary Plan Boundary
Arterial Road
Collector Road
c. Noise attenuation measures, including but
not limited to noise walls and berms, shall
be implemented.
d. Backyard separation is encouraged
through the provision of a vegetated
landscape buffer with properties separated
by a noise attenuation wall or slatted wood
fence to provide visual separation and
minimize noise impacts.
e. Should backyard separation not be
feasible, the following may be considered:
i. Road separation: a road separates
the employment lands from the
residential area and both residential and
employment properties front onto the
road.
ii. Backyard and road separation:
residential properties back onto a road
separating residential and employment
lands. A noise attenuation wall or
appropriate landscaping may be used to
provide visual separation and minimize
noise impacts.
Figure 64: Transition Zones
Page 243
97
Page 244
IMPLEMENTATION
The Guidelines will be implemented by
the Municipality as an evaluation tool for
development in Southeast Courtice. The
Guidelines, as mentioned in Section 1.1:
Purpose, are to be used by everyone in the
community, including the Municipality, those in
the development industry and the public.
All development proposals within Southeast
Courtice should reference and demonstrate
adherence to the Guidelines. At pre -consultation
meetings with applicants, for assessing and
evaluating proposals, comprehensive block plans
and urban design rationales may be reuuired. It
should be noted that additional studies may also
be required, as determined by the Municipality.
10.1 COMPREHENSIVE BLOCK
PLANS
A comprehensive block plan demonstrates
how an integrated, coordinated development
is achieved when multiple properties are
concerned. They are prepared at the expense
of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the
Municipality. Comprehensive block plans will
address the following:
• How the policies of the Official Plan,
Secondary Plan and Guidelines are
implemented;
• How active transportation is provided in an
integrated manner;
• Establish locations of community facilities
and amenities including but not limited to
parks, schools, places of worship and non-
residential uses; and
• Establish the manner of the phasing of
development and appropriate cost -sharing
of community uses and infrastructure.
10.2 URBAN DESIGN STUDIES
An urban design study demonstrates how
relevant policies and urban design guidelines
have been incorporated into the design of the
proposal(s). It is a document that is used to
assess and evaluate the site -specific aspects of
the proposal, as well as the surrounding context.
Urban design studies provide an analysis of the
urban design opportunities and constraints, and
how the proposal improves the urban design
character of the site and surrounding area.
It is important to note that urban design studies
are not intended to provide a justification
or reflection of a preferred development
scheme, but to focus on the comprehensive
demonstration of a preferred design solution.
10.3 PERIODIC REVIEW OF
GUIDELINES
The Guidelines are intended to evolve and
further develop as the situation arises. A
periodic review and update is intended, as
needed, to make them current and relevant as
development unfolds in Southeast Courtice.
Page 246
100
This page is intentionally blank
Page 247
A=COM
Prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd.
Prepared for the Municipality of Clarington
GaMigon
Page 248
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-055-20
Attachment 2
Sequence of Events Summary - Southeast Courtice
Secondary Plan
2018
Event
January 29, 2018
Public Meeting Report and Staff Presentation
Council authorization to initiate
Notice sent to all property owners in the Secondary Plan Area
May, 2018
Award the contract to AECOM
June 13, 2018
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
Notice of Study Commencement
June 15, 2018
Notice of Public Information Centre #1 (Open House) sent to all
property owners in the Secondary Plan Area.
Notice of Public Information Centre sent to all landowners
within 120 m of the Secondary Plan Area.
Notice was sent by mail and/or e-mail to Mayor and Members
of Council, Department Heads, the Region, the MMAH and the
Project Steering Committee.
June 26, 2018
Public Information Centre #1
September 5, 2018
Steering Committee Meeting #1
November 28, 2018
Steering Committee Meeting #2
December 13, 2018
Steering Committee Workshop #1
2019
Event
April 23, 2019
School Board Meeting
May 10, 2019
Courtice Planning Day, Steering Committee Meeting #3
June 19, 2019
Subwatershed Study Experts Meeting
September 3, 2019
Steering Committee Workshop #2
Alternative Land Uses
October 9, 2019
Landowner Meeting - Alternative Land Uses
Notice sent to all Landowners in the Secondary Plan Area
Page 249
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-055-20
2019
Events
October 25, 2019
Notice of Public Information Centre #2 sent to all landowners in
the Secondary Plan Area.
Notice of Public Information Centre sent to all landowners
within 120 m of the Secondary Plan Area.
Notice was sent by mail and/or e-mail to the Interested Parties
List, the Region, Mayor and Members of Council, Department
Heads, the MMAH and the Project Steering Committee.
November 5, 2019
Public Information Centre #2
Alternative Land Uses
November 2019
Online Interactive Mapping Project
2020
Event
March 2020
COVID-19 Pandemic
March/April 2020
Cancelled - Public Information Centre #3
May 12, 2020
Steering Committee Workshop #3
Draft Secondary Plan and Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines (UDSG)
May 29 - June 2,
Notice of Statutory Public Meeting
2020
Draft OPA, Draft Secondary Plan and Draft UDSG
Notice of Public Meeting mailed to all landowners in the
Secondary Plan area.
Notice of Public Meeting was mailed to all landowners within
120 m of the Secondary Plan Area.
The Notice of Public Meeting was also sent by e-mail and/or
mail to the Interested Parties List, Mayor and Members of
Council, Department Heads, the Region, the MMAH and the
Projects Steering Committee.
June 1, 2020
Material Available for review on Project web page
Draft OPA, draft Secondary Plan and draft UDSG
June 2, 2020
Request for Comments sent to Commenting Agencies
June 18, 2020
Agenda Published; Staff report available
June 23, 2020
Statutory Public Meeting
Draft OPA, Draft Secondary Plan and Draft UDSG
July 2020
Notice of Council's decision regarding the Draft OPA, Draft
Secondary Plan and Draft UDSG was mailed and/or emailed to
all landowners within the Secondary Plan Area, all landowners
within 120m of the Secondary Plan and all interested parties.
Page 250
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-055-20
November 13-17,
Notice of Recommendation Report mailed to all property
2020
owners within the Secondary Plan Area Notice of
Recommendation Report mailed or emailed to the interested
parties list.
Notice was sent by mail and/or e-mail to the Interested Parties
List, Mayor and Members of Council, Department Heads, the
Region, the MMAH and the Projects Steering Committee.
December 2, 2020
Material Available for review on the project web page
December 2, 2020
Agenda Published — Recommended OPA, Recommended
Secondary Plan and Recommended UDSG available
December 7, 2020
Planning and Development Committee Meeting
TBD
Council Adoption of OPA 124
TBD
Document Package forwarded to the Region of Durham For
Approval
2021
Event
TBD
Region of Durham Approval of OPA 124
TBD
Zoning By-law to implement the Secondary Plan
Page 251
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Attachment 3
Public Comments Summary Table
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
S001; S016
Suggests Natural Heritage be the focus for every
No changes made to SP.
Dave Winkle
incoming development to minimize habitat destruction in
GTA and protect species. Recognizes how natural
June2 and 22,
corridors are crucial along creeks/rivers/ponds,
Environmental Protection
2020
vegetated areas and fields.
policies exist in both the
Official Plan and the
Wants Staff to:
Secondary Plan to address
a) seriously consider tree preservation in the
these issues at the time of
development process and encourage developers
development.
to plant more and larger trees;
b) maintain fields and trails with minimum height for
grass cover for species habitat.
S002
Property Location: 1594 Courtice Road South
Advised the EW collector is
Betty Ormiston
approximately located along
her southern property
June 2, 2020
Inquired the approximate location of the EW collector
boundary.
south of Bloor Street.
No implications for SP revision.
S032
Property Location: 1594 Courtice Road South
The nature of policy guidance
Nicholas Mensink
for areas to the south of the
study area will be determined
July 27, 2020
by a separate secondary plan
process. Compatibility between
Page 252
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
After reviewing the Staff Report and the Public Meeting,
the two areas from a traffic
they:
perspective will be further
addressed through this work.
• Are supportive of the residential designations for
the property (medium density along Regional
No SP revisions.
arterials roads Bloor and Courtice Road to take
advantage of Regional transit and the transition to
lower density on the balance of the lands).
• Have some concern over the road link to the
employment area to the south, and possible
infiltration of truck traffic within the residential
area instead of routing to arterials. Notes that
Farmington Drive connection should terminate at
the east -west collector south of Bloor St.
• Recognize that the size and location of each
park/parkette is to be determined at the time of
development review and approval based on
parkland provisions requirements of Section 18 of
the Official Plan, though they request that the
parkette not exceed 5% of the property.
S003
Property Location(s): 2141 Trulls Road; 1678 Bloor
Information was received.
Woodland Durham
Street; 1696 Bloor Street and under separate ownership
No implications for SP
(Mark Foley)
1666 Bloor Street
revisions.
June 4, 2020
Provided a revised road, lot and park block for land
(1666 Bloor) in the Secondary Plan area.
S026
Two requests following the Public Meeting:
Page 253
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Woodland Durham
1. To revise the boundary limits of the Special Study
1.Municipality has indicated
(Mark Foley)
Area to align with the boundary of the
that the Environmental Study
June 24, 2020
environmental constraints designation, to avoid
Area boundary should remain
delays on developable lands;
as indicated.
2. To revise the location of the parkette to be
2. Precise location and size of
adjacent to the EPA area as shown on the
parkettes to be determined at
attachment (relocation of parkette that's east of
the time of development review
Farmington Drive and north of Bloor Street), to
and approval.
provide better NHS linkage.
S026a
Follow up on previous inquiry - specifically the relocation
Comment Received — Precise
Woodland Durham
of the parkette. Seeks clarification on whether their
location and size of parkettes
(Mark Foley)
previous request was reviewed and why it was not
to be determined at the time of
allowed.
development review and
October 21, 2020
approval.
S004: S019
Property Location: 1811 Highway 2
Land Use Plan revised to
Worboy Law
expand High Density/Mixed
(Ronald Worboy)
Use designation along Hwy 2.
Thanked staff for the notice. Provided his support for
June 2 and 23,
the Secondary Plan. Submission of 2 items:
2020
(1) A letter outlining the client's desires to:
a. provide a high density residential block on
Courtice Road, between Highway 2 and
Sandringham Drive;
Page 254
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
b. provide a medium density residential block
west of Hancock Rd, between Highway 2
and Sandringham Drive;
c. move the neighbourhood park south of
Sandringham Drive, adjacent to the EP
lands.
(2) A proposed land use plan for the proposed SEC
SP.
S005
Property Location: 2212 Trulls Road and 2350 Courtice
No implications for SP revision.
Colliers
Road
Multiple responses were sent
International
Several inquiries were made including:
to advise of potential timing,
(Tristan Quizeo)
the extent of the residential
• When will Secondary Plan be adopted?
and environmental constraint
June 4, 2020
. What is the extent of the land uses for both
areas. Specific land areas
properties (2212 low density residential and
were not provided.
environmental constraint, and 2350 medium
density residential).
• How much/percentage of the sites developable -
for valuation purposes?
S006
Property Location: 2350 Courtice Road
Response provided to advise
Colliers
Can the portion of the property that's not within the
timing of the Secondary Plan
and UDSG to be presented to
International
Secondary Plan area proceed with development without
Council for a Statutory Public
(Tristan Quizeo)
the adoption of the Secondary Plan.
Meeting (June 23, 2020) and
June 5, 2020
What is the expected timeline for implementing the plan
anticipated timing for a
and development for the two sites?
recommendation report in Fall
2020. Also advised of the
adoption/approval process as
Page 255
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
well as the ongoing Robinson
Creek and Tooley Creeks
Subwatershed Study that was
prepared in support of the
Secondary Plans in Courtice.
Portion of the site is within the
SEC Secondary Plan however,
the sanitary servicing for the
site will not be available until
the Trunk Sewer and
subsequent infrastructure is in
place.
No implications for SP revision.
S007
Subject lands are located outside of the SEC Secondary
No implications for SP revision.
Neil Osbourne
Plan area and outside of the Urban Boundary but
Mr. Osbourne was directed to
immediately adjacent to the Secondary Plan on the
the Region's Municipal
June 5, 2020
south side of Bloor Street.
Comprehensive Review
Redirected Mr. Osborne to the Region of Durham MCR
website.
process.
Mr. Osbourne is requesting the Courtice Urban
Boundary be expanded to include the Subject lands.
S015
Specific questions related to buildings, roads, storm
Questions were answered
Neil Osbourne
water, and location of items:
regarding the Secondary Plan.
June 21, 2020
• Maximum building height and location of buildings
Page 256
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
• Location of proposed roads (from Courtice Rd),
No implications for SP revision.
options for relocation and road design details
(number of lanes, street parking, traffic lights,
speed limits on Bloor St between Courtice Rd &
Hwy 418, potential widening of Bloor St, corridor
width)
• Storm water facility location options, details to
share, management of possible overflow.
S008
Lives on Stagemaster Crescent. Confirming if
Stagemaster Cres. has been
Stagemaster Crescent will exit onto Courtice Road
included in the Southeast
Jessamyn Wilson
based on graphic in Notice.
Courtice Secondary Plan study
June 8, 2020
area to ensure that when
development is planned for,
adjacent uses and built form
will be considered. There is no
plan to change the
configuration of Stagemaster
Crescent to exit onto Courtice
Road.
No implications for SP revision.
S009
Inquired about the tentative start date of the four street
Staff will prepare a
Ron Boss
expansions/extensions shown in the newspaper.
Recommendation Report for
Council to consider. When
June 15, 2020
Council adopts the Secondary
Plan, it will be forwarded to the
Page 257
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Inquired about the start time for the June 23rd Public
Region for final approval.
Meeting.
No tentative start date for the
extension of roads shown in
the advertisement - roads are
typically extended through the
development process (Plan of
Subdivision) which takes place
after the Secondary Plan is
approved.
Date, Time and instructions to
join the SEC SP Public
meeting was provided.
Asked if they'd like to be part of
the IP List.
No implications for SP revision.
S010
Property Location: 1685 Bloor Street
No implications for SP revision.
Hope Fellowship
Noted they are looking forward to the PM and how the
Church (Brian
Secondary plan will affect the Church property
Bylsma)
(proposed road south of their property). Seeks more
June 15, 2020
information on proposed Farmington Drive extension.
S011
Property Location: 1685 Bloor Street
Staff discussed the number of
factors that go into the design
Page 258
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Hope Fellowship
of the neighbourhood. A map
Church (Rich
Bouma)
Inquiring about the location of the two collector roads,
with the Secondary Plan land
uses over top of the property
school and Neighbourhood park on the Church's land.
fabric was sent to the Church
June 16, 2020
Requested a map. Inquired about future cost sharing.
representative so this
relationship is known.
S024
Property Location: 1685 Bloor Street
School site moved further
Hope Fellowship
The proposed school and park limit development
west. Neighbourhood park
shifted southward and
Church (John
potential on their property.
Farmington Drive was shifted
DeWilde)
eastward to better align with
June 23, 2020
Prefers a mix of uses and relocation of the proposed
property boundaries.
school and park elsewhere.
Advised that in general cost
sharing will occur between
landowners for infrastructure
Inquired regarding cost sharing with other developers.
and other costs of
development, i.e. provision of
land for parks and schools as
part of the development
process.
S031
Property Location(s):
Meeting held with Church
Hope Fellowship
1685-1689 Bloor Street; and 1711 Bloor Street
representatives. See above
Church (Brian
response.
Bylsma)
Page 259
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
July 13, 2020
Thanked staff for all the work to help create the
community in Courtice. Emailed letter outlining
concerns and desires for the church property that's
consistent with the Secondary Plan. Requests meeting
with Planner to discuss further.
Desires (requires all 22+ acres they own):
• A second phase for their own facility (building and
program expansions); and
• A mixed -use community including a variety of
living options, affordable housing, assisted and
senior's retirement living.
Concern:
• Proposed uses (school, park, two new roads)
leaves limited developable land to work with -
detrimental to how they are serving community
Believes their plans are in -line with Secondary Plan
objectives to be livable and accessible; and suggests
the proposed uses be central to the Secondary Plan
area instead of adjacent to residential areas:
• Move school to south side of the new EW road (if
needed in that area)
Page 260
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
• Move park to a more central location (open to
further discussion RE: Green Priority Concept)
• Desires Municipality provide property zoning to
reflect their use and needs.
• Move the EW road 50-75 feet south, the north
limit of the EP area to avoid creating a small
parcel.
• Move Farmington extension 75-100 feet west to
allow better use of their lands east of Farmington
(also helps Farmington be more central between
Courtice and Trulls.
S038
Property Location(s):
See above responses to the
Hope Fellowship
1685-1689 Bloor Street; and 1711 Bloor Street
inquiry.
Church (Brian
Church)
BylsmaNeighbourhood
Consider moving the school to the west side of the
park; realign Farmington to their eastern
August 28, 2020
property line.
S014
Concerned about additional roads on proposed land use
EA will further assess the
Libby Racansky
plan:
crossing of the Tooley Creek
and provide mitigation
June 21, 2020
Road #4 (horizontal): would reduce quantity and
measures if needed.
quality of water feeding Tooley Creek's
headwaters which is already covered by the 418
No implications for SP revision.
Interchange. Can Road #4 be avoided to
minimize negative impact.
10
Page 261
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
• Road #4 (vertical): seems to have less impact on
Creek - seeking a culvert or bridge (preferred,
and cheaper) over the Creek. Asks for a
vegetative buffer along the north and east side of
the Plan to prevent 418 noise (trucks) into the
Hancock neighbourhood.
SO40
Follow up; seeking answers from Staff for the following
Staff provided links the Draft
five (5) concerns:
Southeast Courtice Secondary
Libby Racansk
Y y
Plan (June 23, 2020), the maps
November 25,
1. Extension on Farmington Drive (#3 on Plan) - still
(land use and transportation), and
2020
unable to find how much it would cost tax -payers to fund
the Robinson and Tooley Creek
the road extension to cross the valley. Asks what the EA
Subwatershed Study for more
information.
says about it and if the road could avoid this crossing
and remain as an internal winding road to help calm
Answered each concern in
traffic instead of having many roads that would require
writing.
Public Works' maintenance. Less maintenance means
lower taxes, so a request for less roads.
Clarified the status and timing of
completion for the EA; how the
2. Similar situation can be applied to Road #4 located at
Secondary Plan responds to their
concerns on the Creeks,
the headwaters of Tooley Creek. The other part of the
proposed roads, and land uses;
Tooley headwater recharge was already covered up by
as well as the future development
the Hwy 418. Subdivision residents have access to Hwy
in regard to natural features,
2 and 418 from Courtice Rd. Asks what the EA is
servicing, and the development
recommending for this.
approvals process.
3. Asks if developers contribute financially for rehab of
Tooley Creek - if the roads are really necessary.
11
Page 262
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
4. Asks if the forested area to the left of Tooley Creek
(visible from Courtice Rd) will become a park as Mr.
Worboy requested on behalf of the Muirs. States it
would finish the existence of Tooley Creek, and
suggests a trail be implemented instead which follows
the outside contour of this woodlot.
5. Questions whether the existing residents on Hancock
Rd will lose water in their wells during or even after
construction. Asks if there should be a clause in the
study stating that the developer would connect residents
to municipal water supply or restore their wells
(according to the desires of private landowners) at no
cost to the residents. Without such clause, the residents
would pay an unnecessary financial amount for the
restoration or connection and suffer, health -wise. The
same had happened to those in the Hancock
neighbourhood recently.
S017
Asked for general project information such as
Response to inquiry provided.
Mark Stanisz
documents, timelines, and any information about the
No implications for SP revision.
sewer trunk being constructed on Trulls Rd.
June 22, 2020
S027
Questions what's planned for the property at the
Response to inquiry provided.
Mark Stanisz
southeast corner of Wade Square (#65) and its
No implications for SP revision.
relationship to the SEC SP and the development
June 26, 2020
12
Page 263
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
immediately south of the property (there's an abandoned
house east of the white area).
S018
Subject lands are located outside of the SEC study area
No implications for SP revision.
Bruce Osbourne
and are located outside of urban boundary (immediately
adjacent to the Secondary Plan on the south side of
June 23, 2020
Bloor Street).
Redirected Mr. Osborne to the Region of Durham MCR
process. Mr. Osborne is requesting the lands to be
included within the Urban Area.
S020
Experiences noise from Highway 418, high volume of
Secondary Plan provides
Ken & Wendy
trucks and high vehicle speeds on Bloor between
policy regarding the protection
Ferris
Courtice Rd and Hancock Rd.
of the natural environment and
Questions how the Municipality considers road safety
for the provision of safe roads.
June 23, 2020
and environmental impacts.
No implications for SP revision.
S021
Timing of project completion, concern for construction
Secondary Plan must first be
Alex & Laura Paris
noise and impacts, timing of access to services.
approved, and infrastructure
be extended to the area prior
June 23, 2020
to development.
No implications for SP revision.
13
Page 264
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
S022
Need to strengthen the EW connections between
Environmental Protection
Gerry McKenna
Robinson and Tooley Creeks.
policies are provided in the
What infrastructure will be used to support new
Secondary Plan.
June 23, 2020
roads/extensions and what wildlife and species at risk
No further implications for SP
are identified in the area.
Suggests bird friendly building performance standards to
revision.
minimize impact during fall migration.
S023
Property Location: Hancock Road north of Bloor Street.
Concern noted. The final
Milada Kovac
Opposes Meadowglade Road extension to bisect her
alignment of Hancock
Boulevard will be subject to an
June 23, 2020
property connecting Hancock Road.
EA. Timing for the EA is
unknown but will be in the
future.
No implications for SP revision.
S025
Property Location: 2231 Trulls Road
No implications for SP revision.
Pasquale Bruno
June 23, 2020
Wanted a map showing his property and the secondary
plan.
S028
Concerned with the protection of natural areas,
A number of policies are
tributaries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and corridors, as they
included in the secondary plan
Alisha Ritskes
currently face low human and vehicle interference.
to address these concerns
June 27, 2020
including:
• Environmental
Protection
14
Page 265
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Concerned with the cleanliness of these areas and
Erosion Control plans
questions how monitoring of illegal dumping and runoff
are a requirement of
from construction will prevent harm to the ecosystem.
most development
Questions how conservation and protection will be
approvals
Public Works department
achieved long term - whether it be implementing
maintains trails
guidelines or processes; and how trails will be
maintained.
Private landowners maintain
adjacent sidewalks
As a result of increased residential uses, concerned
about how the proposed density increase may challenge
Existing uses may remain.
residents to drive instead of walk, especially in the
winter with extreme temperatures and less maintenance
of sidewalk clearance.
Submission did not necessitate
SP revision.
Wonders whether the existing houses and buildings not
mapped are to remain/being considered.
S030
Property Location: 2091 Trulls Road
It is intended that these
Tracy Madgett
Inquiry about the future of the row of SFDs that front
properties will continue as is or
the land could be used in the
July 3, 2020
onto Trulls Road.
future with other lots for a
development.
No implications for SP revision.
S033
Property Location: Lands within the Environmental
Responses provided regarding
Study Area
proposed timing for the
15
Page 266
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
Lindvest (Mark
Looking for more details regarding the timing and
recommendation report.
DiLoreto)
phasing of the Secondary Plan. Confirming the expected
Information regarding the EIS
July 15, 2020
November 2020 completion date of Phase 4 and the
was provided.
Recommendation Report and whether this deadline
Inquiry did not have any
would be delayed due to COVID-19. Seeking more
implications for SP revision.
information on the Environmental Study, its approximate
completion date and if available online for public view.
Asked how much of an increase to the density proposed
in the Secondary plan Guidelines would be supported by
Staff, and if a zoning/OP amendment comes forward
how long it would take to approve an increase to the
density/height.
S035
Property Location: 1350 Courtice Road (Pickell
In general cost sharing will
MacMeg Group of
Development Lands)
occur between landowners for
Companies Inc.
Seeking clarity on the impacts of the Secondary Plan
infrastructure and other costs
if development, i.e. provision
(Kevin Anderson)
work to the subject property, specifically:
of land for parks and schools.
July 17, 2020
1. A proposed/potential stormwater management
Stormwater management
feature;
facilities shown on Schedule A
2. A proposed/potential parkette feature, and;
and B are illustrative and final
3. A collector road running east/west from Trulls
location and sizing shall be
Road to Courtice.
determined through the
Also seeks clarity on the land designations being
development application
suggested in the plan and whether there is flexibility
process.
related to commercial uses and the close proximity to
the Courtice and Bloor "landmark" intersection.
16
Page 267
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
Seeks to understand how compensation will be
Large scale commercial uses
delivered if the uses/features are implemented.
are not contemplated for these
lands.
Until they receive clarity on the above concerns, they
Mapping of the subject lands
are not in favour of the proposed plan.
were provided with an overlay
of the Secondary Plan as well
as details from the
Subwatershed Study.
S036
Subject Lands: Composting Facility on Hancock Road
Policy request has been
Macaulay Shiomi
north of Baseline Road.
forwarded to the Courtice
Howson LTD.
White Owl Properties Limited (formerly Miller Group)
Employment Lands/MTSA
Secondary Plan which is in
(Nick Pileggi)
owns the subject lands. The northern portion is used as
closer proximity to the subject
Sept
September 18
an organic and wood waste composting and processing
lands.
facility, while the southern portion is located within the
Courtice Employment Secondary Plan Study area.
Secondary Plan policy requires
studies for new development to
Is concerned that future development in the Southeast
show compatibility with uses
Courtice Secondary Plan Area may result in greater
adjacent and in the vicinity.
odour concerns.
White Owl is not opposed to the developments in the
Secondary Plan Areas and believes additional policies
are beneficial to the Municipality and White Owl, in
reducing land use conflicts. Suggests adding a new
section of policies to the Clarington Official Plan.
0
17
Page 268
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
S037
Seeking clarity on the secondary plan boundaries and
Concerns regarding snow
Patrick McEvoy
the impacts of the Hancock Road adjustment in relation
removal were forwarded to the
to their property, such as snow plow services. Inquiring
Director of Public Works.
August 29, 2020
about comment period and if future alterations to the
Advised that the alignment of
plan can be made. Also suggests having the
Hancock Road will be subject
Meadowglade Road extension go through their property
to the EA process.
and extend out to east of Hancock Road. Looking to sell
their property and welcome future plans.
No implications for SP revision.
S039
Outlining concerns with the June draft of the Southeast
Tribute
Courtice Secondary Plan:
Communities
(Louise Foster)
1. Section 3.1.1 on Regional Corridor:
September 3, 2020
a. There are cross references to regional corridor
cy and references
lands and to the streets, though streets are not
clarified.
cllarifi
regional corridors. Please clarify and correct.
2. Section 4.3 Medium Density Residential:
2a. Correct
a. We assume no distinction between condo towns
and street towns or back to back/stacked for
Section 4.3.3 b) and c).
2b.This provision has been
b. In Section 4.3.7, townhouses are permitted but
removed.
shall not exceed 10% of total frontage. Clarify
how a townhouse is defined and how it's
calculated (site plan by site plan basis, or by the
overall frontage of medium density blocks). We
W
Page 269
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
cannot support 10%. Also, does the Regional
Road frontage mean all units fronting onto Bloor
Street, Courtice Rd and Hwy 2? It's difficult to
implement if planning on a site by site basis as
the actual land use area within the regional
Corridor is not wide. Please delete the
percentage and work with the overall 85 uph
2c Four storey development is
noted in Section 3.1.3.
encouraged at all intersections
c. Section 4.4.8, delete the requirement that
of a Collector or Arterial with
buildings less than 4 storeys shall not be
the Regional Corridors. Policy
permitted within 50 metres of an intersection of
has been revised to only apply
Courtice Rd and Bloor Street. We don't
to some intersections.
understand the intent of this as driveway access
and internal condo road patterns are difficult to
achieve and may not be in keeping with the
development blocks. 3 storey buildings can be
designed to reflect a 4 storey product (see
examples attached).
3. Section 4.5 Development within Low Density
3a. Design criteria has not
Residential Designation:
been removed as these clarify
a. Remove specific design criteria in Section
the Municipality's expectations
5.3.1. Urban Design and Zoning policies
regarding development.
should not be in a Secondary Plan. If there
Specific numeric references
are design considerations that are also
have been removed where
included in Urban Design Guidelines and
appropriate to avoid conflicts
the Zoning By-law, how would the
with future zoning provisions.
Secondary Plan policies be addressed if a
19
Page 270
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
minor variance to the Zoning By-law can
3b. Provision revised (5.4.1) to
be made?
remove numeric reference
b. Delete the provision in Section 5.3.1 e)
however soft landscaping is
requiring 50% soft landscaping. Request
still encouraged.
that it be reduced to 45% (see examples
attached). The porch and stairs must be
included to achieve the 50%. This would
3c. Policy revised.
be appropriate for a zoning by-law, not a
secondary plan. An OPA may be required
if a minor variance came forward.
3d. Official Plan limits
c. In Section 5.4.1 c), garages should at least
townhouses that may be
be permitted to extend to the front porch,
attached to 6.
which provides for a more liveable floor
plan in smaller units.
d. Change the maximum number of attached
townhouses from 6 to 8 in Section 5.4.1 f).
Cannot support this as townhouse projects
4a. policy has been amended
(freehold and condo), blocks range from 5-
to reference the Official Plan
8 units typically, depending on the area of
regarding road design.
the land that the townhouse occupies.
4. Section 9.6 Local Roads:
a. Delete the requirement in Section 7.3.2,
as 200 metres as the maximum road
length is too short. In various
circumstances, crescents and valley
systems require flexibility in the road
pattern. An absolute grid is not achievable,
but a modified grid is.
20
Page 271
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Attachments to the submission include sample lot
demonstrations for townhomes, landscaped open space,
and building elevations.
S012
Property Location: Environmental Study Area
Boundary of the Environmental
Delta Urban Inc.
Study Area was determined in
(Mustafa Ghassan)
Requests to have the Environmental Study Area (ESA)
keeping with the
boundary adjusted to the limits of the Natural Areas only
Subwatershed Study.
June 17, 2020
(i.e. the Moderate Constraint Area) because those areas
Boundary has not been
are the only parts of the area being studied, for
revised.
additional protection and flexibility.
S013
Letter of Support on behalf of the Southeast Courtice
Thank you. No implications for
Delta Urban Inc.
Landowners Group dated June 15th, 2020, addressed to
SP revision.
(Mustafa Ghassan)
the Planning & Development Committee in preparation
of the SEC SP Public Meeting on June 23rd, 2020.
June 17, 2020
S029
Following up on issues and concerns regarding the
In response to submissions the
GHD (Bryce
reallocation of the school and park, raised by Hope
school site moved to west of
Jordan)
Fellow Church at the Public Meeting, as the property
park.
appears small to accommodate the uses.
June 30, 2020
S034
Section 2.1: Vision
Wording changed from
"preserved" to "conserved".
"Enhanced" remains. It is an
21
Page 272
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Delta Urban Inc.
The 2nd body paragraph, 2nd sentence notes that
objective of the plan to
(Mustafa Ghassan)
"the features related to the Robinson and Tooley
enhance the NHS and its
July 31, 2020
Creeks, will be preserved, enhanced...". Please
"enhanced"
ecological functions through
delete the word from the sentence. It
the development process.
should not be a secondary plan mandate to
enhance these features, but we agreed with the
reference to "preserve" and "incorporate the
features into parks and open space system.".
Section 2.2.4: Objectives
See comment above.
• Similar to the comment above, please add the
term "where applicable" after "enhance the
natural heritage system".
Section 3.1.1: Regional Corridor
• This section indicated that Bloor Street, Courtice
Bullet 1 - "likely" deleted.
Road and Highway 2 are Regional Corridors,
which is correct, but it noted that they are the
Bullet 2 - We don't have a
"likely routes for future transit service". Please
Community Structure
remove the word `likely' as these roads are most
schedule. The purpose of that
definitely the routes for future transit service, not
sentence is to be clear that
the 'likely' routes. Please also refer to Policy 3.1.5
when we are talking about
as it indicated that these roads will serve as the
Regional Corridors, we are
"principal transportation routes".
talking about the areas
• The last sentence states that "Regional corridors
covered by those two
align with Medium Density Residential and High
designations.
Density/ Mixed Use designations". The Regional
corridors already exist in the Region's Official
Plan and the Clarington OP, as such it is the
22
Page 273
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Medium Density and High Density/Mixed Use
designations which align with the Regional
Corridors, and not the other way around.
Section 3.2.4 c): Prominent Intersections
Policy changes such that retail
and service uses are
• The policy states that development in the vicinity
encouraged.
of Bloor Street and Trulls roads "Shall feature
built form at the upper end of medium density
category and an offer retails and service uses".
Bloor and Trulls is a prominent
Please remove the requirement for mixed use
intersection and a 4 storeys
building at this intersection as is a Medium
built form is a requirement.
Density designation therefore an all residential
building should be permitted at this location.
Flexible policies that permit retails/services use
are acceptable, but it cannot be a must; this is
consistent with other similar areas throughout the
Region.
Section 3.3.1: Urban Residential
No change made. "Urban
Residential" the title of the
• Revise "Urban Residential areas are
element of community
predominantly residential areas..." as it is
structure, what follows is a
redundant.
description of it.
Section 3.3.2: Urban Residential
Policy doesn't say that there
will be no large parks within
• It is common practice to provide a larger park as
the RC, it says many of them
part of higher density areas as they provide relief
will be in the
from the high -density massing. In fact, the parks
do not have to be provided entirely within the
23
Page 274
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Regional Corridor, they can extend into the
Medium Density and Low- density areas in order
to provide better pedestrian and cyclist
connections within the community. Please clarify
why they are proposed be "removed from the
intensity of the Regional Corridors" as outlined in
the policy.
Section 3.4.1: Parks and Open Space System
This has already been
changed to SW ponds. They
• Please be consistent with the terminology,
are one type of SW facility that
suggest maintaining and using the term
can be incorporated into the
stormwater managements "facilities" or "ponds"
Park and Open Space System.
(per section 3.4.7) rather than "features".
Section 3.4.2 & 3.4.4: Parks and Open Space System —
Change made throughout.
Environmental Protection on Areas and Associated Area
• The term `preservation' should be removed from
these policies and all other policies of this
secondary plan. The natural feature areas will be
`conserved' and `protected', but not `preserved'.
Section 3.4.7: Stormwater Management Ponds
First sentence, the extent to
which development and site
Please confirm that SWM ponds can be located
alteration can occur in VPZ are
within VPZ and replace buffer requirement
determined by the OP policies.
adjacent to EPAs. Confirm that pond locations on
Schedules A and B are illustrative and final
location and sizing will be determined through
Second sentence has been
development applications.
added as policy 11.3.1.
24
Page 275
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Section 3.5.1: Gateways
Gateway location and
treattreat
treatment clarified in policy
• Gateways are identified in section 2.4 of the
Urban Design Guideline. There are 4 Gateways
being proposed for SE Courtice. The quantity and
location of the Gateways should be revisited. For
Gateways reduced to two, at
example, the two gateways along Bloor Street
arterials along the eastern
should be removed. The Municipality should also
edge of Courtice.
consider the cost of constructing these features
and maintenance.
Section 4.3.4 b: High Density/Mixed Use
Changed.
• Change `unit' to `units'.
Section 4.3: High Density/Mixed Use
High Density/Mixed Use areas
do not abut a Low Rise
• Please consider using the Medium Density lands
Residential area.
as the transitional land use to the Low -Density
lands rather than requiring the High- Density
lands to provide a transition.
Section 4.4.1: Medium Density Residential
Regional Corridor is generally
100m wide. On the west side
• Please confirm if the Regional Corridor has been
of Courtice Road, north of
widened at the section of Courtice Road north of
Bloor the Medium Density
Bloor Street. Purpose of the clarification is
Residential designation
because Medium -Density is currently reflected
extends beyond 100m..
outside the typical corridor width and the
reference in the Urban Design Guidelines (Figure
8 in Section 2.2). The LOG has no concerns with
the RC being widened at these areas, but just
25
Page 276
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
need to confirm if it is, otherwise this policy would
need to be revised.
Section 4.4.3: Medium Density Residential — Permitted
Building types are not defined,
Uses
but townhouses have been
differentiated from stacked
• Reference to the definition of "townhouses" and
townhouses.
"stacked townhouses" should be provided.
Section 4.3.7: Medium Density Residential
The policy has been removed.
• This policy is suggesting that Medium Density
Residential designation, townhouses are
permitted but "shall not exceed 10% of the total
frontage" ... further clarity is required regarding
frontage and if the reference is site specific or an
aggregate of the entire Regional Corridor
frontage. Notwithstanding the definition a
minimum % should NOT be provided.
Section 4.3.8: Medium Density Residential
Policy removed.
• "To increase the visual interest of the streetscape
and to promote permeability." This policy is not
appropriate under `Permitted Uses'. Please
remove.
Section 4.4: Medium Density Residential
Townhouses are restricted to
certain portions of the RCfronting
• Please note that 3-storey buildings are permitted
onto the Regional
within the Regional Corridor in accordance with
Corridor.
the Regional and Clarington OPs. Please revise
this policy to permit 3-stroey Townhouses along
26
Page 277
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
the Regional Corridor, and within 50 metre of the
Townhouses would be allowed
intersection, as it could be reasonable to have
at the back end of the
such density to allow for a natural transition to
designation fronting onto a
lower density developments. Please also note
public local street.
that some townhouses are 3 storeys with a 4tn
level for mechanical rooms or balcony's and it
could create the illusion of 4 storeys and hence
should be permitted, although it is not technically
4 storeys. That being said, please provide the
flexibility for higher density but also include 3
storey townhouses.
Section 4.4.2: Low Density Residential
This has been moved to
become a general policy
• "The consolidation and integrated development of
pertaining to all designations.
properties within the Low -Density Residential
designation shall be encouraged." Please remove
as it does not have context in the secondary plan.
Section 4.4.3: Low Density Residential
This policy has been removed.
• This policy permits low-rise apartments adjacent
to arterial roads. Please add Stacked
Townhouses as a permitted use adjacent to
arterial roads.
Section 4.5.5: Low Density Residential
Maximum height in Low
Density Residential is 3. See
• The maximum building height should be
note above.
increased to 4 storeys for uses adjacent to
arterial roads, per comment No.9.
27
Page 278
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Section 7.3.4: Schools
No change made. The policy
• Please delete this clause. This policy is not an
only implies that the
municipality be given the right
appropriate in a secondary plan context. There is
of first refusal for acquiring the
a standard legal protocol for dealing with lands
property its market value.
that the school board is no longer looking to
acquire. In addition, should the Municipality wish
to purchase the land, they would need to submit
an offer that would need to be accepted by the
Southeast Courtice Landowners Group. The
terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement with
the School Board cannot be applied to the
Municipality.
Section 7.3.6: Schools
7.3.6 revised to promote
potential joint use.
• This policy should note that where
Neighbourhood Parks are located for joint use
with schools the individual area for each use may
be reduced notwithstanding the SP and OP policy
requirements. While it may be desirable for
school boards to incorporate recreational and
athletic facilities on their property, a secondary
plan cannot dictate how school board should use
their lands (ie design recreational and athletic
uses into their site), other than for educational
purposes. This policy should be removed.
Section 7.2: Parks
Privately owned publicly
accessible spaces (POPS) are
not eligible to be counted as
W.
Page 279
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
• Please confirm and clarify if the provisions of
parkland dedication
Parkettes and public squares is eligible for
contributions.
parkland dedication contributions.
Parkettes are eligible for
parkland dedication
Section 7.2.5: Parks
A) These size categories were
A) There is no provision for a park size that falls
drawn from the Official Plan.
between 1 ha and 1.5 ha in size. Why?
C) Public square/plaza has
been removed as a public park
category (therefore also
C) Per Comment No. 23, please confirm if Public
reference to size).
Squares will apply towards Parkland
obligations/contributions and clarify if the Municipality
will be paying for and constructing Public Squares? It is
Policies clarified to indicate
very costly to construct and maintain public squares,
that plazas/public squares are
especially with the proposed size of 1 hectare.
not eligible to count toward
parkland dedication.
Section 7.2: Parks
No change made. 7.2.6
establishes that they will be
' Please revise the policy to note that the
dedicated as per the OP,which
dedication of lands for parks should be in
would have to be
accordance with the provisions of the Planning
brought into conformity with
Act. As Official Plans do not always conform with
provincial legislation and
the Planning Act due to not being updated to
regulations.
29
Page 280
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
conform with amendments to the PA, reference
should be made to the PA. Please revise.
Section 4.6.9: Parks
Municipality determined that
there is not need for a policy
' Please include language that would allow for
on strata parks in the Courticecontext.
strata parks or parks on privately owned Lands
(POPS).
POPS are publicly accessible
spaces that remain in private
ownership - they are not public
parks.
Section 7.2.9: Parks
No change made.
• In the past, where parks abutted an EPA, the
park served as a buffer. Now, a buffer must be
VPZ can not be used for parks
provided between the EPA and the park. This is
or count toward parkland
not an efficient use of land, and further
dedication requirements.
consideration should be given to reduced buffer
requirements where an EPA adjoins a municipal
open space facility (i.e. park, stormwater
management pond, etc).
Section 6.3: Environmental Protection Area
OP policies apply.
• The policies should allow for parks and
stormwater ponds to abut EPAs and therefore
New policy addressing VPZ
replace any VPZ buffer requirements. The
6.4.5.
policies should also note that VPZ buffers are
also determined through scoped EISs.
KIM
Page 281
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Section 4.8: Environmental Constraints Overlay
The boundary of the
environmental study area was
• The environmental study area boundary should
established through the
reflect the boundary in the approved Terms of
Subwatershed study.
Reference.
Section 6.4.2: Environmental Constraints Overlay
No change made.
• In the second sentence add the word `may'
before "potential ecological or hydrological
The SWS has determined that
value...".
they have potential, not that
they may have potential.
Section 5.2.17: General
New policy 5.2.17 which
softens the language regarding
This policy requires compliance to the UDG. It
the UDSG.
should be revised to "encourage" compliance.
UDG are guidelines only and they should not
become policies.
The UDSG shall be used as
guidance in the interpretation
and implementation of the
Plan's policies.
Section 5.3.4: Development within Regional Corridors
No change. Likely only to be
used for tall buildings and atthe
• This policy states that a wind study "may be
Municipality's discretion.
required" for development in the Regional
Corridors. The need for a wind study is not
applicable in Courtice and likely will not be
required - kindly remove reference.
31
Page 282
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Section 5.3.16: Development within RC Parking,
Where applicable added to
Loading ...Structures
5.3.16.
• This policy mandates that garbage and recycling
facilities to be "integrated within a building
envelope" — this may not be applicable for all
forms of development along the RC, as such, the
policy should "encourage" integrate "where
applicable"— please add words.
Section 5.4.1: Development within Low Density
These policies have been
Residential Designation
changed to reflect design
objectives, rather thanestablish
• Please remove this section entirely as it should
numerical standards
be referenced in the Zoning By-law and not the
Secondary Plan. Comments regarding the
standards proposed will be provided as part of
the ZBL review. But in general, the policies of
concern include rear lanes for lots less than 12.0
m; 50% soft landscaping should be tested
particularly in relation to townhouses; garages
flush to front walls and maximum 6 attached
townhouses (should be 8 townhouses). Many of
these policies should be part of the Urban Design
Guidelines and the Zoning Bylaw.
Section 5.4.2.: Development within LDR
No change.
• Please revise the language to note that individual
site access for any permitted residential use
"not
The current language
adjacent to an Arterial Road generally be
establishes the standard, while
32
Page 283
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
encouraged" versus the current language
allowing for it to be
"generally shall not be permitted".
reconsidered in exceptional
circumstances.
Section 5.5: Transition
5.5.1 applies to existing uses,
not planned uses.
• Any transitional buffer should not be required
from the residential lands or from parcels within
the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. Abiding
5.5.2 has been added that
by MDS for Agricultural lands that are OUTSIDE
requires some buffer to
of the Secondary Plan Area is a reasonable
employment areas, even
requirement, however, any transition from
undeveloped, to ensure long -
employment lands e.g. the Courtice Employment
term compatibility.
lands shall be the requirement of the employment
land and NOT the residential land — please
revise.
Section 5.6.1: Private Amenities
The policy has been simplified.
• This policy requires the provision of indoor and
outdoor amenities. This would be problematic for
townhouse developments and small apartment
buildings, which are permitted uses. Kindly
remove the policy.
Section 10: Housing
Policies in Section 10.2
• For the purposes of making accessory buildings
more feasible, the need for one additional parking
Reduction of parking
space should be relaxed and removed from the
requirements for accessory
secondary plan. This form requirement should be
in the zoning by-law, which can potentially be
33
Page 284
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
amended through a minor variance (if applicable)
apartments may be
versus requiring an amendment to the Official
considered.
Plan — please revise.
Section 9: General
The Transportation section has
been expanded and references
' The ROW widths for each road/street category
back to the OP have been
requires review to ensure conformity with current
included.
Region of Durham OP ROW requirements and
Clarington OP ROW requirements.
Section 9: Road Network
The Transportation section has
been expanded. Multiway and
' The LOG has major concerns with proposed
standard Arterial Guidance is
ROWs as illustrated in UDGs. Please confirm if
provided.
the Region is supporting the 45.0 m ROW as it is
in conflict to the current OP and Regional TMP.
Please note that Regional Staff have confirmed in
ROW is 40m.
writing that they only need 36.0 m ROW. Please
revise this policy. The need to extend the ROW
along the Regional Corridor beyond 36m is not
required per the Region, and adding a local
component Is not appropriate for Courtice,
considering the nature of the development
(predominantly residential) along the corridor.
The SP Area is also small and increasing the
ROW would impact the economic feasibility of the
sites.
Section 9: Road Network
This policy provides key
objectives to achieve the
balance of function with
0
Page 285
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
• This policy deal with the development of Region
establishing and maintaining
Roads. Given that Regional Road are under the
an inviting sense of comfort
jurisdiction of the Region of Durham, this policy
and place within the Regional
should be removed, or revised to reference `in
Corridor. Wording is revised.
consultation with the Region of Durham'.
Section 9.6.1: Local Roads
The wording of the policy
allows for the accommodation
• Please add "where applicable" or "where can be
of geographic and
accommodated" at the end of this policy.
environmental constraints
while establishing and
maintaining the permanence of
an accessible grid in keeping
with the complete streets and
active transportation objectives
of this plan.
Section 9.6 Local Roads
Reference to a specific block
length removed.
• This policy regarding maximum block length
should be removed or revised to note that blocks
are "encouraged to not be greater than 200m" or
"generally should be less than 200m" but NOT
mandating the maximum length of 200m as that
would result in very small blocks and frequent
roads, which is no efficient use of land in a
secondary plan area the size of SECSP.
Section 9.6.2 Local Roads
Shall have regard is an
appropriate term as it
establishes the UDSG as the
35
Page 286
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
• Please revise this policy to remove the word
point of reference for what
"shall" and replace with are "encouraged".
local roads are to achieve,
without requiring that the
guidance is followed to the
letter.
Section 9.6.4: Local Roads
Sidewalks on both sides of the
street are an important gesture
' Collector and Local Road ROWs are too wide
to the supporting andprioritizing
and should have option for sidewalk on only one
pedestrian
side. Requirements for on street parking and
movement.
bike lanes is also a problem with increased ROW.
There may be instances where a Local Road only
warrants a sidewalk on one side of the street. The
encouraged' add to policy.
policy must be revised to reflect this situation.
Rear Public Lanes
The Secondary Plan does not
address maintenance of rear
• Please confirm that Public Rear Lands are to be
lanes.
maintained by the Municipality.
Section 9.8.4e: Public Transit
Change made using "where
feasible".
• Transit waiting areas incorporated into buildings
should not be mandatory but "encouraged" —
please revise.
Section 9.9.8: Integration of Pedestrian Routes
Encouraging native plantings is
an important part of the
• Remove the word `primarily' in the first sentence,
landscape approach of the
where it speaks to native plantings.
plan.
0
Page 287
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Section 11.2.1: Infrastructure and Utilities
Should provides an adequate
degree of flexibility in achieving
• Please replace the word "should" in the end of the
the intent of the policy.
first sentence (line 2) to say "encouraged" to be
incorporated
No change.
Section 11.3: Stormwater Management and LID
Policy has been revised to
remove the numeric standard
• A secondary plan document is not the appropriate
while preserving intent.
place to specify the depth of topsoil to be used.
This must be removed.
Section 11.4: Urban Forest and Native Plantings
Policy 11.4.1 revised to
substitute "minimize" for
• These policies are not applicable in greenfield
"reduce".
development. It is also not consistent with the
native species reference.
Section 11.4.4: Urban Forest and Native Plantings
This policy establishes the
goals of landscaping in private
• Landscape plans do not address environmental
development.
matters to the extent referenced in this policy. Is
this referencing condominium blocks as plan of
subdivision must meet municipal design criteria
for street tree planting etc. Kindly confirm.
Section 11.4: Urban Forest and Native Plantings
Reference to numeric
standards removed.
• This should not be a secondary plan policy.
Should the municipality change their objectives
for tree inventory then the secondary plan must
be amended. This is likely not desirable from the
Municipality's perspective.
37
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
Section 12.1.1: Environmental Study Area
No change made.
• The Study Area should be reduced in size as per
the Groups earlier submission.
Section 12.1.3: Environmental Study Area
No change made.
• Please refine the boundary of the Study Area and
apply this policy which limits development to
exiting uses, to lands within the boundary only.
*ADD: "Implementation"
Addition made Section 12.3.13
• Please add language to the Secondary Plan that
reference the need to satisfy obligations under
Cost Sharing Agreement, as identified in Section
23.17.8 of the Clarington Official Plan:
Schedule A & B — General:
Environmental Constraints is
an overlay on an underlying
• If Schedules A and B are identifying
designation which triggers theneed
"Environmental Constraints" as a land use, then
for further analysis.
associated policies should be contained in the
Secondary Plan. If it is not a land use then what
significance does illustrated Environmental
No change made
Constraints have on development?
Consider changing the description to "Open
Space".
Schedule A & B — General:
First sentence - policies do
this.
• As with Parks and schools, SWM pond locations
should be noted in SP that the final location and
0
Page 289
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name (contact)
Date
size will be determined through the development
approval stages of individual applications.
Notation made on schedules.
Policies should also state that ponds could be
located outside of the Secondary Plan if deemed
acceptable by the Municipality
Schedule A & B — General:
Comment 1: The school south
of Bloor Street has been
• Please see attached Red -lined Schedule A with
located to be central to the
proposed Changes to two school sites.
neighbourhood within the SEC
Secondary Plan Area.
No changes made to the
school site north of Bloor
Street west of Trulls Road.
Schedule B:
References remain.
• Schedule B should remove all reference to
These are as per the policies
bicycle lanes associated with road classifications.
contained within the plan.
The ultimate design of the roads will be
determined by the Region and the Municipality at
the individual development application stage.
0
Page 290
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Attachment 4
Agency Comment Summary Table
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Canada Post (Andrew
No objections. Please note that all new
No implications for SP.
Chong)
subdivisions & site plans are to be serviced via
Community Mailboxes and any condominiums or
June 9, 2020
apartments with more than 100 units must rear
loading mail panels.
Bell Canada — Planning &
No objections. Offered policy modifications (word
Southeast Courtice Secondary
Development (Meaghan
changes underlined below:
Plan — Draft — Changes made
Palynchuk)
Word change to Section 5.2.16 - Parking,
Loading and Mechanical Structures:
Other Comments — Noted.
June 19, 2020
"5.2.17 All major rooftop mechanical structures
or fixtures including satellite dishes
communications antenna, suitably screened
and integrated with the building, where feasible.
Parapets may be utilized to accommodate such
screening."
o Word change to Section 8.2.1 - Infrastructure &
Utilities:
"11.2.1 Telecommunications/communications
utilities, electrical stations or substations,
mailboxes or super mailboxes and similar
facilities should be incorporated and built into
architectural and landscaping features. Where
feasible, these shall be compatible with the
appearance of adjacent uses and include anti -
graffiti initiatives.
o Additional Query:
If possible, could we obtain the proposed land
Page 291
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
use plan in a .shp file (or any applicable GIS
files)? This will assist in our internal analysis of
this area.
o Future Involvement:
We would like to thank you again for the
opportunity to participate in the Secondary
Plan process and provide comments for your
consideration.
Central Lake Ontario
Secondary Plan Policy Comments
Conservation Authority
Section 2.2.4:
"enhances" added
June 19, 2020
• CLOCA is supportive of this objective,
suggest adding "...in a manner which
preserves and strengthens its ecological
integrity..."
Section 3.1 /3.3:
9.3.5 promotes Green
• CLOCA encourages the secondary plan to
Infrastructure in ROW.
design the road networks to incorporate
LIDs within the road right of ways.
Section 3.5.1:
Section 3.4 and 11
• Stormwater management features may
require separate objectives than the Park
Policy now refers to SW ponds
rather than facilities. The
and Open Space System objectives. SWM
purpose of their inclusion here
features may not always be feasible to be
is to indicate that, where
integrated into the Parks and adjacent to
appropriate, some SWM ponds
open space. For example, LID features
can be incorporated into the
designed as part of the stormwater
Parks and Open Space
management scheme in developments or
System. "Where appropriate,"
within road allowances may not be
has been added to the
considered part of the park or open space
beginning of the policy to
system.
better communicate that point.
A more comprehensive set of
policies pertaining to
Page 292
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
stormwater appear in Section
11
Section 3.5.1:
"Associated areas" are
• The term "associated areas" should be
clarified. Is this referring to Vegetation
described in 6.3.2 as areas
that "support their ecological
Protection Zones?
integrity and include vegetation
protection zones and other
natural heritage areas.
Section 3.5.2:
This has been added to policy
• The EPA should also include hazard lands
6.3.2.
associated with valley systems, including
slope and erosion hazards.
Section 3.5.4:
Policy 3.4.6 addresses the
• Although the EP area may serve as the
backbone, it will need to be ensured that
issue of parks in the NHS and
VPZ.
parks must be located beyond the NHS and
Policies on trails addressing
VPZ's. Trails within the NHS should be
concerns raised here have
minimized and located outside of the NHS
been added to the Integration
where possible. Trails may be permitted
and Quality of Active
within the VPZ's. Creek crossings should be
Transportation Routes Section
minimized to the extent possible.
(Sections 9.9.9 to 9.9.17)
Section 4.6:
Policies have been clarified
• There does not appear to be any policy
direction related to trail construction. It is
and added in Section 9.9 as
noted above.
recommended that trails be located outside
of the NHS or within the outer edge of the
buffer to the NHS with limited connections
bisecting the NHS and limited creek
crossings in order to promote the
preservation and protect the ecological
integrity and function of the features
comprising the NHS.
Page 293
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Section 4.6.10:
"under the Planning Act"
• Suggest rewording the last sentence to read
added. Now Section 6.3.5
similar to policy 4.7.4.
Section 4.7.1:
This has been added to policy
• EPA areas also include hazard lands
6.3.2.
associated with the valley systems including
slope and erosion hazards as well as
associated VPZ's and setbacks.
Section 4.7.3:
Change made. Now Policy
• Suggest rewording to ensure that it is the
boundary of the EPA that is approximate
6.3.4
and will be precisely delineated through
further study during the development
application process.
Section 4.7.4:
"encourage" replaced with
• Suggest replacing "encourage" with
"may require". In Policy 6.3.5
"require" the conveyance of EP areas to
the Municipality, where appropriate, in order
to strengthen this policy.
Section 4.8.3:
The portion of this policy being
• Policy 3.4.13 of the Clarington Official Plan
does not allow for development to be
referred to has been removed,
leaving reference in the
approved where there is an identified
remainder of the policy to the
negative impact the natural heritage system.
policies of the Clarington
Official Plan. Section 6.4
Section 4.8.3:
No change made. The policies
• The study must first determine the features
and functions present on the site and the
of the parent OP apply. In this
instance in the SP, the policies
features and appropriate vegetation
are describing the role of the
protection zones to be preserved and
EIS in addressing the
protected in their natural state.
Environmental Constraints
Page 294
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Overlay - a condition that isn't
addressed in main OP.
Section 4.8.4:
Policy included. See:
• The moderate constraint areas identified
within the SWS have been included in the
"Mitigation measures may be
recommended to offset
NHS. It is recommended that policy be
impacts". Policy 6.4.4
included to ensure a no net loss of natural
heritage system or natural cover.
Section 4.8.5:
No change made to 6.4.7
• Suggest replacing "encourage" with
"require" the low constraint areas to be
incorporated into the site -level plans, where
appropriate in order to strengthen this
policy.
Section 4.8.6:
Policy has been included and
• It is recommended that more specific
policies be included to implement the
additional policy direction may
emerge from the SWS that can
objectives of the secondary plan and the
be incorporated into policy.
recommendations of the of the SWS, such
as but not limited to addressing headwater
drainage feature management
requirements. We recognize that policy has
been included for HDF's identified as
"conservation". HDF's assessed as
"mitigation" should also be included.
Section 4.8:
These studies assess the
• It is recommended that a policy be included
to require the feature identified as an
impact on the "natural heritage
system" and its "ecological and
Overlay to be studied as a whole and part of
hydrological functions", rather
the system where the feature exists on
than just the feature. No
multiple properties.
change made.
Page 295
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Section 7:
LID consideration provided in
• It is recommended that policy be included
for investigation of LID measures to be
Section 11.3.
incorporated into the design of the road
network to provide for treatment of
stormwater runoff generated by the road.
Reference should be made to the Green
Streets within the Urban Design Guidelines.
Section 8.3.2:
Change made to Section
• Recommend including the following items:
11.3.3
Grading Plans, Geotechnical Report,
Hydrogeologic Report.
Section 8.3.2:
Change made to Section
• Recommend including provision for "other
technical reports as deemed necessary/as
11.3.3
required".
Section 8.4:
Change made to Section
• Recommend that the objective could
11.4.5
reference aiming to achieve Environment
Canada's target for woodland cover of 30%
as a watershed wide goal to support
ecosystem health. This is referenced within
the Subwatershed Study (4.2.4).
Section 10.1.3:
Change made to Section
• Suggest including ".shall be limited to
12.1.3
existing lawful / permitted uses."
Mapping — Schedule B
Schedule B:
Through further steps in the
• Farmingham Drive at the 'S' bend at the
very north section will require further review
planning process, there will be
additional study to review and
as there are features present in the vicinity
assess alternative designs for
Page 296
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
that have been identified within the SWS as
the configuration of the subject
high constraints
collector roads in order to
optimize the balance of
benefits and impacts, identify
mitigative strategies for any
impacts, and also to identify
commitments for future studies
or work.
Schedule B:
This will be included in the
• The future alignment of the Meadowglade
future phases of the EA.
Road extension will require further study
and review to ensure minimal environmental
impacts to features and functions as well as
ensure no impacts to flood levels.
Schedule B:
This will be included in the
• In general, future road alignments will
future phases of the EA.
require further study and review to ensure
minimal environmental impacts to features
and functions as well as ensure no impacts
to flood levels.
Schedule B:
Policy added requiring an EIS
• The trail network should be minimized within
the EPA area. Trails should be directed to
to determine trail location
(Policy 9.9.15)
the VPZ where possible. Crossing of the
NHS and creeks should be limited. The road
crossings should be utilized for trail
crossings where feasible.
Region of Durham
General Comments
General Comments Pertaining to all Secondary
The Secondary Plan and
June 22, 2020
Plans in Process: Consistency between Plans
UDSG were restructured.
To help Staff, agencies and the public easily read
through each completed Secondary Plan, consider
Page 297
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
creating a Secondary Plan template, and identify
policies that are common to each secondary plan,
so that the Plans are laid out similarly; and ensure
the schedules appended to each Secondary Plan
follow a consistent order, as some have multiple
schedules while others only have a few.
Also consider identifying general urban design
guidelines that would apply across each land use
type, and across arterial, collector, or local road
types - to help reduce any duplication while
highlighting the unique differences of each
community.
General Comments Pertaining to all Secondary
The Secondary Plan
Plans in Process: Regional Servicing
implemented the policies of the
• Regional Servicing is an integral part of the
development process. The Region's
Durham ROP and Clarington
OP to arrive at projected
services are planned sequentially, using
growth figures.
approved growth forecasts, which in turn
becomes the basis to inform capital
priorities for the Region. This section
provides greater detail on how servicing is
determined to help further the
understanding of this component to the
overall development process.
First, it is critical that the growth forecasts in
the Region's Development Charges (DC)
Background Study be used, with the
knowledge that the timing of infrastructure is
dependent on achieving the growth
forecasts included in the DC study. The
Page 298
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Region's Budgets and Forecasts supersede
the forecasts within the DC Study as they
reflect, among other things, the actual
growth to -date rather than the forecasted
growth. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to
the Region's Budgets and Forecasts when
reviewing current project status, rather than
strictly relying on the estimated timeframes
in the DC Study alone.
Further, it is important to note that only the
current year's budget is approved in the
Region's Budgets and Forecast documents.
The forecasts are estimates which are
reviewed annually as demands and
resources are required, and as such do not
form firm commitments.
Regional Official Plan Amendment
Noted. Region of Durham
• It should be noted the Region of Durham is
undertaking a Regional Official Plan
amendment complete. No
changes needed to secondary
Amendment process to permit residential,
plan.
commercial, home -based occupation uses,
parks, schools and community facilities
within the area bounded by Bloor Street to
the north, Courtice Road to the east, a
future midblock collector road to the south
and the Major Open Space designation to
the west.
General Comments: Functional Servicing and
An update to the Functional
Background
Servicing report has been
provided to the Region for their
Page 299
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
• To date, no details regarding the proposed
review. See comments in the
servicing for the Southeast Courtice
staff report.
Secondary Plan Area have been provided
beyond the planned projects identified in the
Development Charge Background Study.
While it is noted that the Region's requested
changes to the Existing Conditions
Background Report have been made, a
Functional Servicing Report is still required.
This will ensure that the proposed servicing
for the area is adequately assessed and is
viable for the land uses proposed. Please
note that revisions to the Land Use Plan
may be required based on the findings of
the report. Please submit a Functional
Servicing Report for the Region's review
and comment as soon as possible. The
Region will not be in a position to comment
on the draft land use plan until a Functional
Servicing Report is submitted to the
Region's satisfaction.
Policy has been included to not
Lastly, it is noted that laneways are being
permit regional services within
proposed throughout the Secondary Plan.
a lanes or multiway service
The Region will not accept Region -owned
lanes.
watermains or sanitary sewers within lanes
or multi -way service lanes.
General Comment. Transportation Impact Study
update to the Transportation
A detailed Transportation Impact Study is required
Report is ongoing. See
for the Region's review, prior to being in a position
comments in the staff report.
to comment comprehensively on this Plan.
10
Page 300
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Currently, the Transportation Report is included as
a supporting document to the Draft Secondary
Plan as an appendix in the Final Technical
Summary Report. This report does not provide
enough technical information to support a fulsome
review of the proposed Secondary Plan, including
the road network.
Secondary Plan Policy Comments
3.1.2 / Regional Corridor
Policy 3.1.3 has been changed
• Suggest that low density permissions not be
included, consistent with policy 3.1.2 which
to read: "Regional Corridors
shall achieve an overall density
requires the highest densities along
of 85 units per net hectare."
Regional Corridors, so the policy reads,
"3.1.3 Regional Corridors shall include a
mix of tow-, mid- and high -density buildings
that achieves an overall density of 85 units
per net hectare.
3.1.2 / Regional Corridor
Noted. The Multi -Way policies
• The Region's requirements for access
spacing and access control along Regional
have been clarified to address
these concerns.
Corridors will need to be followed to ensure
that Corridors continue to operate as arterial
roads and can accommodate transportation
demands effectively, including expected
increase in transit use.
3.2.4 / Prominent Intersections
Prominent Intersection policies
• Suggest that policy 3.2.4 is moved under
policy 3.2.1 as it identifies what prominent
are in Section 3.2 and have
been expanded.
intersections are and their role in the overall
plan.
11
Page 301
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
3.3 / Urban Residential
The purpose of the Community
• Suggest that the policies in this section be
Structure section is to provide
moved to a "General Policies" section under
a picture of how its
"Low Density Residential" as all of these
components come together to
policies apply to this designation, while the
create the whole and provide
title Urban Residential does not relate to
some detail on the role each
any of the land use designations within the
plays. Urban Residential
Secondary Plan.
corresponds to the name of a
designation within the parent
OP. Policy equates Urban
Residential policies to the
areas shown as Low Rise
Residential on Schedule A.
3.5 / Gateways
Location and treatment (limited
• This policy section should be expanded to
to landscaping) of gateways
identify what it means to be within the
are addressed in policy 3.5.1.
"Gateway" and should include policies to
detail the built form and landscape features.
It would also be beneficial to include a
"Gateway" symbol on the Land Use
Schedule to identify where these policies
apply within the Secondary Plan area.
4.2.2 / High Density/Mixed Use Permitted Uses
As included in policy 4.3.3,
• As a suggestion, professional office,
"retail and services" are
medical offices, and service commercial
permitted which would include
uses (i.e. travel agent, and hair salon) may
service commercial uses.
be appropriate to be added to this list of
Professional office and medical
permitted uses, as these offices are
office uses have been added
generally destinations, which will bring
to 4.3.3. This will be reflected
continuous clientele to the area, that may
in the ZBL.
stay and shop elsewhere after their
appointments.
12
Page 302
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
4.2 / High Density/Mixed Use Permitted Uses
Policy 3.1.3 establishes that
• There are currently no density provisions
associated with the High Density/Mixed Use
Regional Corridors shall
achieve an overall density of
land use category. Please ensure that
85 units per net hectare. This
minimum densities are applied and
policy combined with the built
circulated for our review and comment.
form policies give adequate
direction without resorting to
including an FSI in the policies.
4.2.6 / High Density/Mixed Use Permitted Uses
Policies have been amended
• As a suggestion, this policy could be moved
to the Community Structure section to help
for clarity. See section 4.3
Low density built form is not
develop the overall vision for this area. This
permitted.
policy under the High Density/Mixed Use
policies seems to allude to permission for
lower density housing forms within the HDR.
4.3 / Medium Density Residential Permitted Uses
Building height range (3-6) and
• There are currently no density provisions
associated with the High Density/Mixed Use
minimum density targets
(60unh) are provided in section
land use category. Please ensure that
4.3
minimum densities are applied and
circulated for our review and comment.
4.3.7 / Medium Density Residential Permitted Uses
Policy 4.3.8 deleted.
• Delete policy number 4.3.8 and move the
sentence to the end of 4.3.7 to complete the
sentence.
4.3.11 / Medium Density — Height and Density
A general policy (4.2.5) has
• Change the word "consider" to "include" in
this policy, so it reads,
been added to address unit
sizes.
"4.3.11 New development within this
13
Page 303
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
designation shall G^�er include a range
of unit sizes within multiple -unit buildings."
4.4.3 / Low Density Residential Permitted Uses
Higher Density units are no
• It is suggested that the Low Density
Residential (LDR) along arterial roads be re-
longer permitted along Trulls
Road within the Low Density
designated as Medium Density Residential
Designation.
(MDR) to reduce confusion and eliminate
the possibility of LDR being built along
arterial roads.
Schools. Suggest renaming this section
Change made. Section 7.3 is
"Elementary Schools" to be consistent with the
now Elementary Schools.
school sites identified on Schedule `A'.
Facilities section.
4.6.10 / Parks
Policies 7.2.10 and 7.2.11
• It is suggested for clarification that
stormwater management ponds be
Added for clarity.
excluded from park land dedication.
4.7.2 / Environmental Protection Area
Change made. Policy 6.2.1
• Suggest that this policy is reworded so the
reader understands that the sections being
referred to are from the parent Official Plan.
5.1.3 / Urban Design — General
"Access to transit" added to
• Suggest adding the following words to the
end of this policy,
Policy 5.2.4
"5.1.3 A grid network of streets and
associated blocks shall serve to integrate
and link high, medium and low -density
areas into a unified urban fabric. This highly
connected network of streets shall be
supplemented by mid -block connections
and trails to further enhance the pedestrian
14
Page 304
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
permeability of the area and the efficiency
and variety of pedestrian routes connecting
to nearby transit stops".
5.1.6 / Urban Design — General
Change made to Policy 5.2.8.
• Suggest that the word "pedestrian" be
added to this policy for clarity, so it reads,
"5.1.6 The primary orientation of buildings
and the location of main pedestrian
entrances shall be on a public street.
Reverse frontage development generally
shall not be permitted within the Secondary
Plan Area.
5.2 / Development within Regional Corridors
Policy 5.3.1 is clear that these
• It is suggested that the Regional Corridors
form an overlay on Schedule `A' to avoid
policies apply to the High
Density/Mixed Use and
confusion with the implementing policies.
Medium Density Residential
designations. No changes to
SP.
5.2.6 / Development within Regional Corridors —
Policy 5.2.8 directs main
Public Realm and Connections
entrances to the public street.
• Suggest adding the following words to the
end of this policy,
Policy 5.2.4 addresses access
to transit
"5.2.6 Development shall be oriented toward
the Regional Corridor with the main
pedestrian entrances and animating uses
facing the street to activate the public realm
and enhance the pedestrian environment
for the local residents and transit
customers".
15
Page 305
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
5.2.10 / Development within Regional Corridors —
It is a general aspirational
Public Realm and Connections
policy. It's really about the
• Clarification is requested. The Region is
unsure what the intent of this policy is, and
importance of linkages to the
parks and open space system.
how it will be accomplished.
5.3 / Development within Low Density Residential
This was addressed as part of
Designation
the restructuring of the
• As a suggestion, it may be beneficial to
move the urban design policies right after
document.
the land use permissions for each land use
designation, so the reader can view all the
required information in one place.
5.4.3 / Transition
Change made. Province used
• Modify this policy slightly to ensure the
requirements of the Ministry of Environment,
in lieu of MECP to protect
against future ministry name
Conservation and Parks (MECP) are
changes. Policy 5.5.3
explicitly required.
5.5.2 / Private Amenities
Change made. Policy 5.6.2
• Suggest that the word "pedestrian" be
inserted into this policy.
7.2 / Road Network
Change made. Policy 9.3.2
• The policies in this section should be
clarified noting that the precise public right-
of-way widths and alignments for Arterial
and Collector Roads within the Secondary
Plan Area under the Municipality of
Clarington's jurisdiction shall be determined
through Phases 3 and 4 of the South
Courtice Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment.
7.2.5 c) / Road Network
Change made. Policy 9.4.2 c)
16
Page 306
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
• Suggest adding the following words to the
end of this policy,
"Create an attractive urban corridor which
functions as a successful public place, a
community focal point, as well as a safe and
comfortable environment for active
transportation and access to transit".
7.2.2 / Road Network
The Secondary Plan policies
• April 2020's draft included wording to
indicate that the right of way widths would
do not include specific ROW
widths but indicate that roads
follow policy 7.2.2. This draft does not
shall be designed in
include the right of way widths. Please
accordance with the road
include and circulate for further comment.
classification criteria in
Appendix C, Table C-2 of the
Clarington Official Plan.
7.2.5 / Road Network
The ROW width of the Multi -
The multi -way right-of-way should be
included in the right-of-way policies or chart
Way will be determined
through further design and
as described in the comment above.
therefore is not included in the
Secondary Plan policies.
7.5.1 / Public Transit
Change made. Policy 9.8.2
• The Region suggests that existing policy
7.5.1 be rewritten as follows:
7.5.1 The IVI ininipality in Genii inntion With
the Region of Durham, shell integrate
rrr
Southeast Goi irtine into the regienol b4G
p
transportation system
The Municipality shall ensure that transit
facilities are integrated early and
17
Page 307
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
appropriately throughout Southeast Courtice
by including Durham Region Transit in all
development pre -application meetings, and
ensuring that transit requirements are
addressed through municipal capital works
and private development applications.
7.6.3 / Integration of Pedestrian Routes
No changes made to SP.
• Currently this policy includes two separate
thoughts, the tree canopy for local and
collector roads, and the co -location of
utilities. The co -location of utilities should
become its own policy either in this section,
or it should be interwoven with the roads
policies.
8.3.3 / Servicing, Infrastructure and Environmental
Change made. Policy 11.3.4
Performance
• Delete the word "of" in the policy 8.3.3
10.1.4 / Environmental Study Area
Change made. Policy 12.1.4
• Change the word "lifted" to "modified" so the
policy reads,
9.1.4 Following the completion of the
required study, an amendment to this plan
may be brought forward to allow for the
Environmental Study Area to be l;f
modified as deemed appropriate by the
study.
10.1.5 / Environmental Study Area
Change made. Policy 12.1.5
• Change the words "this area" to "the study
area", so it reads,
lip
Page 308
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
"9.1.5 The Zoning By-law shall be amended
as appropriate following the completion of
the required study to implement new land
use permissions for this areathe study
area.
Mapping — Schedules:
1. Addressed in UDSG. A
Draft Land Use Schedule:
backyard separation with a
buffer and other mitigation
1. Clarification is required as the midblock
measures was deemed the
arterial road which was originally the dividing line
preferred way of dealing with
between the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
this transition, with other
and the lands to the south has been moved farther
options described if this
north in the latest draft. This leaves Urban
approach is not feasible.
Residential uses abutting employment lands. The
lands to the south are currently designated
"Employment Areas" in the Regional Official Plan
and in Clarington's Official Plan. It is concerning
that this road has been shifted, as it would have
provided a partial buffer between the residential
and employment uses.
2. A community structure map
is not included as a schedule
2. The Regional Corridor should be shown as an
and putting additional overlays
overlay on Schedule `A' to avoid confusion with the
would muddle Schedule A.
implementing policies.
However, the text of the
Secondary Plan is clear that
3. The transition policies in section 5.4 will need
the Regional Corridor policies
to be strongly enforced to ensure that the
pertain to the Medium Density
appropriate studies are completed, and setbacks
Residential and High
are adhered to, to safeguard against a clash of
Density/Mixed Use
incompatible uses in this area.
designations.
19
Page 309
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
3. Agree
Kawartha Pine Ridge
Support the proposed location of three elementary
Showing a 4th school site
District School Board
school sites within the Southeast Courtice
determined not to be required.
(KPRDSB)
Secondary Plan Area. Requests that two of the
Policies exist in the plan that
July 8, 2020
three elementary school sites be designated to the
allows for additional school
KPRDSB - specifically the site in the southwest
sites to be added. Section 7.3
part of the plan (east of Granville Drive and north
of Bloor Street) and the site in the northeast part of
the plan (east of Courtice Rad and north of
Comment regarding lands for a
Meadowglade Road).
Secondary School site have
been forwarded to the
Will monitor development activity in and around the
CEL/MTSA Secondary Plan
SECSP Area to determine if additional school sites
team.
may be required. Interested in lands south of the
Secondary Plan Area which is ideal for an
additional elementary school and secondary
school in the future.
PVNCCDSB (Kevin
Request to consider adding a Catholic Secondary
See response to
Hickey)
School site, south of Bloor Street, to be the fourth
KRPDSB/Simcoe County
elementary site. Understands there are already
District School Board above.
June 3, 2020
three in the plan and that Kawartha Pine Ridge
DSB has a desire for three elementary sites.
KPRDSB & PVNCCDSB will soon release a joint
Education Development Review, which will show
the projected need for additional elementary sites
in Courtice.
Durham Region Police
Provided a map showing the nearest Microwave
No changes needed to the SP
Service (Stephen Orr)
Path to the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
as a result of the submission.
area. The link is just southwest of the secondary
November 25, 2020
plan boundaries. Says that construction in the
secondary plan area will pose no immediate
20
Page 310
Attachment 4 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
obstruction issues for the Region's NextGen radio
system and associated microwave links.
Curve Lake First Nation
Although we may not always have representation
No specific implications for SP
(Julie Kapyrka)
at all stakeholder meetings, as rights holders', it is
revision.
our wish to be kept apprised throughout all phases
July 17, 2020
of this project. Please note that this letter does not
See staff report discussion.
constitute consultation, but it does represent the
initial engagement process.
Clarington Fire and
No concerns at this stage.
No implications for the SP.
Emergency Services
July 8, 2020
Clarington Clerks
No comments or objections.
No implications for the SP.
Department
July 15, 2020
Clarington Corporate
No comments or objections.
No implications for the SP.
Services
July 15, 2020
21
Page 311
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Attachment 5
Summary of Urban Design & Sustainability Guidelines
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
S034
1.4 Background & Context
This section is reworded,
Delta
Typo in 4th paragraph, word "commercial".
see Section 1.
Urban Inc.
On behalf of
the
Landowners
Group
2.1 Environmental Protection Area
Back lotting is to be
• Principle 'C' - Minimize back lotting onto EP is a nice objective but will
minimised, wherever
be very difficult for a number of reasons including the environmental
possible.
impact of creating more asphalt per unit in the Secondary Plan area...
See 7.2 e. and 9.2 of
not to mention economic impact for construction, long term
revised UDSGs.
maintenance and basic economics.
2.3 Prominent Intersections
Public squares are now
• Guidelines `A' and `B' - Both speak of Public Squares but provide no
'privately owned publicly -
indication of their ownership and who pays for them, maintains them,
accessible spaces'.
or if they count as parkland dedication.
They do not count
towards parkland
dedication.
2.5 Livable Neighbourhoods — Figure 11: Livable Neighbourhood
Noted — removed.
• The idea that each neighbourhood should have a unique character is
not practically implementable. This has been tried in the past and it
cannot be done without a very "heavy handed" approach.
Page 312
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
2.5 Livable Neighbourhoods — Figure 11: Livable Neighbourhood
Guideline removed.
• Guideline `D' - How is this to be implemented. Neighbourhoods have
been determined by the existing topography, natural features, and
major streets. Delete.
2.5 Livable Neighbourhoods — Figure 11: Livable Neighbourhood
The opportunity to allow
• Guideline `E' - Neighbourhoods this size cannot support a
for such uses is
convenience store or have sufficient vehicular or pedestrian traffic to
encouraged in
be self sustaining. This guideline needs to be supported by a
neighbourhoods.
commercial study.
Wording is revised to
'will provide opportunities
to encourage'.
2.5 Livable Neighbourhoods — Figure 11: Livable Neighbourhood
This is deleted. See
• Reference mixed -use rather than 'ground floor retail, developed with
revised Section 3.3.
multi -unit residential developments'.
2.5 Livable Neighbourhoods — Figure 11: Livable Neighbourhood
Noted — deleted.
• Guideline C - This is more a statement than a guideline. Delete.
2.6 Development Blocks and Lots (Block Orientation)
Mid -block connections
• Guideline 'E' - To provide pedestrian connections every 75m or every 5
are to encourage
townhouses is highly unrealistic and hard to implement since there is
community -wide
no identification of private or public ownership or responsibility for
connectivity and
maintenance. The idea of have regular mid -block connections is good
permeability, as well as
but this is not practical. Creates multiple metres of asphalt.
to avoid long 'walls' of
built form.
See 4.0 d.
2.6 Development Blocks and Lots (Block Orientation)
Orientation is relating to
• There is no mention of block orientation in the guidelines, the headline
built form along
of the section 2.6 is Development Blocks and Lots (Block Orientation).
blocks/lots; see sections
for land use designations
Page 313
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
that provide specific
guidelines on orientation
for the different
permitted built form.
2.6 Development Blocks and Lots (Block Orientation)
Block length of 200m is
• 200 m maximum block lengths are too short and restrictive.
to prevent long,
Additionally, the extreme "mixing" of forms/types incorporation
continuous
individual `small lot singles' adjacent to semis and larger singles is
facades/streetwalls.
difficult to build and to sell.
Mixing of housing types
is encouraged to create
neighbourhoods that are
not homogenous in built
form, and therefore
provide opportunities for
infill, increased
accommodation in
density, housing
affordability, etc.
2.7 Siting Guidelines, Streetscape Variety, Built Form, Massing
Guideline removed.
• Guideline `D' - This is not practical and there is no difference between
the southeast and southwest in terms of shadow projections.
2.8 Built Heritage & Cultural Resources
See revised Section 7 of
• Guideline 'D' -"the proposed development and"..should be removed.
the UDSGs.
3.1 Access and Circulation
Noted.
• Figure 15 - Plan should be reflective of Schedule B of Secondary Plan.
3.1 Access and Circulation
The Municipality is
• Guideline `C' - If the Municipality will not accept public laneways, then
seeking approval with
a number of the principles/guidelines will have to be modified.
public laneways, as
Page 314
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
indicated in the
Secondary Plan and
UDSGs. Laneways
whether private or public
are to be designed in
accordance to the Plan
and UDSG.
3.2 Road Network
This figure will remain
• Figure 17 - remove the network of local roads
showing local roads to
3.2.1 - Confirm that Courtice and Bloor Streets are to be 45m wide.
show all the road types
Regional roads must conform to Regional standards.
that comprise of the road
network.
Bloor St and Courtice Rd
have rights -of -ways that
are 40m wide.
3.2.5 Local Roads (20m ROW)
A 20m ROW is desired
• Clarington accepts 18m local roads. Standard should be changed.
for Southeast Courtice.
3.2.5 Local Roads (20m ROW)
Guideline removed.
• Guideline `B' requires that parking lane be paved with permeable
paving. This is a major cost and maintenance issue, and will the Town
be willing to have this?
3.2.6 Laneways (8.5m ROW)
Both public and private
• Will the municipality accept public laneways? If public 8.5m is
laneways are considered
acceptable; however, if private recommend 6.5m width. The use of
in the UDSGs, without
permeable paving and LIDs in laneways is problematic and very
specification of
expensive. Again, the cross section will be as per approved
ownership. 8.5m is the
engineering detail design.
Page 315
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
minimum width in all
cases.
3.2.6 Laneways (8.5m ROW)
Public utilities may be
• Will the Municipality permit servicing in public laneways?
permitted within public
rear lanes however
Regional Services are
not. (see 9.7. of
Secondary Plan).
3.2.7 On -Street Parking
Guideline removed.
• Guideline 'E' -Please explain why diagonal parkin isn't permitted.
3.2.8 Green Streets
All streets in the
• This section provides excellent green principles - very difficult to
Secondary Plan will be
implement on public rights of ways. Challenges exist because of snow
developed with green
removal, salt applications etc. Will the Municipality be prepared to
infrastructure principles.
maintain these initiatives?
See section 8.0 of
revised UDSGs and the
R/T sws.
3.2.8 Green Streets
See above.
• Guideline 'A' -Bullet 2 -Concerned about material requirements.
Tree planting?
3.3 Active Transportation Network
See revised Section 6.4
• Guideline `D' — Recommends mid -block connectors every 75.Om to
of the UDSGs.
100.Om which is too arbitrary and too often - there is no indication of
Reworded to:
who owns them and who maintains them.
e) The active
transportation network
can also connect
to/through both public
Page 316
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
and private spaces,
including mid -block
connections and
privately owned publicly -
accessible spaces.
3.8 Public Squares
Plazas will be located at
• There are major concerns with this section. The number of "Public
Prominent Intersections
Squares" and their size range is very difficult to imagine being both
in keeping with OP
implementable or having the effect on the streetscapes that is
policy. See sections 3.2
envisioned. There are 9 large Public Squares shown and 5 small
and 6.1.4
Public Squares shown.
3.8 Public Squares
The locations are to be
• Guideline `B' - Requires locations every 500m. Taking the top and
along Regional
bottom of the size range this produces a total of 11.5 hectares of land.
Corridors, primarily at
Although they are called Public there is no indication of ownership.
Prominent Intersections.
Additionally, the references to Public art are also worrying since the
Public art is only
budget for even 14 modest pieces of public art could be at least
encouraged, particularly
several millions of dollars. Will this be public ownership?
at Prominent
Intersections.
3.8 Public Squares
Guideline removed.
• Guideline `G' - Proposes public internet access without discussion of
cost.
3.8 Public Squares
Guideline removed.
• Guideline `H' - Underground parking at all of these locations will be
generally problematic given some of the building types proposed.
There are two specific locations where smaller Public Squares are
located in low density neighbourhoods well away from corridors.
Page 317
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
3.8 Public Squares
The number and
• As a general comment we do not believe that the population density of
locations are reduced.
the area will support this number of Public Squares in SE Courtice. For
They are to be along
this type of public space to operate as truly vibrant spaces there must
Regional Corridors,
be sufficient population to make use of them. Unused Public Squares
primarily at Prominent
will be simply empty, unmonitored, uninviting spaces that will detract
Intersections.
from the image of the community. Cost implications.
3.9 Sitewide Low Impact Development & Stormwater Ponds
See revised Sections 3.4
• Please note that Clarington requires ponds to be fenced with chain link
and 8.0.
fencing - not acknowledged or shown in the photos that are used with
these guidelines. Please confirm if the approach is to now have ponds
open and integrated as part of the natural system.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
This is now Section 5.1.1
• Guideline `A' Siting and Massing
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
Reference is now made
• Bullet 1- Should reference the Secondary Plan prominent
to Prominent
intersections.
Intersections.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
Orientation (i.e. on the
• Bullet 4 — The orientation of high-rise buildings is determined by the
ground as it meets the
surrounding street layout and the orientation and proportions of the
street) is referenced to
blocks and sites. Cross ventilation is rarely achievable for units in high-
being along the street to
rise building since the vast majority of units only have window openings
ensure a street wall.
on one face of the unit.
The street being the
Bloor or Courtice. The
massing (i.e. 'tower'
component) of a building
should be oriented to
Page 318
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
ensure sustainability and
low -energy consumption.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
Guideline removed.
• Bullet 5 — This bullet is unnecessary as it may limit opportunities to
find creative and attractive solutions for the development of sites with
more challenging geometries. Generally, these types of floor plates are
not economical to construct and there would be little motivation to do
so outside of a major metropolitan location.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
Revised, now'Buildings
• Bullet 6 — The practical meaning of this guideline is unclear as worded.
are to be oriented along
It could be worded as "Buildings along streetscapes are encouraged to
the street to establish a
be designed with a consistent massing."
street wall that frames
the street and creates a
vibrant public realm'.
See 5.1.1 a.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
See revised Section 5.
• Bullet 7 — A Guideline establishing a two storey podium is fine but
asking for a "2 storey commercial -retail podium" is restrictive and
Figure 44 shows both a
unrealistic since it is very possible that there will never be a market for
2 storey and 4 storey
second storey commercial or retail uses in these buildings. Residential
component.
uses above the ground floor are typical with this building typology in
the Ontario. There is also apparent conflict between asking for a two -
storey podium and then asking for the building to step back after the
fourth floor.
Figure 44 does not show a two -storey podium.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
Noted.
• Bullet 8 - The design of the ground plain between buildings and the
street should be both inviting and attractive while remaining
Page 319
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
appropriate and practical for the function and use of the spaces in the
ground floors.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
See revised Section 5.1
• Guideline `B' Apartments
of UDSGs.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
See revised Section 5.1
• Guideline `B' Apartments
of UDSGs.
o This section could be more appropriately titled "Residential
Mixed -Use Buildings" and not Apartments since that is a form of
tenure and most multi -floor residential building are condominium
and not rental. The proposed title is more inclusive.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
See revised Section
• Guideline `B' Apartments
5.1.2 of UDSGs.
o Bullet 1 — This would be more realistic if the height range was
expressed as 4 to 6 storeys and not 3 to 6 storeys given that
some townhouse building types are more practical at 4 storeys.
o Bullet 2 — A minimum ground floor height of 4.5m is appropriate
for buildings facing onto a Regional Corridor but not in other
locations such as buildings facing onto Local Roads.
o Bullet 4 — This guideline a is only appropriate for some lower
and mid -rise building types and even within that, only
appropriate to a limited range of architectural styles and
expressions. Delete.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
This is now Section 5.1.6
• Guideline `C' Parking and Utilities
of revised UDSGs.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
This is now Section 5.1.6
• Guideline `C' Parking and Utilities
of revised UDSGs.
Page 320
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
o Bullet 1 — The intention of this guideline is clear however all site
access will be determined by the Region of Durham during an
application for Site Plan Approval.
4.1 Mixed Use, High Density Residential
This is now Sections
• Guideline `C' Parking and Utilities
5.1.5 and 5.1.6 of
o Bullet 2 - The intention of this guideline is clear however all site
revised UDSGs.
access will be determined by qualified traffic experts during an
application for Site Plan Approval based on the building
occupancy as well as the physical opportunities and constraints
of specific sites. The number and location of surface parking will
vary depending on the uses proposed for the buildings. It may
be more appropriate to have surface parking for some
apartment buildings. Delete prohibition of surface parking.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
This is now section 5.1.2
• Guideline `A' Siting and Massing
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 5.1.2 of
• Guideline `A' Siting and Massing
revised UDSGs.
o Bullet 1 — The requirement to vary lot widths assumes freehold
tenure. This requirement for condominium tenure is impractical
for builders and of itself will not make a significant contribution to
the streetscape.
The appropriate and compatible mix of quality architectural
designs accompanied by an appropriate mix of materials and
colours thoughtfully sited along streetscapes will be a more
effective means of obtaining the objective of reducing potential
visual monotony. Effective Architectural Design Guidance and
Landscape design on both public and private property is a
tested and proven means to improve character of streetscapes.
10
Page 321
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
o Bullet 3 — The last sentence of this bullet will contribute to visual
monotony and restrict positive and appropriate architectural
design options. Not all architectural styles can be properly
articulated with a step back on the third floor.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 6.4 e. and
• Guideline `A' Siting and Massing
6.4.1.2 a. of revised
o Bullet 5 — Proposing a POPs or mid -block connector arbitrarily
UDSGs.
every 75m to 100m creates unnecessary hardscape. Mid -block
connectors are desirable but taken to this extreme there is no
benefit to inefficient use of land, and it is unrealistic to create
such public connections on private property in mid -rise
developments of this relatively small scale. POPS are typically
owned and maintained by large condominium associations that
have the economic resources for maintains and security. Mid -
block public connections in this context should be owned and
maintained by the municipality.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 5.1.5 and
• Guideline `A' Siting and Massing
5.1.6 of revised UDSGs.
o Bullet 6 — Suggest changing "side streets" to local streets.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
This is Section 5.1
• Guideline `B' Apartment Buildings
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 5.1.2 d. of
• Guideline `B' Apartment Buildings
revised UDSGs.
o Bullet 1 — The requirement to architecturally express a base,
middle, and top is more effective and appropriate for taller
building and will not be as great an asset to the design of
buildings four storeys and less in height. A height limit of 20m is
insufficient for a six -storey building when a previous bullet has
11
Page 322
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
required that the ground floor of these buildings be 4.5 m tall.
Assuming a typical floor to floor height of 3.0 then a six- storey
building would be (if grading around the building was uniform)
19.5m tall which will not leave adequate height for a roof
parapet and elevator overrun. A maximum building height of
23m would be more appropriate combined with a by-law limit of
6 storeys.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 5.1.2 of
• Guideline `B' Apartment Buildings
revised UDSGs.
o Bullet 2 — The building illustrated in Figure 47 steps back after
the third floor which is inconsistent with this guideline.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 5.1 of
• Guideline `B' Apartment Buildings
revised UDSGs.
o Bullet 3 — It is very difficult to avoid creating overlook conditions
when designing and siting buildings of this type in highly
urbanized plans such as is being proposed. In a city or in a
highly urbanized condition, a degree of overlook is an accepted
condition and is conventionally mitigated through adherence to
appropriate separation distances between buildings. Also, within
a highly urbanized environment, it is challenging to have views
of gardens and recreational areas and one assumes that the
gardens and recreational areas referred to are either public
lands, publicly accessible lands or part of the same
development as the building being sited. Remove requirement.
o Bullet 4 — This guideline is gratuitous since the gridded plan for
the community has already been established and the orientation
of all mid -rise buildings has effectively been locked in already.
Cross ventilation is difficult to achieve. Delete requirement.
12
Page 323
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
o Bullet 5 — Please refer to comment to same guideline in the
Mixed Use High Density Residential section.
o Bullet 8 — Please see previous comment on similar guideline in
the Mixed Use High Density Residential section.
o Bullet 9 — In some locations within the GTA, this guideline
would unquestionably be appropriate where land values and unit
values would justify this expense for a building of 4 to 6 storeys.
In this case, for such relatively small buildings with such a
relatively small number of units, the ability to collectively carry
the construction and long-term maintenance costs for providing
exclusively underground parking may undercut the ability to
implement this guideline and hence the development of the
proposed building type. Adherence to this guideline for this
building type runs the risk of discouraging the development of
this building type on these lands in favour of 4 storey
townhouses. Please delete.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
This is now Section 5.2.
• Guideline `C' Stacked and & Street Townhouses
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 5.2. of
• Guideline `C' Stacked and & Street Townhouses
revised UDSGs
o Bullet 2 — Not practical and may limit accessibility.
4.2 Medium Density Residential
See Section 5.2 of
• Guideline `C' Stacked and & Street Townhouses
revised UDSGs.
o Bullet 4 — Please define shared amenity. Does the guideline
refer to shared amenity areas that are outdoor common areas
within a registered condominium, a POPS, or a publicly owned
outdoor area?
13
Page 324
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
4.3 Low Density Residential
This is now Section
• Guideline `A' Siting & Massing
5.2.1.3.
4.3 Low Density Residential
Noted - maximum
• Guideline `A' Siting & Massing
building height is now'3
o Bullet 2 — 9.5m is not high enough for a three -storey building. If
storeys'. There will be no
a standard floor to floor height of 3.0m is applied, and the
mention of heights in
finished floor is 0.3m above grade then there will not be
terms of measurements.
sufficient height for parapets or pitched roofs. A maximum
Height of 12m would be more appropriate.
4.3 Low Density Residential
See Section 6.4 e. and
• Guideline `A' Siting & Massing
6.4.1.2 a. of revised
o Bullet 5 - Proposing a POPs or mid -block connector arbitrarily
UDSGs.
every 75m to 100m is extravagant and cannot be achieved.
Mid -block connectors are desirable but taken to this extreme
there is no benefit to efficient use of land. It is unrealistic to
create public connections on private property in mid -rise
developments at this relatively small scale. POPS are typically
owned and maintained by large condominium associations that
have the economic resources for maintenance and security.
Mid -block public connections in this context should be owned
and maintained by the municipality.
4.3 Low Density Residential
Deleted
• Guideline `A' Siting & Massing
o Bullet 6 — Delete
4.3 Low Density Residential
This is now Section 5.2.
• Guideline `B' Detached Semi -Detached and Townhouses
4.3 Low Density Residential
Guideline removed.
• Guideline `B' Detached Semi -Detached and Townhouses
14
Page 325
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
o Bullet 2 — This guideline is gratuitous since the street and lot
pattern that has been mandated produces lots that are in the
majority rectilinear and low density production housing does not
produce the types of floor plates discussed in this guideline.
Remove
4.3 Low Density Residential
Reworded; see section
• Guideline `B' Detached Semi -Detached and Townhouses
5.2.
o Bullet 3 - This guideline is gratuitous since the gridded plan for
the community has already been established and the orientation
Neighbourhood centre
of all mid -rise buildings has effectively been locked in. Remove.
references have been
o Bullet 4 - Can better be dealt with by mandating architectural
removed.
design guidelines and privately administered architectural
design guidance.
o Bullet 8 — should be part of a comprehensive zoning by-law.
o Bullet 9 — This principle is highly problematic if the municipality
does not accept public laneways. Privately owned laneways
only work within a registered condominium. Totally disagree with
the requirement that garages "shall" be accessed from a rear
lane. Garages, with architectural control, can be attractive
within the overall design of townhouses, semis and singles.
With a balcony or porch, garages can extend.
• Guideline `C' Neighbourhood Center
o Bullet 1 — Based on past detailed studies in other new
communities in municipalities in the GTA, it is highly unlikely that
there will ever be sufficient population within these areas to
support commercial uses at the frequency implied by this
guideline.
15
Page 326
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
o Bullet 2 — This is fine as it appears to be discretionary.
However, these guidelines encourage a volume of public space
within the community that is unrealistic and does not realistically
add to the quality of the built environment.
4.4 Schools
See Section 6.2 i. of
• Guideline G — Requiring solid board fences in these locations is
revised UDSGs.
uncommon. School boards typically request chain link.
5. Transition Zone
Back lotting is to be
• Paragraph 4 — This requirement is unreasonable as an absolute
minimised, wherever
statement. The objective of providing views to natural heritage features
possible.
is a good one but has serious negative impacts when expressed in this
See Section 7.2 e. of
way as an absolute. This guideline will negatively impact the density of
revised UDSGs.
the community, create inefficient use of land, and will not necessarily
produce superior environmental benefits and outcomes. Remove the
absolute prohibition of rear lotting onto parks and parkettes.
5.1 Development Adjacent to Agriculture
See Section 9.1 of the
• Development Adjacent to Agriculture
revised UDSGs.
5.1 Development Adjacent to Agriculture
See Section 9.1 of the
• Guidelines A to E - Given that Figure 55 clearly shows that all urban
revised UDSGs.
development lands are separated from Prime Agricultural Lands these
guidelines are unnecessary.
5.1 Development Adjacent to Agriculture
See Section 9.1 of the
• Guideline F — It should be clear that this guideline does not apply to
revised UDSGs.
the area covered by this guideline document since it is not anticipated
the agricultural machinery will be traveling on roads within the urban
area.
16
Page 327
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
5.1 Development Adjacent to Agriculture
Guideline removed.
• Guideline G — This guideline is unnecessary since this guideline
document does not apply to agricultural areas. See Secondary Plan.
5.1 Development Adjacent to Agriculture
See Section 9.1 of the
• Guideline H — This guideline is unnecessary since this guideline
revised UDSGs.
document does not apply to agricultural areas. If this is a desirable
guideline it should be enacted through another means.
5.4 Development Adjacent to Parkland
This section is deleted
• Guideline 'A'— The objective of this guideline is valuable however
with guidelines folded
when written in such absolute terms it becomes impractical. In general,
into Section 6.1 of
the guidelines provided by this document encourage the creation of a
revised UDSGs.
much larger total area of road surface by relying on roads and
Ianeways to provide separation between green spaces and the built
environment. There should be limited concern with having buildings
adjacent to parkland if there is effective site planning and appropriate
architectural design.
• Guideline `C' — This is not practical and may not be beneficial in all
circumstances. Delete "shall".
• Guideline `E' — This may not be practical or easily implemented.
Parking is typically permitted along roads adjacent parkland.
5.5 Development within the Regional Corridor
See Section 5 of revised
• Development Within Regional Corridors
UDSGs.
o Guideline `A' Siting & Massing
■ Bullet 3 — In principle, mid -block connectors are a good
feature however the frequency of one every 75m to 100m
is impractical and of very limited benefit. The
maintenance cost of these features will be the
17
Page 328
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
Details of Submission
Response
responsibility of the Municipality. Durham Region will
have requirements for access onto Arterial Roads.
■ Bullet 4 — difficult to enforce. Recommend removal.
o Guideline `B' — Spacing Between Buildings
■ Bullet 1 — This guideline needs to provide more context
for its application and should be co-ordinated with an
area specific comprehensive Zoning By-law (that would
be the appropriate instrument to address these issues).
Since a separation distance of 15m is not mandated by
the Ontario Building Code an explanation of this arbitrary
number should be provided. When dealing with the
separation distance between two Tall Buildings 15m is
commonly regarded as insufficient separation distance. In
the design of mid -rise buildings, 15m may be too great of
a separation.
■ Bullet 3 — Separation distance is important. This
guideline needs to provide more context for its
application. The relative position of the two buildings will
have a significant impact on its efficiency. For example, if
the tall building is located to the north of a mid -rise
building or podium it will produce no shadow impact on its
neighbour.
o Guideline `C' Built Form
■ Bullet 4 — I believe this should be referring to the
articulation of the horizonal planes of the elevations
created by ground floor doors and windows and upper
storey elements such as windows and balconies and
finally, cornice lines and roof edges.
`u:
Page 329
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
o Guideline D Stepbacks & Setbacks
■ Bullet 1 — The name and nature of the Special Design
Standards referenced should be explicitly stated in this
guideline. The minimum and maximum heights provided
Any studies that are
here are too specific and the guideline provides
required at the time of a
inadequate explanation for them.
development application
■ Bullet 3 — A 45-degree angular plane analysis is
will be provided at the
inappropriate within a block as the issues of light,
Pre -consultation meeting
ventilation, and privacy are covered adequately by
in keeping with OP
separation distance and stepbacks. A 45-degree angular
policy.
plane analysis for building facing onto public streets that
form the transition between high and low density or
medium and low- density designations is appropriate
■ Bullet 4 — Side stepbacks are generally impractical and
particularly impractical where other guidelines in this
section may require a building to have front and or rear
setbacks as well.
GRAPHICS
Figure 4: Existing Context & Text
Graphics have all been
• Text and graphic boundary do not match that of the Secondary Plan.
revised. See the revised
The SP states the east boundary is bound by Hancock Road, not Hwy
UDSGs Figure 1.
418 as stated in the UDG.
Figure 5: SEC Demonstration Plan
Graphics have all been
• The Figure does not match with the Secondary Plan. SECSP
revised. See the revised
boundaries don't match.
UDSGs Figure 3.
19
Page 330
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
Figure 6: Community Structure
Graphics have all been
• Map has no legend.
revised. See the revised
UDSGs Figure 4.
Figure 7: Environmental Protection Area
Graphics have all been
• Secondary Plan area boundary should be bolder and more readable.
revised. See the revised
• EP should be PEA to match first sentence at top of page.
UDSGs.
Figure 8: Intensification Areas
Graphics have all been
• There is no legend item for the extended light orange for Figure 8 in
revised. See the revised
the UDG. Is this meant to be an extension or buffer of the Regional
UDSGs.
Corridor?
Figure 9: Prominent Intersections
Graphics have all been
• Same graphic problems as noted above.
revised. See the revised
UDSGs Figure 6.
Figure 10: View Corridors
Graphics have all been
• Parks and parkettes should reflect Schedule A and B of the Secondary
revised. See the revised
Plan
UDSGs.
• View corridors are focused along streets primarily to intersections.
Figure 11: Livable Neighbourhood
Graphics have all been
• Graphic issues with map. The Six Neighbourhoods should be more
revised. See the revised
clearly identified.
UDSGs.
• Commercial in red appears to promote concentration at key
intersections and portions of Courtice Rd north of Bloor... Suggesting a
"Main Street" configuration and form (based on the block depth
indicated). This is going to be a challenge based on traffic and curb
site parking.
Figure 12: Development Blocks and Lots
Graphics have all been
revised. See the revised
UDSGs.
20
Page 331
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
• Map has the same graphic problems. The meaning of the diagrams at
the bottom of the page are provided without explanation and appear to
have no meaning.
• Reference to POPs in the legend and on the Figure is not clear.
Figure 13: Siting, Built Form and Massing
Graphics have all been
• Map has incomplete legend.
revised. See the revised
• Figure 13 doesn't reflect Guidelines.
UDSGs.
Figure 14: Built Heritage and Cultural Resources
Graphics have all been
• Map needs legend. The building identified as BHR4 has been
revised. See the revised
determined by the Heritage Committee to NOT have any heritage
UDSGs Figure 59.
value. The Town has issued a demolition permit. Please remove.
Figure 15: SEC Public Realm
Graphics have all been
• Figure is too small, no legend. Should be consistent with Section 2
revised. See the revised
preamble page.
UDSGs Figure 31.
Figure 16: Access and Circulation
Graphics have all been
• Photo is unimplementable. Too much permeable paving, curb side
revised. See the revised
parking both sides and based on previous guidelines assumes that the
UDSGs-
multi-storey buildings (mixed use) framing would represent the "Main
Street" or regional corridor.
Figure 17: Road Network
Graphics have been
• Legend has an error. The water course colour has been used for a
revised. See the revised
road type.
UDSGs Figure 41.
• The Local Roads are missing from the legend. However, local roads
should be deleted.
Figure 18: Arterial A (Frontage Road/Multi-way)
New Graphic Added for
• The Regional Transportation Master Plan doesn't contain cross
Arterial A. Region of
sections however, the Executive Summary does refer to the Arterial
Durham has provided
Corridor Guidelines developed within the scope of the TMP (links
assistance.
21
Page 332
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
provided below). The Arterial Corridor Guidelines do contain ROW
Cross Sections, however, only offer one 45m Major Transit Corridor
See revised UDSGs.
ROW Cross Section which the UDG Figure 18 does not match.
• Regional Transportation Master Plan found here:
https://durhamtmp.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/durhamtmp finalreport
2018-0709-web-accessible.pdf
• Arterial Corridor Guidelines: (Skip to Sec2:70 for 45m ROW Cross
Section) https://www.durham.ca/en/living-
here/resources/Documents/EnvironmentalStabiIity/Arterial-Corridor-
Guidelines.pdf
• Cross-section is huge. Planting islands of 3.0 meters are too narrow to
ensure positive tree growth.
Figure 20: Arterial C
See the revised UDSGs
• Single lanes on an Arterial road is impractical and rules out ever having
for Figure 46.
buses, on -street parking, or deliveries on these roads. There may also
be issues with emergence vehicles...
• The Regional Arterial Corridor Guidelines have a 26m Two Lane
Residential Cross Section that does not match Figure 20 of the UDG.
• More reasonable cross-section, however 3.5 meter travel lanes do not
provide for emergency vehicle access. Additionally, the boulevard is
very clustered.
Figure 21: Collector Road
See the revised UDSGs
• This cross-section has the same issues - particularly since school
Figure 47.
boards often require schools to be located on Collector Roads and this
cross-section would make it difficult to have school busses stopping.
Figure 23: Laneways
See Secondary Plan
• The plan does not show that laneways connect to other laneways and
form a system as described in the text.
policy. Lanes must
connect to a public
22
Page 333
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
street. See the revised
UDSGs 6.3.6 Figure 49.
Figure 24: On -Street Parking - Typical Layout
Graphic removed.
• There are no driveways or roads identified accessing the development
block either from the local road or the Regional corridor.
• Not the best example of development block, it would be possible to
access only from the east side.
Figure 26: Green Street Strategies
Graphics have all been
• The rendering is very misleading since it shows almost no driveways
revised. See the revised
cutting across the bioswales and the lot density shown is much lower
UDSGs.
than what is being proposed.
• Green Streets. Photo doesn't match any of the proposed road cross -
sections nor housing forms (widths -as noted previously)
Figure 27: Active Transportation Network
See the revised UDSGs
• An error in the legend on road identification. Should eliminate local
Figure 51.
roads.
• POPs are not clear, no explanation
Graphic is for
demonstration.
Figures 28-30
See the revised UDSGs.
• Unrealistic photographs used to illustrate the Principles and
Guidelines.
Figure 31-32
See the revised UDSGs.
• Cycling. All these images are very Urban, much higher density
precedents and are not applicable.
Figure 35: Transit Network
Removed.
• The map legend has Environmental Protection Areas, but no
Environmental Protection Areas are shown on the map. Symbols for
schools are shown on the map but not identified in the legend.
23
Page 334
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
Corridors are colored but not identified in the legend. Roads identified
in the Guidelines are not labeled on the map.
Figure 36: Parks and Open Space
Revised graphic. See
• Issues with the map. Major roads are not on the map as they appear in
the revised UDSGs.
the legend, large green dashed lines shown on the map not shown in
the legend, the smaller solid blue green lines shown on the map are
not identified in the legend, laneway locations shown on the map are
not consistent with the types of locations identified in the earlier
guidelines, and the block dimensions appear meaningless. Streets are
not labeled....
Figure 42: Private Realm
Removed. See the
• Map has no legend and should have one.
revised UDSGs.
Figure 43: Mixed Use and High Density Residential — Land use Distribution
See the revised UDSGs.
• The grey area on the map should be identified in the legend.
• Legend should read High Density Residential /Mixed Use
Figure 44: Mixed Use, High Density Residential - Cross Section
Removed. See the
• This figure shows a two -storey high loading and servicing area which
revised UDSGs.
would be very unusual.
Figure 45: Mixed Use, High Density Residential - Typical Layout
Removed. See the
revised UDSGs.
Figure 46: Medium Density Residential Land Use Distribution
Removed. See the
• Has some graphic issues including an inconsistent colour in the legend
revised UDSGs.
for the Environmental Protection Area. Should show the location of the
High Density Residential lands so the spatial relationship between
these uses are clear.
Figure 47: Medium Density Residential - Cross Section
Removed.
See the revised UDSGs.
24
Page 335
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
• Shows a section of a six storey building facing the Regional Corridor.
The figure shows the building stepping back after the third floor where
the guideline requires that buildings step back after the fourth floor.
Figure 48: Medium Density Residential — Typical Layout
Removed.
See the revised UDSGs.
Figure 49: Low Density Residential Land use Distribution
Graphics have all been
• Same types of graphic concerns as previously noted on earlier figures.
revised. See the revised
UDSGs.
Figure 51: Low Density Residential - Typical Layout
Graphic Removed.
• The number of mid -block pedestrian walkways is highly impractical and
See the revised UDSGs.
unnecessary from a community design perspective.
Figure 51 - 52
Graphic 51 Removed.
• Figures 51 & 52. Mid -block connections are dangerous, far too
See the revised UDSGs.
frequent, challenge development efficiency and compact building form
principals as well as the previously noted problems with ownership and
maintenance. Additionally, given that laneways are NOT public, all of
the otherwise typically fee simple singles and townhouses would by
necessity become condo.
Figure 53: Transition Zone
Graphics have all been
• No legend provided. Map does not reflect schedules in Secondary
revised. See the revised
Plan.
UDSGs.
Figure 54: Development Adjacent to Prime Agricultural Lands - Cross
Figure removed.
• This figure is unnecessary since all new proposed development is
separated from the Prime Agricultural Lands by existing roads as
clearly shown in Figure 55.
Figure 55: Development Adjacent to Prime Agricultural Lands - Plan
See the revised UDSGs.
25
Page 336
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Submission
Details of Submission
Response
Number
Name
(contact)
Date
• There is a red solid line appearing in this figure that is not identified in
the legend.
Figure 56: Development Adjacent to Employment Areas - Cross Section
See the revised UDSGs.
• The Green Buffer / Parkland feature illustrated is not addressed in the
accompanying guidelines. Does the use of the term Parkland imply that
this land can be credited towards Parkland dedication?
Figure 57: Development Adjacent to Employment Areas - Plan
See the revised UDSGs.
• There is an apparent conflict between the area identified as PSEZ (an
acronym not referred to in the text or explained) and the mapping of
the Prime Agricultural Lands as shown on Figure 55. There is a solid
red line shown that is not identified in the legend.
Figure 58: Development Adjacent to Natural Heritage - Cross Section
See the revised UDSGs.
• As with all these cross sections shown it would be helpful to have a
conceptual location for this conceptual cross section.
Figure 59: Development Adjacent to Natural Heritage - Plan
See the revised UDSGs.
• There is a solid red line that is not identified in the legend.
Figure 61: Development Adjacent to Parkland - Plan
See the revised UDSGs.
• There is a solid red line shown that is not identified in the legend.
Figure 66-67
See the revised UDSGs.
• Too hypothetical. In the foreseeable future (15-20 years), density too
high and development to intense. Too much mixed use adjacent to
regional corridor. This is close to the current development form and
density of North York, east of Yonge street north of Sheppard.
Agencies Comment Table of Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines Comment Submissions received After June 1
26
Page 337
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Bell Canada
General Comments on Urban Design
(Meaghan
No objections. Offered policy modifications (word changes in
This guideline is removed
Palynchuk)
italics) below:
after discussions/issues
June 19, 2020
o 3.2.5 Local Roads (20m ROW) Guideline E:
regarding the sidewalk
"e. Landscape Buffer: A 2.5m wide landscape zone
abutting the roadway.
featuring street trees shall be provided between the
sidewalk and the private property boundary. It could
Note: the 2.5m landscape
serve as a utility corridor for locating underground
zone was shown in the first
services within the street right-of-way, where feasible."
version of the UDSGs and
the cross-section has
subsequently changed.
• Additional Query:
To be sent upon comp
If possible, could we obtain the proposed land use plan in a
.shp file (or any applicable GIS files)? This will assist in our
internal analysis of this area.
CLOCA
Urban Design and Sustainability Guideline Comments
June 19, 2020
Section 2.1
This section for EPAs has
• Guideline b: Please specify what the grid network is referring to.
been revised in Section 7.2
Is it assumed roads?
as follows:
a. The location of parks
should act as an extension
of EPAs to create an
interconnected network
while maintaining drainage
patterns and topography,
limiting watercourse
crossings and balancing a
connected grid network of
roads.
27
Page 338
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Section 2.1
This section for EPAs has
• Guideline b: As this guideline is placed within the EP section,
been revised in Section 7.2
perhaps rephrasing to "Promote the maintenance of drainage
as follows:
patterns and topography, limit watercourse crossings, while
balancing a connected grid network of roads."
e. Development, including
the road network, will
consider drainage patterns
and topography around
EPAs, including limited
watercourse crossings.
Section 2.1
Revised as suggested. See
• Guideline c: Please include "...CLOCA policies and
section 7.2 as follows:
regulations."
b. Where parks connect to
EPAs, its interface, access
and usage will be
undertaken in a manner
that maintains their
ecological integrity and
shall comply with CLOCA
policies and regulations.
Section 2.1
Reference to edge
• Guideline c: please clarify what is meant by "edge conditions
conditions and entrances
and entrances". Is this referring to the interface between the EP
are removed. This guideline
and development? Or the entrances of trail systems?
was intended to be the
interface between
parks/trails and EP.
Section 3.2, x-ref 3.2.8
See section 6.3 as follows:
• The text in section 3.2.6 Laneways incorporate LID's such as
permeable paving where sufficient drainage exists, however,
f. The use of green
infrastructure is permitted
m
Page 339
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
does not reference the requirement for Green Streets. It is
within the public rights -of -
suggested that a connection be made between the sections.
way, which include the
boulevard and roadway, to
best achieve the desired
effects of such
infrastructure.
Section 3.2.8
See section 6.3 f.
• CLOCA staff support Green Streets. It is recommended that the
other road typologies also serve to incorporate LID's within the
Also see Section 8:
road right of ways. The previous sections on road typology
Stormwater Management
should reference the Green Street requirement. Additional
for green infrastructure /
suggestions include, but are not limited to:
LIDs.
1. utilizing the centre medians proposed for Meadowglade and
Hancock, as well as collector roads
2. Bike lanes could be permeable pavement.
3. Street trees could be the stormwater planters.
Section 3.9
This section has been
• CLOCA staff encourages the use and incorporation of LID's as
completely revised. See
a component of stormwater management systems. Although
Section 8: Stormwater
what is noted in the first paragraph is true, it is our
Management.
understanding that the intent of the policy is to allow LID's
within the VPZ if there are no other feasible alternatives beyond
the VPZ. For new development, LID's should be directed to
areas outside of the VPZ, however may be permitted within the
VPZ if supported through appropriate study. CLOCA staff would
recommend that the opening statement be revised so as not to
encourage the placement of LID's within the VPZ.
Section 5.3
This section has been
• Suggest using consistent term "Natural Heritage System" as
incorporated into Section 7:
opposed to "Network"
Environmental Protection
Areas.
29
Page 340
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
All mentions of network
have been changed to
system.
Section 5.3
Guideline removed.
• Guideline b: suggest last sentence ".must be provided beyond
passive recreation areas, natural heritage system and
vegetation protection zones."
Region of
Urban Design and Sustainability Guideline Comments
Durham
June 22, 2020
Section 1.3 Related Documents and Guidelines
Revised. See Section 1 of
• Please update the cover pages to the 2020 Provincial Policy
revised UDSGs.
Statement and "A Place to Grow" Plan.
Section 1.5 / Southeast Courtice Demonstration Plan
Revised Graphic. See
• The Region is generally supportive of proposed land uses along
revised UDSG.
the Regional roads, Bloor Street and Courtice Road (identified
generally as mid to high density and mixed -use blocks), as
transit -supportive and consistent with the Regional Corridor
designation. Further to the Region's comments on the proposed
land use concept made in March, the Region is open to
potential solutions for providing development access along the
Regional roads, such as the service roads concept presented at
the meeting, February 10, 2020 and shown in Section 3.2.1.
However, as noted in the comments, the configuration of the
service roads along Bloor Street and Courtice Road will need to
be supported through additional information, such as a
functional design plan and an associated traffic analysis, prior
to the receipt of separate development applications to apply a
coordinated approach. It is noted that the Class EA (Phase 3
and 4 work) that is to be undertaken for the South Courtice non -
Regional arterial and collector roads would not cover these
service roads.
a
Page 341
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Section 1.5 / Southeast Courtice Demonstration Plan
Comments noted.
• Notwithstanding the above comment, the number of local roads
shown to access Bloor Street and the corresponding service
Local Roads connect to the
roads seems to be quite frequent, particularly west of Trulls
Service Road portion of the
Road. In the Region's opinion, this spacing would appear to
laneway.
compromise the parallel service road concept from a
development and functional perspective. Having too many
local street or laneway intersections, particularly where they
intersect Bloor Street from both sides, would create desire lines
for mid -block pedestrian crossings and interrupt some of the
medium density/mixed use massing of development that is
desired. For the blocks west and just to the east of Trulls Road,
eliminating one connection on either side of Bloor Street and
making them offset would still provide the permeability to the
Bloor Street Regional Corridor streetscape for
pedestrian/cycling access, while reducing the potential for mid -
block crossings.
Section 1.5 / Southeast Courtice Demonstration Plan
There are only three mid -
The number of local road intersections along Courtice Road, a
block connections proposed
Type A Arterial, can be accommodated with the service road
to cross Courtice Road, all
concept, but consideration is needed to reduce the number of
north of Bloor Street. They
these mid -block intersections that are aligned on both sides of
are intended to allow
Courtice Road. As for Bloor Street, the main desire lines for
access from the internal
pedestrian and cyclist connections should be at signalized
neighbourhoods to reach
intersections with the planned arterial and collector road
the service road of the
intersections.
multi -way.
Section 1.5 / Southeast Courtice Demonstration Plan
Noted. This is a balance of
• The Sandringham Drive extension to the realigned Hancock
maximizing the tangent
Road provides better intersection spacing along Hancock Road
length whilst minimizing the
from Regional Highway 2 and addresses our previous comment
acceptable radius of
on it being too close in paralleling Regional Highway 2.
31
Page 342
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
However, the tangent length of the Sandringham Drive
Sandringham before the
extension east of Courtice Road should be maximized to
natural corridor.
accommodate westbound left -turn storage.
Section 1.5 / Southeast Courtice Demonstration Plan
Noted.
• The number of local road intersections along Trulls Road is also
problematic for a Type B Arterial road. The intersections for the
east -west local roads north and south of Bloor Street are too
close to the Trulls Road/Bloor Street intersection, particularly
since they are aligned on both sides of Trulls Road. In addition,
the east -west local road south of Meadowglade Road is also
too close to that intersection.
Section 1.5 / Southeast Courtice Demonstration Plan
Terminus is located at the
• The proposed intersection spacing along Regional Highway 2
existing Hancock Road
between Courtice Road and the Highway 418 ramp terminal
alignment with Highway 2.
intersection does not comply with the Region's guidelines for
intersection spacing along a Type B Arterial. Further
assessment will be needed to determine whether the proposed
intersection locations are acceptable, whether they could be
signalized in future, and if any turn restrictions will be
necessary.
Section 2 — Community Structure
See Section 3 and Figure 4
• The map on the right-hand side does not have a legend shown.
of revised UDSGs.
Having a legend to define the structural elements would
correspond to Section 3 - Community Structure of the draft
Secondary Plan and better define the overarching land use
concepts for the secondary plan area.
Section 2.2 — Growth and Intensification
There is no Medium Density
• A Medium Density Corridor is shown along Trulls Road, yet
designation along Trulls
neither the Southeast Courtice Demonstration Plan (Section
Road.
1.5), nor the policies contained in the draft SECSP, show or
convey any medium density uses along Trulls Road besides the
prominent intersection area of Bloor Street (which is part of the
32
Page 343
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
Regional Corridor). It is suggested that the draft Urban Design
and Sustainability Guidelines be addressed by updating the
Demonstration Plan and secondary plan to show some medium
density along Trulls Road.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
New Graphics for Type A
• Please refer to the previous comments on the Southeast
and Multiway included in
Courtice Demonstration plan on the Right -of -Way (ROW) and
revised UDSG.
cross-section for Bloor Street and Courtice Road.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
New Graphics for Type A
• The concept of frontage roads along the Type A Arterials
and Multiway included in
("Multi -Ways") was previously discussed with the steering
revised UDSG. In keeping
group.
with revised policy direction.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
New Graphics for Type A
• The plan and cross-section drawings for the Type A Arterials
and Multiway included in
show a continuous ROW for the full width, including the
revised UDSG. In keeping
frontage roads. The Region's previous discussion with the
with revised policy direction.
Steering Committee noted the need for separate ROW
ownership and/or jurisdiction for the service roads and outside
boulevards because the Region does not want to be
responsible for maintaining roads with a local function. Further
conversations and information are required to assess the multi -
way before the Region can support this concept.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
Noted.
• The proposed 4 m wide median on Regional Roads would need
to be widened to 5 m at signalized or potential future signalized
intersections. This enables a 3.3 m turn lane and 1.7 m median
as per Regional design standards.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
Noted.
• The proposed 2.5 m side medians are the only available
boulevard width for all cross -sections. If these include
landscaping and trees, there would be little available room for
33
Page 344
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
utilities. Proposed locations for aerial and subsurface utilities
should be indicated on the cross -sections.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
Noted.
• The 2.5 m side medians are proposed to also include transit
shelters and waiting areas. Durham Region Transit requires a 3
m side median for a transit stop to meet the AODA standards
(1.5 m for a platform, combined with a typical 1.5 m wide
sidewalk as per Durham Region Transit Standard S-500.012
Passenger Standing Area Shelter Pad Drawing). Please ensure
there is sufficient width to accommodate the transit
infrastructure.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
Cross -sections have been
• Clarification is requested: Is it necessary to provide both a
revised. See revised
sidewalk and a multi -use path on the same side of the Arterial
UDSGs.
road? It may be more appropriate to include just the multi -use
path.
Section 3.2.1 / Type A Arterial - Courtice Road & Bloor Street
Cross -sections have been
• Currently, sidewalks are shown right up to the edge of the
revised with sidewalk offset.
ROW. Typically, the Region requires a buffer of 0.3 m.
Section 3.2.2 / Arterial Roads — Type B Arterial — Trulls Road
See revised cross -sections.
• The proposed ROW for Trulls Road at 30 m does not conform
to the ROP for a four -lane Type B Arterial road (Schedule 'E',
Table 'E7 - Arterial Design Criteria), particularly when the cross-
section contains two -way -in boulevard and sidewalks on both
sides, and the cross-section shown does not include auxiliary
turn lanes at signalized intersections. The two -way -in boulevard
dedicated bike lane is not wide enough to meet the Ontario
Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 18 standards; the desired width
would be 3-4 m (with 3 m being the minimum) on each side of
the road. A one-way in -boulevard bike lane or raised cycle track
01
Page 345
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
would be consistent with the 2.1 m width shown in the cross-
section.
Section 3.2.3 / Arterial Roads — Type C Arterial — Meadowglade Road
See revised cross -sections.
& Hancock Road
• The two -way -in boulevard dedicated bike facility shown on both
sides of the road is not wide enough to meet OTM Book 18
standards; the desired width would be 3-4 m (with 3 m being
the minimum) on each side of the road. A one-way in -boulevard
bike lane or raised cycle track would be consistent with the 2.1
m width shown in the cross-section.
Section 3.2.4 / Collector Roads
See Section 6.3 of revised
• For Collector roads and potentially Type C Arterials, it may be
UDSGs.
useful to include an alternate cross-section showing on -street
parking on one or both sides as well as on -street bike facilities.
Collector roads often have sections with on -street parking while
offering on -road bike facilities (sometimes shared when
retrofitted), and the centre boulevard (besides where you may
have a gateway into a neighbourhood).
Section 3.3 / Active Transportation Network & 3.5 / Open Spaces
Where trails follow a natural
• Active Transportation Network; Parks & Open Spaces — There
heritage system that
are three mid -block trail crossings of Bloor Street shown on
intersects with a road the
these maps that should be oriented to a signalized intersection
trail will either travel under
where a cross -ride can be provided to avoid mid -block
the road or be redirected to
crossings of this busy, Type A Arterial road.
the nearest controlled
intersection. Trail are not
For example, for the trail crossing west of Courtice Road, the
intended to cross roads at
intersection of the north -south Collector road (corresponding to
mid -block locations.
the Farmington Drive connection) could be used to align this
trail crossing, which would include a cross -ride.
Section 3.3.2 / Cycling Network
Noted. See Section 6.4.2 of
• Under Dedicated and/or Segregated Bicycle Path, principle a)
revised UDSGs.
identifies "2.1 m wide, two way dedicated, and/or segregated
35
Page 346
Attachment 5 to Report PSD-055-20
Agency
Details of Submission
Staff Response
bicycle lanes shall be provided in high traffic areas." As noted in
the cross-section comments, 2.1 m is not a sufficient width for
two-way boulevard bike facilities as per OTM Book 18
standards and needs to be revised.
Section 3.3.3 / Trails
Noted. See Section 6.4.3 of
• Clarification: The concept of Primary vs. Secondary Trails is
revised UDSGs.
outlined here, yet the Active Transportation Network (Section
3.3) or Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.5) maps only show
an overall Trails category. As such, it is unclear why there is a
differentiation between the two types of trails.
4.3 Low Density Residential
See Section 5 of revised
• Under "Siting and Massing" the Guidelines allow for higher
UDSGs.
density housing forms along major roads, being a Collector
Road or higher. However, the Secondary Plan policy 4.4.3 only
allows low-rise apartments adjacent to arterial roads.
Please see our comment above on policy 4.4.3 and revise the
documents accordingly.
4.3 Low Density Residential — Neighbourhood Center
See Section 5 of revised
• This portion of the Guidelines speak to neighbourhood
UDSGs.
commercial uses, which are not currently identified as a
permitted use in the Secondary Plan. Please review these two
documents and revise the documents accordingly.
5.2 Development Adjacent to Employment Areas
Noted. See Section 9 of
• The map should depict the Provincially Significant Employment
revised UDSGs.
Zone across the entire southern portion of the Secondary Plan
Area, with hatching to depict the proposed draft Major Transit
Station Area delineation to reflect the Provincial Plans
accurately.
0
Page 347
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-056-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: S-C-2019-0004 & ZBA2019-0017 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block of 17
Townhouse Units within a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-056-20 be received;
2. That the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by LCJ Thomas Estates Inc.
c/o Sakmet Developments to permit a townhouse block, be supported subject to the
conditions contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-056-20;
3. That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and that the Zoning By-
law Amendment in Attachment 3 to Report PSD-056-20 be passed;
4. That once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H)
Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol
be approved;
5. That no further Public Meeting be required for the future Common Elements Condominium;
6. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report
PSD-056-20 and Council's decision; and
7. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-056-20 and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Page 348
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Report Overview
Page 2
This report recommends approval of a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-
law Amendment in Courtice at Nash Road and Richfield Square. The proponent is LCJ
Thomas Estates Inc./Sakmet Developments requesting a 17-unit townhouse development
on a private laneway in a Common Elements Condominium. Staff are recommending
approval.
1. Background
1.1 Owner/Applicant
1.2 Proposal:
1.3 Area:
1.4 Location:
LCJ Thomas Estates Inc. c/o Sakmet Developments
Draft Plan of Subdivision
The proposed draft plan of subdivision would create 1 block to
facilitate the development of a common element condominium
townhouse block.
Zoning By-law Amendment
To rezone the lands from "Urban Residential Type One (R1)
Zone" to an appropriate zone that would permit 17 condominium
townhouse units in Courtice.
1 acre (0.41 ha)
1668 Nash Road, Courtice
1.5 Roll Number: 1817 010 090 23600
1.6 Within Built Boundary: Yes
2. Background
2.1 On October 30, 2019, LCJ Thomas Estates Inc. c/o Sakmet Developments applied for
a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for 17 townhouse units. The proposal also
includes common elements such as an outdoor amenity space, a private street, a
meter room, and five visitor parking spaces (Figure 1).
2.2 The proposal was circulated to agencies and departments for review and comment in
early 2020. Due to unforeseen circumstances with the State of Emergency related to
COVID-19, the Public Meeting could not be scheduled until a change in legislation in
mid -April. A virtual Public Meeting held via Microsoft Teams was held on June 8, 2020.
Page 349
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-056-20
�J
/V
mom 44"
• I i m
• • • 1, p.1. lSbd ...Tlf �i 71w. .17Fs .JHj ,r \ �1-L. TILL. .0-4 Ta.
47
t
W
a -
/Ya. %
oaME onnF. mE omF ICE
STREET A' \
Wonr um �cmm q w .rep
76
= 1�1 COLLECT
SNOW
6& AREA ` V
reps ra-s X-4 ill 'AU-s OUTDWR
d,
AMENITY SPACE
AREA(132.71 mM _ -
Si i �nrvrFrnnE � �
°eea � � � __ uasonmeiunn a
4,� o�aasra3r�
U. RahMENN
n wo
V A
[NASH, OROAD
Ad Commercial Plaza
Green/Open Space
Residential
Exisiting Residential
Figure 1 — Proposed Site Design
Page 350
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Page 4
2.3 Since June, the applicant and their consulting team have been working on addressing
the identified issues from the public, staff and agencies. While slight revisions to the site
design have been made, their latest concept plan continues to propose 17 link
townhouse dwellings on a private condominium lane.
2.4 The applicant has submitted several reports in support of the applications and reviewed
in Section 7 of this report, including:
• Urban Design Brief
• Sustainability Report
• Traffic Impact Brief
• Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
• Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Report
• Noise Acoustic Report
• Tree Arborist Report
• Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 & 2 Report
3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
3.1 The subject property is located at 1668 Nash Road in Courtice, at the northeast corner
of Nash Road and Richfield Square, near the main intersection of Nash and Trulls
Road. The site is currently vacant. The lot area is 0.41 ha (1 acre) and has lot frontage
of 63 metres (206 ft) on Nash Road (Figure 2).
3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:
North - A channelized tributary of Black Creek in municipal ownership; freehold
townhouse units and detached residential dwellings.
East - Detached residential dwellings on relatively larger lots.
South - Courtice North Public Elementary School; Parkview Village Condominium
West - A neighbourhood commercial plaza and detached residential dwellings.
Page 351
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
VJ-011
r E,
2928 2 2 4
•�
24'4 8 r
Page 5
® Subject Property
4
r3yl! J•._ - s � �qh� •. .:. - .mod _
39 '
r A
Figure 2 —The subject property and surrounding neighbourhood
Page 352
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
4. Provincial Policy
Provincial Policy Statement
Page 6
4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) policies direct growth to settlement areas and
promote compact development forms. Planning authorities are to facilitate a variety of
housing forms and promote residential intensification to achieve efficient development
patterns, especially along public transit and active transportation routes. The definition
of `intensification' includes the development of underutilized lots within previously
developed areas and infill development among other things. Recent changes to the PPS
policies state that planning authorities shall also consider market demands when
evaluating proposals.
4.2 The subject lands are located within a settlement area, known as Courtice, which is to
be a focus of growth and development. It is also adjacent to a public transit route and
bike and pedestrian route. Development proposals are to appropriately use
infrastructure and public services while also respecting the surrounding context.
4.3 The applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Provincial Growth Plan
4.4 The Growth Plan is a long-term planning framework that manages growth, mainly within
the urban areas of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It provides policies to encourage
complete communities, which includes a diverse mix of land uses, a mix of employment
and housing types, high quality public open spaces, and convenient access to local
stores and services. New transit -supportive and pedestrian -friendly developments will
be concentrated along existing and future transit routes. The objective is to protect the
natural environment, make use of existing public infrastructure, and encourage compact
development within the already built up areas of the municipality.
4.5 The subject lands are within the defined Built Boundary and within the Urban Boundary
of Courtice. Growth is to be accommodated by directing development to the existing
built up areas of Courtice through intensification. A minimum of 40 percent of all
residential development occurring annually within each upper tier municipality will be
within the Built-up Area. After the Regional Comprehensive Official Plan review is
completed, the minimum target will increase to 50 percent.
4.6 The applications satisfy the objectives of the Growth Plan.
Page 353
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
5. Official Plans
Durham Region Official Plan
Page 7
5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the subject property as "Living Areas".
Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by
intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads.
The application conforms to the Regional Official Plan.
Clarington Official Plan
5.2 The Clarington Official Plan designates the property "Urban Residential" and is located
within the Built -Up Area of the Municipality. The proposal for 17 townhouse units would
contribute towards the Municipality's Residential Intensification Target and utilize
existing public services and infrastructure. Intensification within the Built-up Areas is
encouraged and is to be given priority.
5.3 Table 4-3 of the Plan provides the Urban Structure Typologies for specific areas of the
Municipality. These identified areas are where growth and higher intensity built forms
are to be directed. The site is located at the edge of a neighbourhood and is adjacent to
a Type B Arterial Road, Nash Road. The subject lands are required to meet a minimum
net density of 19 units per hectare. The proposal is for approximately 40 units per
hectare. The built form shall be between 1 to 3 storeys and primarily used for ground
related units including limited apartments, townhouses, semi-detached, or detached
dwellings.
5.4 Any intensification or infill development, such as the one being proposed, must also
consider and respect the surrounding context. Consideration will be given to:
• Pattern of lots
• Size and configuration of lots
• Building types of nearby properties
• Height and scale of buildings
• Setback of buildings from the street
• Rear and side yard setbacks
5.5 Multi -unit residential development will be developed on the basis of the following site
development criteria:
• Suitability of the size and shape of the site;
• Compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood;
• Minimize impact of traffic on local streets;
Page 354
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-056-20
• Multiple and direct vehicular accesses from public streets, without reliance on
easements;
• Variety of unit designs;
• Townhouses sited on blocks shall generally not exceed 50 units.
5.6 The application conforms to the Clarington Official Plan
6. Zoning By-law
6.1 The subject property is zoned "Urban Residential Type One (R1)", which recognizes the
current land use of a detached dwelling. The R1 Zone does not permit the proposed
townhouse development as such a rezoning application is required to permit the
proposed use. A Holding (H) Symbol is placed on the zoning until the Draft Plan is
registered and the Site Plan Agreement is finalized.
7. Summary of Background Studies
7.1 The applicant has submitted several studies in support of the development application
which have been circulated to various agencies and departments for review and
comment.
Urban Design Brief
7.2 An Urban Design Brief was submitted to address the integration of the proposed
development with the existing neighbourhood context. It provides details about how the
development will complement the existing built form including architectural details,
landscaping at the entrances and corner features. The report concludes that the design
of the site will be consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood and will provide a
pedestrian -oriented presence along Nash Road (Figure 3).
Page 355
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Figure 3 — Proposed Elevation along Nash Road
Sustainability Report
Page 9
7.3 The report provides a high-level overview of conservation and sustainability measures
to be implemented in the development of the land in order to achieve a healthy and
sustainable development now and in the future. It includes recommendations for the
construction of the dwellings to improve air and water quality, implementation measures
to reduce energy and water consumption, and an educational component for new
homeowners. It is worth noting that the applicant is proposing to provide a 6-month
transit pass to each homeowner to encourage the use of public transit and to take
advantage of the public transit route along Nash Road. Other features like bicycle
parking and strong pedestrian connectivity are intended to help reduce the need for
personal vehicle trips.
Page 356
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Traffic Impact Brief
Page 10
7.4 A Traffic Impact Brief analyzed the existing and future traffic conditions at the
intersection of Nash Road and Richfield Square. The report concludes that the traffic
impacts from the proposed development of 17 townhouse units are minimal since the
forecasted trips to and from the site are considered marginal. The units will be serviced
with an internal private lane which eliminates direct vehicle access to the public roads
from each unit and concentrates vehicle traffic to two points of access, one off Nash
Road and one entrance off Richfield Square.
Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report
7.5 The Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report identified how
the site will be serviced and how the stormwater will be managed post development.
The report demonstrates the following:
• parts of the site will drain uncontrolled to Nash Road to the south and the
existing drainage channel to the north;
• quantity control will be provided with the use of underground oversized storm
sewer system;
• Low Impact Development (LID) measures are proposed to minimize runoff and
maximize on -site retention and quality control; and
• Sanitary sewer system will be constructed within the development's private lane
and then outlet to the existing watermain along Richfield Square.
Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Report
7.6 The Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Report indicated that the groundwater will
generally be lower than the depth of the future development. There will not be significant
constraints for the proposed development from the seasonal variations of groundwater
as the water can be handled with appropriate engineering techniques. Minor impacts to
groundwater and surface water are expected as a result of the development. Low
Impact Development measures are recommended to be incorporated to mitigate the
impacts.
Noise Acoustic Report
7.7 The Noise Report examined noise levels for the proposed outdoor amenity space, and
the indoor and outdoor living areas from the road traffic and stationary noises from the
mechanical units on the commercial plaza. The study included noise mitigation
measures, including warning clauses for home buyers affected by high noise exposure.
These warning clauses have been added in the Conditions of Draft Approval.
Page 357
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Tree Arborist Report
Page 11
7.8 The Arborist Report identified a total of 82 trees on and within six metres of the subject
property. The report recommends removal of the hedgerow along the west side of the
property to accommodate the development. This area will need to be graded and
disturbed to accommodate the vehicle entrance off Richfield Square and to access
water services. The trees to the north and east are proposed to be protected, provided
the appropriate protection measures are installed prior to construction. A subsequent
site visit with municipal staff and the applicant's consulting team was held on October 8,
2020 and an overview of findings is included in Section 10 of this report.
Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 & 2 Report
7.9 The Stage 1 work concluded that the subject property had archaeological potential due
to the proximity to water sources. The Stage 2 assessment was conducted using test pit
surveys. It was determined that no further archaeological assessment of the property
was required because the test pit survey did not identify any archeological resources on
the property.
8. Public Notice and Submissions
8.1 Public notice was provided to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject lands
and two signs were posted on the property, advising of the complete application and
public meeting details.
8.2 Staff have received a number of inquiries with respect to the application. Residents
have expressed the following comments/concerns about the application either directly to
Staff or at the Public Meeting held on June 8, 2020:
• Removal of the mature trees along the north and west side of the property;
• Environmental impacts to birds and wildlife
• The increase in units would further aggravate the existing traffic issues on
Richfield Square, particularly during pick up and drop off times from the nearby
school;
• Increase in vehicles parking on Richfield Square from the new development
would further aggravate the existing parking issues;
• Safety of pedestrians, particularly students;
• Negative impacts to quality of life and home value;
• Dust from grading of the site;
• Units may be rented, and properties may be unkept;
• Reduced sightlines at the intersection of Nash Road and Richfield Square;
• Grading and impacts to the water table resulting in flooding of trees/vegetation;
Page 358
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Page 12
• Access to Richfield Square should be removed from the plan, relying on Nash
Road for the access;
• Concerns relating to increasing intensification and public health concerns due to
a pandemic; and
• More population will put further strain on the available services in the area.
8.3 Eight members of the public spoke at the virtual Microsoft Teams meeting. A number of
participants had concerns with the online virtual format and whether it was providing an
adequate opportunity for feedback.
8.4 A petition signed by 37 individuals was received requesting protection of the trees along
the westerly property limit.
9. Department and Agency Comments
9.1 The application was circulated to several internal departments and external agencies for
review and comment. Comments received from departments and agencies were
generally supportive of the application and no major concerns were identified regarding
the overall concept.
Department Comments
9.2 The Public Works Department finds the overall volumes and levels of service in the
Traffic Impact Study acceptable.
9.3 The Clarington Fire and Emergency Services Department has no concerns with the
overall proposal. Comments related to site plan details were provided requesting the
installation of fire route signage and showing the fire hydrants on the site plan.
Agency Comments
9.4 CLOCA has advised that the Low Impact Development (LID) feature in the north section
of the property encroaches into the tree preservation area. Development should not
encroach into this area. There are also some outstanding comments pertaining to the
low impact development feature proposed. However, these comments can be
addressed through the Conditions of Draft Approval and Site Plan Approval process.
CLOCA is overall supportive of the development application.
9.5 Durham Region Works Department requires a minimum of 6.5 m private laneway width
from the edge of asphalt for waste collection service. The Region provided several
technical comments related to the Functional Servicing Plan, in terms of methods used
and detailed calculations and notes on drawings for connections. The Owner has been
provided all technical comments to ensure these are adequately addressed through the
Site Plan process.
Page 359
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Page 13
9.6 Durham Regional Planning Department has no objections to the proposed applications
and has provided their standard conditions of approval which are reflected in
Attachment 2.
10. Discussion
10.1 The subject lands are designated for residential development and planning policies
support intensification of the subject lands.
Residential Intensification Along Arterial Roads and Density
10.2 With direction from approved policy at the Provincial and Regional level, the Clarington
Official Plan permits and encourages the proposed intensification project at this location.
10.3 The edge of neighbourhood and along arterial roads are appropriate locations for infill
townhouse projects. Arterial roads are designed to accommodate significant volumes of
traffic and having a singular driveway to a townhouse block is more desirable than
individual private driveways. Regional and Clarington policies have strict guidelines for
driveway spacing along arterial roads such as Nash Road.
10.4 Therefore, the approved policy framework not only approves, but encourages this type
of development, and the technical limitations along arterial roads on limiting private
driveways also support townhouse blocks.
10.5 Underutilized larger blocks such as the subject site are ripe for redevelopment. A
townhouse block accessed by a private lane is a preferred and realistic option for
developers as often a public road network cannot be accommodated. While staff require
public road connections where possible, public roads are land intensive and can
significantly impact redevelopment potential. These blocks satisfy intensification policies
and provide a range of housing options and price point for homebuyers.
10.6 Staff find that developers/builders are leaning towards developing the common element
style where unit owners' own Parcels of Tied Land also referred to as "POTLs", with
only a shared common interest in the private driveway, visitor parking and outdoor
amenity space. The alternative is a standard condominium where the condominium
corporation can be responsible for more exterior elements of the condominium i.e. roof
and window replacement and comprehensive grounds maintenance. The preference of
common element style over a standard condominium is appealing from the home
buyer's perspective as the POTL is not subject to any condominium restrictions, they
own the `lot', and condominium fees are lower.
10.7 There are essentially no visible differences between a common elements style
condominium versus a standard condominium, and planning regulations do not apply to
tenure, therefore it is up to the developer to determine the type.
Page 360
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PSD-056-20
10.8 The development of condominium blocks has challenges and constraints however Staff
are cognizant of these emerging issues and address through site plan and condominium
approvals i.e. Requiring municipal waste pickup, establishing appropriate
easements/cost sharing, including appropriate warning clauses, and approving the
location of utility boxes and air condition condensing units. Staff have developed a
school of knowledge and there are takeaways from completed projects that we apply to
new projects. This school of knowledge has evolved over time.
Tree Preservation
10.9 With the first submission, the applicant proposed to protect the mature trees on the
north and east side of the property to maintain privacy between the existing residential
homes from the new development. Due to the installation of the driveway and services,
required grading, and clearing of the sight triangle, the applicant proposed to remove all
of the westerly hedgerow adjacent to Richfield Square.
10.10 At the Public Meeting a significant number of comments were made about the protection
of the trees along the west property limit, adjacent to Richfield Square. The trees along
the west property limit are comprised of cedars and Scots pine. Scots pine are
considered invasive. See Figure 4 containing photographs from site visit below.
Municipal and CLOCA Staff are of the opinion this is not part of a greater significant
natural heritage system and in itself is not of significant value from a vegetation
perspective. It is understood that many neighbours enjoy the visual break provided by
these trees.
Page 361
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Figure 4 — Hedgerow along westerly property limit (October 8, 2020)
Page 15
10.11 During the site visit, it was determined that it would not be possible to develop the lands
and retain all of the hedgerow. Retaining a section of the westerly hedgerow was
discussed as presented in Option 2 below (Figure 5). While protection of a section may
address some concerns, it also proposes other challenges — splitting the hedgerow will
expose the centre of the hedge which is woody and will not look attractive. It was also
noted that to keep a section would require significant trimming adjacent to the proposed
dwelling, also exposing the centre of the hedge. Given the quality and age of the
hedgerow this is not recommended. In addition, the hedgerow straddles the municipal
property limit which from liability and maintenance perspective is not desirable.
Page 362
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
SAKMET DEVELOPMENT - 1668 Nash Road. Courtice
?I
BLOCK 2
-e
driveway
Ga
R I CHFIELD SQUARE STREETSCAPE - OPTION 1
REIN BERE➢ ELEVATKM - N.TS.
m
BLOCK 1
IQ
BLOCK 2 BLOCK 1
RICHFIELD SQUARE STREETSCAPE - OPTION 2
RENDERED ELEVATION - N.T.S
Page 16
i road NASH
]enng ROAD
November 26. 2020
Figure 5 — Streetscape Rendering along Richfield Square: Option 1 — removing
hedgerow and Option 2 — keeping a section of the hedgerow
10.12 Staff prefer Option 1 (Figure 5) by removing the westerly hedgerow in its entirety and
through site plan approval Staff can require robust planting that will be healthier and
more attractive versus the resources needed to save a hedge at the end of its lifespan.
Staff also recognize the efforts of the applicant to retain the vegetation on the north side
and east side of the property. A complete representation of the 2 options prepared by
the applicant is included as Attachment 1.
10.13 Impact to birds and wildlife were raised as concerns by the residents. With the
protection of existing vegetation along the north and east property limits and eventual
reinstatement of vegetation along the west side, there would be negligable net impact to
birds and wildlife in the neighbourhood. Staff note that the lands north of the subject site
are in the municipality's ownership and zoned Environmental Protection (EP) offering
continued undisturbed natural environment for birds and wildlife.
Access to the Site
10.14 Two driveways are proposed, one along Nash Road and one along Richfield Square.
Page 363
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Page 17
10.15 From Public Works Staff perspective, the Nash Road access is undesirable give the site
is along an arterial road. From the comments received at the Public Meeting and during
review of the application, residents would prefer removal of the Richfield Square access,
and townhouse residents should only have access via Nash Road.
10.16 Subsequent to the Public Meeting, staff have further reviewed the issues around access
and have determined:
• Staff do not support the removal of the Richfield Square access as Richfield Square
is a local road and can accommodate the primary access to the site. This is
supported by approved policy and technical guidelines on road classifications and
access design.
• Staff can accept the Nash Road access given the following:
o Richfield Square access will remain and be the principle access;
o There is an existing access from the property to Nash Road that can continue;
o A second driveway is required to accommodate municipal waste pickup; and
o Low traffic volumes generated by 17 units.
10.17 At the Site Plan Approval stage, Public Works staff will be exploring options with the
developer to address potential conflicts along Nash Road, such as warning clauses and
signage; special access design to limit turning movements and/or a controlled and gated
access for use by municipal waste pickup vehicles only.
Parking
10.18 The proposal provides 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, one outdoor and one inside
the garage, plus five visitor parking spaces which complies with the minimum required
visitor parking spaces for linked townhouse dwellings in the Zoning By-law.
10.19 Staff have heard a number of concerns regarding parking in the area, especially during
peak school pick up and drop off times.
10.20 Staff have consulted and identified that the west side of Richfield Square can
accommodate on street parking in accordance with municipal parking by-law. Staff
agreed that as the property redevelops, the east side of Richfield Square will be
designated as a `no parking' zone. This would address existing conflicts on Nash Road,
ensure the development does not exacerbate conditions and will allow for good visibility
for new residents entering and leaving the townhouse block.
Page 364
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Page 18
10.21 Increasing no parking areas, improving signage, and removal of trees in the visibility
triangle will address both vehicular and pedestrian safety concerns which were other
key concerns raised by residents.
10.22 It is important to note the number of traffic and parking measures implemented along
Nash Road to address concerns including designating a community safety zone with
reduced speeds, traffic calming measures and layby parking areas. Traffic impacts in
residential neighbourhoods are continuously monitored.
Status and Timing of Traffic Impact Brief
10.23 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Brief with the application. The traffic counts
were completed on Wednesday, December 4, 2019.
10.24 Members of the public were concerned about the timing of the traffic counts however
upon review the counts were completed in December 2019 when school was in session
and before the closure of schools due to COVID 19. There may have been some
confusion between the subject study and the study of a nearby proposal. Staff have
clarified this item and accepted the findings of the study.
10.25 Following the Public Meeting, the applicant's traffic consultant submitted a response
letter to confirm the following points:
• Traffic counts were done at an appropriate time of year;
• Richfield Square would be the principle access to and from the development;
• The letter also included other developments in the area i.e. the potential for units at
the northwest corner of Nash and Trulls Road;
• The development would not result in significant traffic impacts and the level of
service would be good according to engineering standards;
• The applicant is amenable to working with staff on the final design of the Nash Road
entrance; and
• The consultant agrees with restricting parking in targeted areas along Richfield
Square.
Other Public Comments Received at the Public Meeting
10.26 Parking, traffic and access were raised consistently by residents; however, a number of
other issues were raised and are summarized as follows:
• Negative impacts to quality of life and home value: There is no clear evidence to
support any indication that this development will have a negative impact on quality of
life and home values. In fact, the opposite may be true, however perceived negative
impacts are often subjective claims and not supported by any land use planning
policies.
Page 365
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-056-20
Page 19
Tenure of units: Staff often hear that residents do not wish developments to be
"rental" versus "ownership". While the applicant intends to proceed through a
condominium approval, there is nothing preventing these units from being rented,
just as is the case with existing homes on Richfield Square and surrounding
neighbourhood.
• Dust from grading of the site: A condition of development will require the
submission and approval of Dust Management Plan. The requirement is outlined in
Condition 5.7 found in Attachment 2.
Grading and impacts to the water tablei The applicant submitted a Geotechnical &
Hydrogeological Report which noted the water table is below the subject
development. Staff and CLOCA have accepted the findings of this report and
grading, servicing and stormwater management will continue to be reviewed during
the Site Plan Approval stage.
Intensification and planning for population growth during a pandemic: Much
will be learned from the pandemic and planning for neighbourhoods. There is
currently no evidence that would support denying a townhouse development on the
basis that it would contribute to the spread of disease. Units will have individual,
private accesses and separate heating and ventilation systems.
Population and strain on services: The Courtice Urban Area is planned to
accommodate population growth in the form of new subdivisions and through
intensification such as this infill project. Commercial, retail and institutional uses will
respond accordingly which is noted with the new commercial development at Trulls
Road and Durham Highway 2 that will include a Shoppers Drug Mart, a grocery store
and other retail commercial and service uses.
Appropriateness of a Virtual Public Meeting: For the foreseeable future, Council
meetings, Public Meetings and public open houses are the norm amidst the
pandemic and physical distancing requirements. The Municipality has made the
appropriate changes in accordance with changes to Provincial legislation and Public
Health Guidelines and are available to provide residents assistance with navigating
this new way of doing business. Staff have considered all public input whether via a
virtual platform, telephone enquiries or email. Staff are satisfied that all legislative
requirements for public input have been satisfied.
Recommendation and Next Steps
10.27 Conditions of Draft Approval contain special provisions to address the implementation of
all recommendations of the studies and reports submitted, including any future reports.
Other standard conditions will address such items as dedication of road widenings and
cash -in -lieu of parkland.
Page 366
Municipality of Clarington Page 20
Report PSD-056-20
10.28 The proposed Zoning By-law amendment would place lands in a site -specific residential
zone permitting the link townhouse dwellings with standard regulations regarding
setbacks, building height, landscaped areas, resident and visitor parking.
10.29 Upon approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment the
applicant will condition to work with staff on implementation details:
Site plan Approval — Items such as architectural details, detailed engineering,
entrance design landscaping and lighting will be reviewed;
Condominium approval — will follow site plan approval and create a legal description
for each unit and derive a set of condominium rules for the development, and;
Approval of application for Exemption from Part Lot Control will follow site plan
approval allowing for individual parcels -of -tied -land (POTLs) to be created.
11. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
12. Conclusion
In consideration of all agency, staff and public comments, it is respectfully
recommended that the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision LCJ Thomas Estates
Inc. c/o Sakmet Developments be supported subject to the conditions included as
Attachment 2 and the Zoning Bylaw Amendment included as Attachment 3 be
approved.
Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 Ext 2414
ataylorscott@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Streetscape rendering options
Attachment 2 — Conditions of Draft Approval & Draft Plan of Subdivision
Attachment 3 — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendmen
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 367
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-056-20
SAKMET DEVELOPMENT - 1668 Nash Road, Courtice
OP -- Addition -----------
D TE PAD - row of shade trees along right-of-way
TOE^----- - offset row of white spruce
o _ --
dtA �
N4L -
MARSHY AR: A OF
0 CIA J
IVV-'
Option 1 (refer to elevation)
— - remove ex hedge along Richfield Sq to north property line
- ninnt lama rlarirli ini is CtrPPt trPPC (mania linrlanl
I
RENDERED LANDSCAPE PLAN - OPTION 1
N.T.S.
Option 2 (refer to elevation)
- preserve ex cedar hedge along Richfield Sq, preserve hedgerow along north property line
- install 1.8m wood privacy fence from Block 2 rear wall to p.l. (optional)
- install 0.9m ornamental metal fence along Richfield Sq p.l. between sight triangles (optional)
- planting as per Option 1
RENDERED LANDSCAPE PLAN - OPTION 2
N.T.S.
November 26, 2020
Page 368
SAKMET DEVELOPMENT - 1668 Nash Road, Courtice
QI
0
L
BLOCK 2
RICHFIELD SQUARE STREETSCAPE - OPTION 1
RENDERED ELEVATION - N.T.S.
i
�I
m
0 1 nrAerirvA nvietinn
BLOCK 2
RICHFIELD SQUARE STREETSCAPE - OPTION 2
RENDERED ELEVATION - N.T.S.
4`1t,
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
i road NASH
lening ROAD
�W
a�
I°
Q
I�
O
I
I
3m road NASH
widening ROAD
A
November 26, 2020
Page 369
Clar•
ngton
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-056-20
CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL
File Number: S-C-2019-0004
Issued for Concurrence: November 17, 2020
Notice of Decision:
Draft Approved: _
Faye Langmaid, RPP, FCSLA
Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Municipality of Clarington
Part 1 — Plan Identification
The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan
of subdivision S-C-2019-0004 prepared by
identified as job number , dated October, 2019, as last revised
and dated ],which illustrates one residential townhouse block
containing 17 units, including a road widening and sight triangle.
Revisions:
1. Draft Plan of Subdivision to include a title reflecting the author, with an updated
last revision date, and a job number (if applicable).
Part 2 — General
2.1 The Owner shall enter into a subdivision/site plan agreement with the Corporation
of the Municipality of Clarington (the "Municipality") that contains all of the terms
and conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision/site plan agreement
respecting the provision and installation of roads, services, drainage, other local
services and all internal and external works and services related to this plan of
subdivision. A copy of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement can be
found at https://www.clarington.net/en/do-business/resources/application-
forms/subdivision-agreement.pdf
2.2 The owner shall not make an application for a building permit in respect of Block 1
until the Owner has received site plan approval from the Municipality under
Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.13.
Page 11
Page 370
2.3 The Owner shall name the private lane included in the draft plan to the satisfaction
of the Municipality and the Regional Municipality of Durham (the "Region").
2.4 All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Municipality's Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings.
2.5 Requirements for Presales
Architectural Control
(1) No residential units shall be offered for sale to the public on the draft plan
until such time as the exterior architectural design of each building has been
approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
(2) No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building on any
residential lot or block on the draft plan, until the exterior architectural design
of each building and the location of the building on the lot has been approved
by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
Marketing and Sales
(3) The Owner shall prepare a Land Use Plan which shows the draft plan and
surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan shall be in a format approved by
the Director of Planning and Development Services.
(4) The Owner shall erect and maintain a sign on the development site and/or in
the sales office which shows the Land Use Plan as approved by the Director
of Planning and Development Services.
(5) The Owner shall submit its standard Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the
Director of Planning and Development Services which includes all warning
clauses/ notices prior to any residential units being offered for sale to the
public.
Site Alteration
2.6 Draft plan approval does not give the Owner permission to place or dump fill or
remove fill from, or alter the grade of any portion of the lands within the draft plan.
The Owner shall be required to obtain a permit from the Municipality under Site
Alteration By-law 2008-114, as amended, for any such work. If any portion of the
lands are within an area regulated by a conservation authority, the Owner shall
obtain a permit from the conservation authority in addition to obtaining approval
from the Director of Public Works regarding the intended haulage routes, the time
and duration of the site alteration work and security relating to mud clean up, road
damage and dust control in accordance with the Dust Management Plan in Section
5.7. After registration of a subdivision agreement, the provisions of the
Municipality's standard subdivision agreement shall apply to any proposed site
alteration on the lands covered by the subdivision agreement.
Page 12
Page 371
2.7 Authorization to commence works and/or Site Alteration permit shall not be
granted until Engineering Drawings as part of Site Plan application for Block 1 are
approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Part 3 — Final Plan Requirements
3.1 The Final Subdivision Plan may be registered in advance of the approval of
Drawings for the future Site Plan Application for Block 1, subject to obtaining the
necessary clearances from external agencies identified in Part 8.
3.2 The Owner agrees to enter into a development agreement addressing items under
both Section 51 and 41 of the Planning Act following approval of Site Plan drawings.
3.3 The Owner shall transfer to the Municipality (for nominal consideration free and
clear of encumbrances and restrictions) the following lands and easements:
(a) Road Widenings
• A 3.0 metre road widening across the entire frontage of Nash Road
shown as Block 2 on the draft plan.
(b) Sight Triangles
• A 5 metre x 15 metre sight triangle at the intersection and corner of
Richfield Square and Nash Road as shown as Block 2 on the draft plan.
(c) Reserves
• A 0.3 metre reserve shall be provided along Nash Road and Richfield
Square with the exception of the approved driveway locations.
Part 4 —Plans and Reports Reauired Prior Final Plan Reaistration
4.1 Not Applicable
Part 5 —Plans and Reports Reauired to be approved at the time of Site Plan
Approval
5.1 Construction Phasing Plan
The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the private lanes and services shall be
constructed in a single phase to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works
and the Region of Durham. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Owner
shall submit a detailed construction phasing plan for the townhouse blocks to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The approval of the construction
phasing plan shall be at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. The specific
number of residential units available for building permits will be determined by the
Municipality Clarington.
Page 13
Page 372
5.2 Noise Report
The Owner shall submit to the Director of Public Works, the Director of Planning
and Development Services and the Region of Durham, for review and approval, an
updated noise report, based on the preliminary noise report entitled Environmental
Noise Feasibility Study, prepared by GHD, last revised March 12, 2020, Reference
No. 11204813.
5.3 Functional Servicing
The Owner shall submit an updated Functional Servicing Report satisfactory to the
Director of Public Works and Central Lake Ontario Conservation.
5.4 Tree Preservation Plan
The Owner shall submit an updated Tree Preservation Plan to address tree
removal within the development area. All tree removals must be approved by the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the Director of Public Works and the
Director of Planning and Development Services.
5.5 Environmental Sustainability Plan
The Owner shall prepare and submit an Environmental Sustainability Plan to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. Such plan shall
identify the measures that the Owner will undertake to conserve energy and water
in excess of the standards of the Ontario Building Code, reduce waste, increase
recycling of construction materials and utilize non -toxic, environmentally
sustainable materials and finishes.
5.6 Soils Management Plan
Prior to Authorization to Commence, the Owner shall provide a Soils Management
Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. Such plan shall
provide information respecting but not limited to any proposed import or export of
fill to or from any portion of the Lands, intended haulage routes, the time and
duration of any proposed haulage, the source of any soil to be imported, quality
assurance measures for any fill to be imported, and any proposed stockpiling on
the Lands. All imported material must originate from within the Municipality of
Clarington. The Owner shall comply with all aspects of the approved Soils
Management Plan. The Director may require the Owner to provide security relating
to mud clean up, dust control and road damage.
5.7 Dust Management Plan
Prior to Authorization to Commence Works, the Owner is required to prepare a
Dust Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works.
Such plan shall provide a practical guide for controlling airborne dust which could
impact neighbouring properties. The plan must:
(a) identify the likely sources of dust emissions;
Page 14
Page 373
(b) identify conditions or activities which may result in dust emissions;
(c) include preventative and control measures which will be implemented to
minimize the likelihood of high dust emissions;
(d) include a schedule for implementing the plan, including training of on -site
personnel;
(e) include inspection procedures and monitoring initiatives to ensure effective
implementation of preventative and control measures; and
(f) include a list of all comments received from the Municipality, if any, and a
description of how each comment was addressed.
Part 6 —Special Terms and Conditions to be Included in the Development
Agreement
6.1 Tree Preservation
Tree protection shall be provided in accordance with the preliminary Tree
Preservation Plan prepared by Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. and last revised
March 12, 2020, and any required addendum thereto.
6.2 Parkland
The Owner shall pay the Municipality an amount in lieu of conveying land for park
or other public recreational purposes and shall be calculated and collected at the
time of Site Plan in accordance with applicable legislation.
6.3 Noise Attenuation
(1) The Owner agrees to construct and install all measures recommended in
Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, prepared by GHD, last revised March
12, 2020, Reference No. 11204813, and any addenda thereto. The measures
shall be included in the Municipality of Clarington's Subdivision and/or Site
Plan Agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to the
revised noise report (i.e. author, title, date and revisions/addenda) and shall
include any required warning clauses identified in the study.
(2) The Owner shall not make an application for a building permit for any
buildings on the Lands until an acoustic engineer has certified that the plans
for the buildings are in accordance with the Noise Report.
6.4 Regional Waste Pickup
The Owner agrees to comply with the requirements of the Region of Durham for
Municipal Waste in accordance with the Region of Durham waste collection
guidelines.
6.5 Geotechnical Investigation Report
The Owner agrees to implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation Report prepared by GHD (undated) including any required addenda
Page 15
Page 374
thereto to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and
Director of Public Works.
6.6 Existing Structures
The Owner shall obtain demolition permit(s) to remove all existing buildings and
structures from the Lands, unless such buildings or structures are to be preserved
for heritage purposes.
Part 7 — Agency Conditions
7.1 Region of Durham
(1) The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water
supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan
that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for
the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of
the plan which are required to service other developments external to this
subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be
designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of
the Region. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions
are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region, and are to be completed
prior to final approval of this plan.
(2) Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region shall be satisfied
that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities
are available to the proposed subdivision.
(3) The Owner shall grant to the Region any easements required for provision of
Regional services for this development and these easements shall be in the
location and of such widths as determined by the Region.
(4) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the
Region. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a
subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the
provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other
regional services.
7.2 Conservation Authority
(1) Prior to any on -site grading or construction of final registration of the Plan,
the Owner shall submit and obtain approval from the Municipality of
Clarington, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for reports
describing the following:
(a) The intended means of conveying stormwater flow from the site,
including use of stormwater techniques which are appropriate and in
accordance with the provincial guidelines. [The stormwater
Page 16
Page 375
management facilities must be designed and implemented in
accordance with the recommendations of the Master Plan];
(b) The intended means of providing water quality treatment for the site to
the satisfaction of CLOCA and in accordance with provincial guidelines.
(c) The means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be
minimized on the site and downstream of the site during and after
construction, in accordance with provincial guidelines. The report must
outline all actions to be taken to prevent an increase in the
concentration of solids and prevention of downstream erosion in any
water body as a result of on -site, or related works; and
(d) Details on the types and use of Low Impact Development (LID)
measures to be implemented within the development to assist in
reducing stormwater runoff and meeting water balance infiltration
targets to the satisfaction of CLOCA.
(2) That the Owner shall submit a report detailing the in situ soil testing
completed once the locations of the LID features have been finalized.
(3) The Owner shall satisfy all financial requirements of the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority. This shall include Application Processing Fees and
Technical Review Fees owing as per the approved Authority Fee Schedule.
(4) The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of
Clarington shall contain, among other matters, the following provisions:
(a) The Owner agrees to carry out the works referred to in Condition 1 and
2 to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
(b) The Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater and erosion and sediment
control structures and measures operating and in good repair during the
construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority.
7.3 Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport
(1) The Owner shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the subject
property and mitigation and/or salvage excavation of any significant heritage
resources to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport.
No grading or other soil disturbance shall take place on the subject property
prior to a letter of clearance from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
7.4 Canada Post Corporation
(1) The Owner covenants and agrees to provide the Municipality of Clarington
with evidence that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have
been made with Canada Post Corporation for the installation of Lockbox
Page 17
Page 376
Assemblies as required by Canada Post Corporation and as shown on the
approved engineering design drawings/Draft Plan, at the time of sidewalk
and/or curb installation. The Owner further covenants and agrees to provide
notice to prospective purchasers of the locations of Lockbox Assemblies and
that home/business mail delivery will be provided via Lockbox Assemblies or
Mailroom.
(2) The Owner shall satisfy the following requirements of Canada Post
Corporation and the Municipality with respect to the provision of mail delivery
to the Subdivision Lands and the provision of community mailbox locations,
as follows:
(a) The Owner shall advise Canada Post as to the excavation date for the
first foundation/first phase as well as the date development work is
scheduled to begin.
(b) If applicable, the Owner shall ensure that any street facing installs have
a pressed curb or curb cut.
(c) The Owner shall advise Canada Post as to the expected first occupancy
date and ensure the site is accessible to Canada Post 24 hours a day.
(d) The Owner will consult with Canada Post and the Municipality to
determine suitable permanent locations for the Community Mail Boxes.
The Owner will then indicate these locations on the appropriate
servicing plans.
(e) The Owner agrees, prior to offering any units for sale, to display a map
on the wall of the sales office in a place readily accessible to potential
homeowners that indicates the location of all Community Mail Boxes
within the development, as approved by Canada Post.
(f) The Owner will provide a suitable and safe temporary site for a
Community Mail Boxes upon approval of the Municipality (that is
levelled with appropriate sized patio stones and free of tripping
hazards), until curbs, sidewalks and final grading are completed at the
permanent locations. Canada Post will provide mail delivery to new
residents as soon as the homes or units are occupied.
(g) Owner agrees to provide the following for each Community Mail Boxes
and to include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans (if
applicable):
i) Any required walkway across the boulevard, per municipal
standards; and
ii) Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access, with an
opening of at least two meters (consult Canada Post for detailed
specifications).
Page 18
Page 377
7.5 Utilities
(1) The Owner shall coordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution
plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities including the separation
between utilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
(2) All utilities will be installed within the proposed road allowances. Where this is
not possible, easements will be provided at no cost to the utility provider.
Proposed easements are not permitted on lands owned by the Municipality
unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other alternative. Such
easements must not impede the long term use of the lands and will be at the
discretion of the Director of Public Works.
(3) The Owner shall cause all utilities, including hydro, telephone, and cable
television within the streets of this development to be installed underground
for both primary and secondary services.
Part 8 — Standard Notices and Warnings
8.1 The Owner shall include a clause in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots
informing the purchaser of all applicable development charges in accordance with
subsection 58(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, C.27.
8.2 The Owner shall include the notices and warnings clauses set out in Schedule 3 of
the Municipality's standard subdivision/site plan agreement in Agreements of
Purchase and Sale for all Lots or Blocks.
8.3 The Owner shall include the following notices and warning clauses in Agreements
of Purchase and Sale for the Lots or Blocks to which they apply:
8.4 Noise Report
(1) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase
and Sale for All Units-
"Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control
features in the design of the subdivision and individual units, noise levels
from road traffic may on occasion interfere with some activities of the
dwelling occupants as the noise levels may exceed the noise criteria of
the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks" (Warning
Clause Type B)
(2) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase
and Sale for All Units:
"This dwelling unit was fitted with a forced air heating system and the
ducting etc. sized to accommodate a central air conditioning unit. The
installation of central air conditioning by the homeowner will allow
windows and exterior doors to be kept closed, thereby achieving
Page 19
Page 378
indoor sound levels within the limits recommended by the Ministry of
the Environment. (Note: The location and installation of the outdoor
air conditioning device should be done so as to comply with noise
criteria of Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
publication NPC-300." (Warning Clause Type C)
(3) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase
and Sale for All Units:
"Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of adjacent
commercial facilities, noise from those facilities may at times be
audible."
8.5 Chain Link/Privacy Fencing
The Owner shall include the following notice in the agreements of purchase and
sale for All Lots:
"Fencing — Chain link, decorative and/or privacy fencing will be
required features of these units and installed where feasible as
determined during site plan approval and taking into consideration the
approved Tree Preservation Plan and approved grading. The
installation of the fencing shall be the responsibility of the developer,
while ongoing maintenance and replacement will be the responsible of
future owners and/or the condominium corporation after the developer
has been released from any further responsibility for the fence."
8.6 Canada Post Corporation
The Owner shall include the following notice in the agreements of purchase and sale
for all lots:
"Mail Service - Purchasers are advised that Canada Post intends to service
this property through the use of community mailboxes that may be located in
several locations within this subdivision."
Part 9 - Clearance
9.1 The Owner acknowledges that certain requirements under Parts 5, 6 and 7 of the
conditions above may be required at the discretion of clearing agencies below
should the Owner wish to register the plan prior to finalization of Site Plan matters
and entering into a site plan agreement.
9.2 Prior to final approval of the plan for registration, the Municipality's Director of
Planning and Development Services shall be advised in writing by,
(a) the Region how Conditions 1, 2.3 5.1, 5.2, 6.3, 7.1 (1-4), and 7.3 have been
satisfied;
(b) the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, how Condition 7.2 has been
satisfied;
Page 110
Page 379
(c) Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport, how Condition 7.3 has been satisfied;
and,
(d) Canada Post, how Condition 7.4 has been satisfied.
Part 10 — Notes to Draft Approval
10.1 Terms used in these conditions that are not otherwise defined have the meanings
given to them in the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement.
10.2 As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all
conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft
approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to
final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at
any time prior to final approval.
10.3 If final approval is not given to this plan within three (3) years of the draft approval
date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file
shall be closed. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is
submitted to the Director of Planning and Development Services for the
Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date.
10.4 Where an agency requirement is required to be included in the Municipal
subdivision/site plan agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the
agency in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this
plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are:
(a) Durham Regional Planning Department, 605 Rossland Road East, P.O. Box
623, Whitby, Ontario L1 N 6A3 (905) 668-7721.
(b) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa,
Ontario LIH 3T3 (905) 579-0411.
(c) Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Archaeology Programs Unit,
Programs and Services Branch, Culture Division, 401 Bay Street, Suite 1700,
Toronto ON, M7A OA7, (416) 212-8442
(d) Canada Post, Metro Toronto Region, 1860 Midland Ave. 2nd Floor
Scarborough ON, M1 P 5A1
Page 111
Page 380
RICHFIELD SQUARE
Z a no
� po
cvr
�v -
)> m m N
z
Z
n
y m Q Q
ti
A =r z
� T
a � s
C
. I4
i
se=yOy�
ggg g
®� 3p
fee 5�
I
FF
3
�j
9gP
� F
-0
y
I:\^DepartmentW,pplication Files\SC-Subdivision\S-C-2019\S-C-2019-0004 1668 Nash Road Courtice\9. Conditions of Draft Approval\S-C-2019-0004 -Conditions of Draft
Approval For Concurrence 17'Nov'2020.docx
Page 112
Page 381
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-056-20
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2020-
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for
the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington for ZBA 2019-0017;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 14.6 "Special Exceptions — Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone" is
hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone
14.6.64 as follows:
"14.6.64 Urban Residential Exception (R3-64) Zone
Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 b. c., and g. iv), 14.1 a., 14.4 a. b., c., e., f. and g.
those lands zoned R3-64 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for
Link Townhouse dwellings. For the purpose of establishing regulations for each
Link Townhouse Dwelling unit, the following specific regulations shall apply as if
each unit is located on a lot:
a. Lot Area (minimum)
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior Lot
ii) Exterior Lot
C. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Front Yard
ii) Exterior Side Yard
110 square metres
4.4 metres
7.5 metres
3.5 metres to a dwelling
2 metres to an unenclosed porch
6 metres to a garage door
3.5 metres to a dwelling
Page 382
iii) Yard adjacent to sight triangle lot line:
2 metres to a dwelling
1.4 metres to an unenclosed porch
iv) Interior Side Yard 1.5 metres, nil where building
has a common wall with any adjacent building
on an adjacent lot
v) Rear Yard 6 metres
d. Lot Coverage of all units in the R3-64 Zone (Maximum)
i) Dwellings 40 percent
ii) All buildings and structures 45 percent
e. Landscaped Open Space of all units in the R3-64 Zone (Minimum) 30
percent
f. Building Height (Maximum) 10.5 metres
measured at the building fagade facing
a public and/or private street
g. Special Regulations
i) Steps may project into the required front or
exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the
front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metres.
ii) Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch
above finished grade (maximum) 1.0 metres
iii) Where a Link Townhouse Dwelling Lot is a through lot with frontage
on both a Public Street and a Private Lane, the lot line along the
Public Street shall be deemed to be the Front Lot Line.
iv)
v)
vi)
No parking space shall be located in any exterior side yard
Private Street Width (minimum)
metres
Outdoor Amenity Space (minimum)
metres per dwelling unit
6.5
4 square
vii) Accessory Structures are prohibited with the exception of
condominium utility buildings having a total cumulative area of 60
square metres. The following minimum yard setbacks shall apply:
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10584363342\10584363342,,,Attachment 3 to Report PSD-056-20.doc,.
Page 383
i) From Public Street
ii) From Private Street
12 metres
2 metres
viii) Unenclosed porches, decks or balconies may project up to a
maximum of 2 metres into the required rear yard provided it does
not interfere with the required parking space.
ix) The provisions of Section 3.1 g. (iv) continue to apply, except
where they are in conflict with the requirements in this zone."
2. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act.
3. Schedule `A' to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone designation from "Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone" to
"Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-64) Zone" as illustrated on the
attached Schedule `A' hereto.
3. Schedule `A' attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
By -Law passed in open session this day of , 2020
Adrian Foster, Mayor
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10584363342\10584363342,,,Attachment 3 to Report PSD-056-20.docx
Page 384
This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2020- , passed this
day of
2020 A.D.
U
¢O
RICHFIELD
E
IY
`U)
J
�
w
Q
0'
F-
3
(j
GATE n SQUARE
D
J
uJ
LL
X
m
U
Cn
w
z
w
F—
D
O
LL
NASH ROAD
O
U)
J
J
H
N
- Zoning Change From 'R1' To '(H)R3-64'
Adrian Foster, Mayor
Courtice . ZBA 2019-0017 . Schedule 4
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10584363342\10584363342,,,Attachment 3 to Report PSD-056-20.docx
Page 385
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-057-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 37 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Community Improvement Plan Programs 2020 - Annual Report
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-057-20 be received; and
2. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-057-20 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
Page 386
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-057-20
Report Overview
Page 2
The Bowmanville, Newcastle, and Orono grant programs under the Community
Improvement Plans continue to be an effective tool for incenting investment and renewal in
the historic downtowns. The Bowmanville, Newcastle, and Orono CIPs are intended to
encourage investment to improve the appearance and function of buildings in the
downtowns.
The Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan was adopted by Council in 2016
and functions in a different manner. Its purpose is to enable the Municipality to respond to
increased development and community growth through a framework of financial incentives. It
includes programs encouraging new, quality -designed high -density development and
significant redevelopment along the Highway 2 Regional Corridor in Courtice.
This annual report provides an update and overview of the downtown CIP program activities
and grants in 2020.
1. Background
1.1. Community Improvement Plans (CIP) are a tool available to municipalities under the
Planning Act allowing for incentives to business and property owners within an identified
geographic area. Council adopted the CIPs for Bowmanville and Orono in 2005, and
Newcastle in 2008. These three CIPs were refreshed and renewed in 2018 with
additional grant programs. The Bowmanville, Newcastle, and Orono CIPs primarily
focus on grants for existing buildings, and enhancing the downtown streetscape. The
Courtice Main Street CIP adopted in 2016 includes programs that encourage major
development and redevelopment within the Highway 2 Regional Corridor.
1.2. Information regarding CIP programs is available to business and property owners within
the CIP areas via the project page of Clarington's website, and is distributed directly at
pre -consultation meetings, through front counter inquiries, and through `word-of-mouth'
within the community.
1.3. Liaison Groups were established for the three historic downtown CIPs for Bowmanville,
Newcastle, and Orono. The CIP Liaison Groups meet with Planning and Development
Services staff on a quarterly basis. Group members are apprised of CIP- related
matters, assist staff with informing business/property owners about CIP programs, and
provide feedback on the effectiveness of the various grant opportunities based upon the
experiences of those who participate in the programs.
Page 387
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-057-20
Page 3
1.4. Following the 2018 CIP refresh, staff updated existing and created new CIP
communication documents to incorporate the new and existing grant programs. The
Municipality also incorporated the use of social media into community outreach,
enabling staff to target the CIP areas with relevant information about the available grant
programs.
1.5. In 2018, a portion of the CIP grant funds for Bowmanville and Newcastle was allocated
to support the Sidewalk Patio pilot project. The initiative was expanded to include Orono
in 2019 and was made available again to all three communities in 2020. A request to
extend this initiative into 2021 is currently under consideration and will be addressed as
a component of the Sidewalk Patio Program annual report scheduled to come forward
in January.
2. CIP Grant Program Activity
Overview of CIP Grant Applications
2.1. Applications for three (3) different grants associated with three (3) properties were
received in 2020, the properties being in Bowmanville, Orono and Newcastle.
Participation of property/business owners in each of the downtown areas was
considerably lower than in 2019, likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A detailed
overview of the 2020 CIP Activity Summary is appended as Attachment 1. In 2020,
there was a fagade improvement grants, an accessibility grant and a building permit fee
grant. These grants are available to business owners as well as property owners.
Bowmanville, Orono, Newcastle Community Improvement Funding
2.2. To date, the Municipality has provided funding of $1,236,000 for grants in support of the
CIP programs in the Bowmanville, Newcastle, and Orono downtown areas. CIP grants
represent an investment and partnership whereby the grant value is matched by
property or business owners at a ratio of 3.1 or 2.1, based upon eligible costs in
accordance with the specific type of grant in each community. It should be noted that
many projects exceed this ratio, thereby resulting in the grant comprising a much
smaller proportion of the overall cost of the project.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-057-20
2.3. The implementation of the CIP through grant programs has translated into direct public
benefit. Investment in building code and accessibility upgrades, fagade improvements to
historic and aging buildings, and upgraded signage all contributing to the vibrancy of
Clarington's central business areas as viable and attractive places to shop and access
local services. It is estimated that the grant contributions have resulted in over $3.7
million in investments in the downtowns.
2.4. Funds not committed to grant applications are carried over to the following year. Each
CIP has carry-over funding from prior years available for projects when applications are
received. The funding request appears as part of the Planning and Development
Services budget each year.
Courtice Main Street CIP Funding
2.5. The Courtice Main Street CIP incorporates two programs, including the development
charge grant program, and the tax increment grant program. Grants issued under the
Courtice Main Street CIP will result in much higher grant values due to its focus on
incenting significant development/redevelopment projects that would provide the new
and/or increased property assessment.
2.6. Development charge grants are budgeted for annually in order to meet the anticipated
demand for development charge incentives and are held in a reserve fund. Tax
increment grants are related to the increased assessment value of a property resulting
from development or redevelopment which the Municipality would forgo for a specified
period of time (i.e.10 years).
2.7. In 2020, $100,000 was allocated to the Courtice Main Street CIP's reserve fund. The
reserve is being built to address the grants that will be distributed once the works have
been completed and meet the criteria for sustainability and high -quality urban design
finishes. Planning and Development Services staff has included funding in its 2021
budget to continue to build the reserve fund.
3. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
Page 389
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-057-20
4. Conclusion
Page 5
4.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update and overview of the CIP program
activity in 2020 and associated funding framework. COVID-19 has impacted several
municipal programs in 2020, including applications for the CIP grant programs.
However, the interest in and uptake of the CIP programs for Bowmanville and Orono
was strong and steady in 2019. No applications were received in Newcastle in 2019, but
the level of interest in the Newcastle CIP program from previous years suggests the last
2 years have been anomalous and an application was received in 2020. It is anticipated
that as businesses adjust to the COVID-19 pandemic, applications for CIP grants will
pick up.
4.2 It is respectfully recommended that Council receive this report for information.
Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Planner II, 905-623-3379 x 2419 or sallin@clarington.net.
Attachment:
Attachment 1 — 2020 Community Improvement Plan Activity Summary
Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 390
Attachment 1 to
Report PSD-057-20
2020 Community Improvement Plan Activity Summary
Bowmanville
The non -capital funding provided to date for implementation of the Bowmanville Community
Improvement Plan (CIP) is $716,000. Approximately $511,700 has been expended to date. An
application for one grant was received in 2020, while eighteen had been received in 2019.
Outstanding commitments are $35,481 in grants.
Many of the grant applications received have multiple addresses and have been for more than
one type of grant. The 2020 grant application was a heritage building fagade improvement
grant.
To date, 45 properties have been approved for CIP grants in the form of 40 fagade
improvements, 16 building code related improvements, 5 signage, 17 building permit fee, and
6 site plan fee, 6 reconstruction, and 4 accessibility grants.
Newcastle
The non -capital funding provided to date for implementation of the Newcastle CIP is $348,000.
Approximately $221,270 has been expended to date. One grant application was received in
2020, and none were received in 2019. Outstanding grant commitments total $25,063.
The 2020 grant application was an accessibility grant.
To date, 25 properties have been approved for CIP grants in the form of 20 facade
improvements, 13 signage grants, 8 building code grants, 3 site plan control fee grants, 3
accessibility grants and 1 building permit fee grant. Many properties have benefitted from more
than one type of grant.
Orono
The non -capital funding provided to date for implementation of the Orono Community
Improvement Plan is $172,000. In addition, funds have been expended on anniversary
celebrations, brochures, and hall rentals for meetings. Approximately $137,100 has been paid
out in grants.
Applications for one grant was received in 2020, while five were received in 2019. The 2020
grant application was an upgrade to building code grant. $13,969 is currently committed.
To date, 29 properties have been approved for the CIP grants in the form of 19 facade
improvements, 23 signage grants, 4 building code grants, and 1 infill grant. In some cases,
properties have received more than one type of grant.
Page 391
Courtice
The non -capital funding provided to date for Courtice is $246,000. The funding has been used
for street trees along Highway 2 at Courtice Road, the Tooley Memorial, the lighting at the
parkette at Trulls Road and Highway 2 and limited implementation of banners along Highway 2
from Centrefield to Townline Road. In 2019, funds were from the Courtice CIP were
reallocated to support works within the local parks and trails system. In 2020, $100,000 was
allocated to the Courtice Main Street CIP's reserve fund to build the reserve to accommodate
grants that will be issued once qualifying projects have been constructed.
Overall Summary of Funding and Applications
Table 1: Summary of Funding Status; Bowmanville, Newcastle, Orono and Courtice CIPs
Funding Category
Bowmanville
Newcastle
Orono
Courtice (DC
Grant only)
Provided
$716,000
$348,000
$172,000
$246,000
Expended
$511,709
$221,270
$137,138
$37,000
Committed
$35,481
$25,063
$13,969
$---
Remaining (Rounded)
$168,800
$101,600
$20,900
$219,000
Table 2: Summary of Total Applications by Grant Type; Bowmanville, Newcastle, Orono
Grant Type
Bowmanville
Newcastle
Orono
Facade Improvements
40
20
19
Building Code Upgrades
16
8
4
Signage
5
13
23
Building Permit Fee
17
1
0
Site Plan Fee
6
3
0
Infill/Reconstruction
6
0
1
Accessibility
4
3
0
Total
94
48
47
Page 392
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-058-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: S-C-2018-0002 and ZBA2016-0031 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a total
of 205 residential units contained with an apartment building and
townhouses within a Common Elements Condominium in Bowmanville
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-058-20 be received;
2. That the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by MODO Bowmanville
Urban Towns Limited (The Kaitlin Group) to permit 205 future condominium
residential units including 55 dual frontage townhouses, 64 back to back townhouses
and 86 apartment units, be supported subject to the conditions contained in
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-058-20;
3. That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and that the Zoning
By-law Amendment in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-058-20 be passed;
4. That once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of
the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H)
Holding Symbol be approved;
5. That no further Public Meeting be required for the future Common Elements
Condominium;
6. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of report PSD-
058-20 and Council's decision; and
7. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-058-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Page 393
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
Report Overview
Page 2
This report recommends approval of a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-
law Amendment submitted by MODO Bowmanville Urban Towns Limited (The Kaitlin
Group). The applications would permit 205 residential units including 55 dual frontage
townhouses, 64 stacked townhouses and a six storey 86 unit apartment building. The units
will be accessed by a private lane with entrances from Brookhill Boulevard and Boswell
Drive. The development will have a private amenity area, a water meter building and visitor
parking in the common elements.
1. Application Details
1.1 Owner/Applicant
1.2 Proposal:
1.3 Area:
1.4 Location:
1.5 Roll Number
1.6 Within Built Boundary:
2. Background
MODO Bowmanville Urban Towns Limited (The Kaitlin Group)
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would create one block
that would allow for a future common elements condominium
containing 205 residential units including 55 dual frontage
townhouses, 64 stacked townhouses and 86 apartment units,
common amenity space and private laneways.
Rezoning
To rezone the lands from the "Agricultural (A) Zone" to
appropriate zone that permits the proposed development.
2.87 hectares (7.1 acres)
South side of Brookhill Boulevard between Green Road and
Boswell Drive, Bowmanville.
181701002018432 and 181701003002710
No
2.1 On December 16, 2016, MODO Bowmanville Urban Towns Limited submitted
applications for Rezoning and Site Plan approval to permit 167 townhouse units including
56 stacked townhouses, 49 rear lane townhouses and 62 back-to-back townhouses all on
private laneways (Figure 1).
Page 394
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-058-20
,x 1K!PEI
W Ail
11lII111'INI+M!!!!!!!1.11111:''
.�. � a
�.®
- ��= - ��=mot
:..
-•�
{{III[[II
..
.,� ,pNp•
1N�
it
[1�11 �
Ij
1��1'�RllNil
PLAN
k M
`ICI A
t a ii 4t �HSITE
i3r�lilrti�_rrL'. i:yi-.i11:3t: ,!!�ry+� 1•
�
Ai
��
Figure 1: Original application submission for 167 townhouse units, 2016
2.2 A Public Information Centre was held May 18, 2017 and the statutory Public Meeting was
held on June 5, 2017 at Planning and Development Committee. The applicant was
provided detailed comments from internal departments, external agencies and the public
for their review. A concern identified with the proposal was that it did not meet the Region
of Durham or Clarington Official Plan policies, specifically with regards to density within
the Town Centre. Staff also requested different forms of housing to provide more
affordable and accessible options within the development.
2.3 In April 2018, the applicants submitted revised Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan
applications. The applicant also submitted a new Draft Plan of Subdivision application to
facilitate a future plan of condominium on the lands. The revised concept included 213
residential units including 61 dual frontage townhouses, 64 stacked townhouses and 88
apartment units in a six -storey building. The revised plan included an underground
parking area accessed from the west side of the property to serve the apartment building
(Figure 2).
2.4 A Public Meeting on the revised plan was held on June 25, 2018. The applicant was
again provided detailed comments from internal departments, external agencies and the
public for their review. One concern included the noise impact on the proposed
residences from the existing commercial businesses located to the south, being Walmart
and Canadian Tire.
2.5 Since the Public Meeting on June 25, 2018 staff and the applicant worked to further refine
the revised proposal. The final revisions lead to a proposal for 205 residential units
including 55 dual frontage townhouses, 64 stacked townhouses and a 6 storey, 86 unit
apartment building (Figure 3).
Page 395
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
in
Figure 2: Revised application submission for 213 units, 2018.
Figure 3: Final revision to submission for 205 units.
Page 4
0
O
w
Z
W
W
Ce
Q
Page 396
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-058-20
2.6 On September 26, 2019 the applicant filed appeals with the Local Planning Appeal
Tribunal for a failure to make a decision within the timelines identified in the Planning Act.
During the appeal process staff continued to work with the applicant to address the
outstanding issues identified in previous comments, including the noise concerns. The
applicants withdrew the appeals and staff received the withdrawal letter from the Local
Planning Appeal Tribunal on October 18, 2020 allowing the applications to proceed to
Council for consideration and a decision.
2.7 The applicant has submitted the following studies in support of the applications which are
reviewed in Section 7 of this report:
• Functioning Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports
• Traffic Impact Study
• Noise Study
• Shadow Impact Analysis
• Urban Design Brief
• Archaeological Assessment Stage 1
• Phase One Environmental Site Assessment
3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
3.1 The subject lands are located on the south-east corner of Brookhill Boulevard and Boswell
Drive. The site is currently vacant and generally flat.
3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:
North -Brookhill Boulevard / rear lane townhouses and semi-detached dwellings
South -Commercial area including Canadian Tire and Walmart stores
East -Two existing single detached dwellings, one of which is owned by applicant as
well as the surrounding lands, a temporary sale centre and Clarington Secondary
School
West -Rekkers Garden Centre and Greenhouse Operation
Page 397
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
Exist er Existing Residential Development Hl�]
/ 1
4 r f C
Rekker'srestehf
Garden f. H )�" �! e ti 4 �r
p 1 ! .L
Centre o
and m a r 4Ted Miller Crescent cc
Greenhouse 0.., �`����,V��
Nicks({'+°icy, �aa.
� an �L.rrl L �.L BE LO
=
Lands Subject to Bro khf//Boy . k p Future Development
Current Application o 4fe�arq � C Not Owned By
Applicant
Page 6
roo i oulevard
L , Clarington
Central
.' Secondary School'
n! t . �-
�� Wal Mart
ALI., Additional Lands
• >
a • Lamrir _ �r - - (^�, - .1F;,;�' � Owned By
{ p � �# � � •' �� � ♦ ' APPlicant
Canadian Tire
Vo..
4
`y Stevens Road
�s � �� � • a:. a ��
ILMlyi
ZBA 2016-0031
Figure 4: Subject Lands and Surrounding Area Land Uses
Page 398
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
4. Provincial Policy
Provincial Policy Statement
Page 7
4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) identifies settlement areas, such as the
Bowmanville Urban Area, as the focus of growth and promote compact development
forms. Planning authorities are encouraged to create healthy, livable and safe
communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential,
employment, recreation, and open space uses.
4.2 Land use patterns shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses that efficiently use
land, resources and infrastructure. New development in designated growth areas should
have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land,
infrastructure, public service facilities and transit supportive. Recent changes to the PPS
policies state that planning authorities shall also consider market demands when
evaluating proposals.
4.3 The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Provincial Growth Plan
4.4 The Provincial Growth Plan is a long term planning framework that manages growth,
mainly with the urban areas of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It encourages
municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas.
Municipalities are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land
uses, employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores
and services.
4.5 A range and mix of housing options and higher densities in strategic growth areas,
including major transit station areas, are to make efficient use of land and infrastructure
and support transit viability. Transit -supportive and pedestrian -friendly developments will
be concentrated around existing and future transit routes.
4.6 The subject applications conform to the Growth Plan.
5. Official Plans
Durham Region Official Plan
5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the lands as a Regional Centre, which is to
be developed as the main concentration of commercial, residential and cultural functions
within the urban area in a well -designed and intensive land use form. A Regional Centre
shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 75 residential units per gross
hectare and a floor space index of 2.5.
Page 399
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-058-20
5.2 Development in Regional Centres shall be based on the following principles:
• Compact urban form which is transit -supportive;
• Provides a mix of uses and opportunities for intensification;
• Follows good urban design principles with focus on public spaces and pedestrian
connections, with parking to the rear or within buildings; and
• Enhances grid connections for pedestrians and cyclists.
5.3 Durham Region has started the comprehensive review of their Official Plan. Through
their Growth Management discussion paper released in 2019, the Region has begun
identifying Major Transportation Station Areas surrounding existing and future GO
Stations. The Region has set a draft boundary of the Bowmanville Major Transit Station
Area as the limits of the existing Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan. The
intent is to identify an area that maximizes the number of potential transit users within
walking distance to the future station.
5.4 The proposal conforms with the Region of Durham Official Plan.
Clarington Official Plan
5.5 The Clarington Official Plan designates the lands Urban Centre. Development within
Urban Centres shall provide for a mix of uses with a focus on higher density and a mix of
housing types to support the successful development of complete communities. The
minimum density target for Urban Centres is 120 units per hectare. The current proposal
has a density of approximately 72 units per hectare. When future applications are
submitted for the remainder of the lands to the east, abutting Green Road, which are
anticipated to be two apartment buildings, the density across the lands designated Low
Rise High Density Residential is anticipated to meet the Official Plan density requirements
of 120 units per hectare.
5.6 Urban Centres are to be developed as the main concentration of activity within
communities. Development should be transit supportive with a pedestrian focus as
people -oriented places with a high -quality pedestrian environment including civic squares,
parks, walkways and building forms and styles that reflect the character of the community.
5.7 Development within the Urban Centre designation must comply with the urban design
policies of the Official Plan, including those specific to the Bowmanville West Town
Centre Secondary Plan.
Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan
5.8 The Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan designates the lands Low Rise High
Density Residential. The Low Rise High Density designation permits townhouses and low
rise apartment buildings not exceeding six storeys in height.
Page 400
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PSD-058-20
5.9 The Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan is one of the Secondary Plans that
is currently review. This work is in early stages. Currently the density in the Low Rise High
Density designation shall be a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 80 units per hectare.
The Official Plan with the adoption of OPA 107 has a policy indicating where an
inconsistency with the parent plan exists related to density the parent plan shall prevail.
As stated in 5.5 above the minimum density in the parent plan is 120 units per hectare.
5.10 The density must be achieved across the Low Rise High Density designation. The
proposal has a density of approximately 72 units per hectare. Once the lands to the east
of the current applications, adjacent to Green Road, are developed with future apartment
buildings the lands across the Low Rise High Density designation should achieve the 120
units per hectare required by the Official Plan.
5.11 The Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan strives to achieve development at
higher intensities than adjacent residential neighbourhoods, provide alternative housing
forms, create pedestrian connections and maximize accessibility to public transit,
including the future GO station.
5.12 The proposal meets the intent of the Clarington Official Plan
6. Zoning By-law
6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Agricultural (A) Zone. The proposed Zoning
By-law Amendment (Attachment 2) will allow for the development of 55 dual frontage
townhouses, 64 stacked townhouses and 86 apartment units in a common elements
condominium. A holding (H) symbol is placed on the zoning until the Draft Plan of
Subdivision is registered and the Site Plan Agreement is finalized.
7. Summary of Background Reports
7.1 The applicant has submitted several studies in support of the development applications
which were circulated to various agencies and departments for comment. Staff have
worked with the applicant to ensure that supporting documents addressed all applicable
provincial, regional and local policy, guidelines, and standards. The submission materials
were posted on the Municipality's website.
Site Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Cole Engineering Group Ltd.
7.2 The report and drawings detail how the proposed development can be serviced (water,
sanitary and storm) from existing and new infrastructure.
7.3 The development will be serviced from existing water and sanitary services on Brookhill
Boulevard. The stormwater currently sheet flows from the south of the property to the
north-east. As part of the development, the stormwater will be captured in new
underground storage tanks and discharged at a controlled rate into the stormwater
sewers on Brookhill Boulevard.
Page 401
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PSD-058-20
7.4 The development will include infiltration trenches and increased soil depths to help with
water infiltration on the site.
Traffic Impact Study, Cole Engineering Group Ltd.
7.5 The Traffic Impact Study was prepared to analyse the anticipated impacts of future
background and site -generated traffic for the proposed development. The units will be
serviced with an internal private lane which eliminates direct vehicle access from
individual private entrances and concentrates vehicle access to three points, one onto
Boswell Drive and two onto Brookhill Boulevard.
7.6 The report concludes that the proposed development will have minimal impact to the
operation of the existing neighbourhood intersections and does not require any mitigation
as a result of the proposal. There is also sufficient space within the site, on the private
lane, to provide for fire and garbage truck movements.
Noise Study, HGC Engineering
7.7 Multiple noise reports were required as part of this application. In addition to the applicant
submitting a noise report, the commercial properties to the south were also required to
submit noise reports. As the existing commercial businesses were established many
years prior to applications on the subject lands exact noise mitigation requirements could
not be determined when they were constructed. The site plan agreements for those
properties included clauses that required them to review and install noise mitigation
measures when the location and design of the residential units to the north was
determined, which was done through the current applications. One of the commercial
businesses will be required to install noise mitigation from the existing loading spaces and
air condition and trash compactor units.
7.8 The noise consultant for the applicant has reviewed the noise studies provided from the
commercial business to the south. The review indicates that warning clauses are required
for all units in Blocks 8 to 16 and the apartment building units.
7.9 As the noise information was received through multiple reports the applicant's consultant
will be required to provide a final report that synthesises all the mitigation measures on
the subject lands and the commercial businesses to the south, as a Condition of Draft
Approval.
Urban Design Brief, John G. Williams Limited
7.10 The Urban Design Brief outlines the elements of the revised proposal, including how the
proposal meets the urban design criteria of the Bowmanville West Town Centre
Secondary Plan. The report highlights that while the development is a higher density than
the existing neighbourhood on the north side of Brookhill Boulevard, the separation of the
street and 3 storey townhouse units fronting a majority of the frontage provides a logical
transition.
Page 402
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
Page 11
7.11 The report also identifies that the development will create a strong urban streetscape,
with traditional architecture style, and a pedestrian supported development with multiple
access into the site.
Shadow Study Analysis, Vanle Architect
7.12 A shadow study analysis was submitted to provide visual representation of the shadow
impacts of the apartment building. The analysis indicated that the shadow from the
apartment building will not impact the existing neighbourhood on the north side of
Brookhill Boulevard with the exception of afternoon shadow in the month of December.
Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 & 2, This Land Archaeology Inc.
7.13 The field investigation did not identify any archeological resources on the property. A
clearance letter was received from the Ministry of Culture on October 3, 2008.
Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessment, Cole Engineering Group Ltd.
& GHD
7.14 A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by Cole Engineering that
determined assess two potential risk spots on the subject lands and concluded a Phase
Two would be required.
7.15 A Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment was conducted by GHD to determine any
potential site contamination. The Phase Two included soil and water sampling. The
samples met the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Parks requirements for
residential development and no further works were required.
8. Public Submissions
8.1 A statutory public meeting was held on June 25, 2018. The concerns raised during the
meeting and in correspondence received by staff include the following:
• Proposal does not fit the existing neighbourhood in terms of proposed density (number
of units) and overall character;
• Lack of park space for existing and future residents;
• Traffic is already a problem, especially for students walking to schools east of Green
Road, and this proposal will increase traffic;
• Rental units will bring low income families to the neighbourhood and renters don't
invest as much as homeowners in their neighbourhood leading to concerns of property
appearance and property values; and
Page 403
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
Page 12
• Existing schools are at capacity and many area students bused to schools out of the
neighbourhood.
8.2 Further discussions regarding the concerns from residents are contained in Section 11 of
this report.
9. Agency Comments
Durham Region
9.1 Durham Region Planning, Works and Transportation Departments have no objections to
the proposal. The proposal is consistent with Provincial Policy and Regional Planning
Policy. The Region provided Conditions of Draft Plan Approval (Attachment 1).
9.2 The Region will require an update Noise Study be submitted for review and approval as
part of the Conditions of Draft Approval, Attachment 1. All Regional Works standards will
be required to be met through the Site Plan Approval process.
Central Lake Ontario Conservations Authority
9.3 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority had no objections to the applications subject
to the conditions identified in the Conditions of Draft Approval. The applicant will be
required to satisfy the conservation authority with respects to the stormwater
management through the Site Plan Approval process.
Other Agencies
9.4 Canada Post and Rogers have no objections to the applications subject to conditions
identified in the draft conditions.
10. Departmental Comments
Public Works Department
10.1 The Public Works Department has no objections to the approval of the proposed
development. The applicant will be required to meet all public works standards which will
be included in the future Site Plan Approval process.
Fire and Emergency Services Department
10.2 The Fire and Emergency Services Department had no objections to the approval of the
application. Comments were provided regarding no parking signage for the private
laneway and fire hydrants on site. These comments will be implemented through the Site
Plan Approval process.
Page 404
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PSD-058-20
Building Division
10.3 The Building Division has no objection to the approval of the application.
11. Discussion
11.1 The proposal is to develop a vacant 2.87 ha parcel of land. The site has frontage on
Brookhill Boulevard and Boswell Drive. The applicant has proposed a common elements
condominium containing 205 residential units including 55 dual frontage townhouses, 64
back to back townhouses and a six storey 86 unit apartment building, common amenity
space and private laneways.
Neighbourhood Character and Intensification
11.2 The subject lands are at the interface of two distinctly different Secondary Plans and two
areas that are envisioned for different purposes. It is important to create the proper
transition between these two secondary plans while achieving the goals of each
secondary plan. The lands to the south are within the Bowmanville West Town Centre
Secondary Plan, an urban centre, and envision large-scale commercial uses, higher
density residential and future GO Station. The lands to the north are the southern edge of
the Brookhill Secondary Plan which is envisioned as a predominantly residential
neighbourhood. Both the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plans and the
Brookhill Secondary Plan are currently being reviewed and updated to comply with
Clarington Official Plan Amendment 107.
11.3 The existing dwellings north of Brookhill Boulevard are a mix of single, semi-detached
and townhouse dwellings. The lands to the south are large scale commercial. The
proposed development has a density of approximately 72 units per hectare; significantly
lower than the minimum 120 units per hectare required by the Official Plan. As discussed
in Section 5 of this report there are additional lands, east of the subject lands within that
have not been developed and can contribute to meeting the minimum 120 units per
hectare. Staff believes this approach allows for the density to be met across the Low
Rise High Density designation while allowing an appropriate transition between the
Brookhill Secondary Plan and Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan.
Page 405
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PSD-058-20
11.4 The current proposal would permit an apartment building on the west side of the lands,
with a majority of the massing along Boswell Drive, and condominium townhouses
through the majority of the lands, opposite the existing residences on Brookhill Boulevard.
Future buildings to the east of the subject lands will allow for future apartment buildings
that have a majority of massing adjacent to Green Road. This approach will allow
majority of the massing of the density on the subject lands and the lands to the east to
front onto Green Road and Boswell Drive, which currently contain a secondary school to
the east and agricultural lands to the west, for which the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing has granted a Minister's Zoning Order for a future long-term care home on the
west side of Boswell Drive, opposite the subject lands. The proposed development will
focus the higher density, apartment unit to the west side of the property, where there are
limited residences along Boswell Drive.
1I
�;tf1 ff i4 I
la I I I R 1�
Figure 5: Conceptual drawing of the six -storey apartment building looking south
11.5 The proposal will allow for a good transition between the existing land uses while also
introducing additional housing forms and tenures, a density that meets the requirements
of the Official Plan and development that supports future transit initiatives including GO
transit.
Page 406
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
Figure 6: Conceptual drawing of stacked townhouses
Page 15
Figure 7: Conceptual drawing of dual frontage Townhouses fronting onto Brookhill Boulevard
Page 407
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
Traffic
Page 16
11.6 The Traffic Impact Study concluded that the proposed development will have minimal
impact to the operation of the existing neighbourhood intersections and does not require
any mitigation as a result of the proposal. The report has been reviewed by the Region of
Durham and Clarington staff and deemed acceptable.
11.7 One of the main concerns raised by residents was that it was difficult and dangerous for
students to walk to the school on the east side of Green Road; there were no signalized
crossings north of Highway 2. At the Public Meeting it was indicated that the intersection
at Green Road and Stevens Road was to be signalized in the fall of 2018. This
signalization has been completed and provides for a safer access to the east side of
Green Road than previously existed.
Amenity Space and Parkland
11.8 The main amenity space for the development has been positioned in the center of the site
for access by all residents. The main amenity space area is approximately 800 square
metres in size and will include programming for children as well as open space that is
unprogrammed. There will be additional amenity space around the apartment building to
provide outdoor seating and gathering spaces.
11.9 The size of the amenity space exceeds the requirements of Clarington's Amenity Space
Guidelines. A minimum of 4 square metres per unit is required for developments over 16
units.
11.10 There is a Community Park situated within the Garnet B Rickard Recreation Complex,
which contains play equipment and baseball fields.
11.11 A neighbourhood park has been set aside in a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision in the
Brookhill Neighbourhood, situated near the future intersection of Longworth Avenue and
Clarington Boulevard.
11.12 The applicant will be required to provide a cash contribution for parkland dedication.
9�1:
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
Schools
Page 17
11.13 There is a future elementary school site within a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
within the Brookhill Secondary Plan area, situated at the future intersection of Longworth
Avenue and Clarington Boulevard. As mentioned previously the Brookhill Secondary
Plan is currently under review. As part of that review process the school boards have
been engaged and have provided information to staff on their land requirements for future
schools in the Brookhill neighbourhood. As a result of this process the Municipality will
designate school sites in coordination through the Secondary Plan process. While sites
are designated it should be noted that at the time of development, the school boards
independently determine whether to proceed with a site based on school enrollment and
the provincial funding formula.
11.14 As identified in Section 6 of this report the zoning would be approved with a Holding (H)
Symbol. The site plan cannot be finalized and registered until the subdivision has been
registered. The applicants will also require a Plan of Condominium in the future to create
the common elements. Once those details have been addressed a by-law would be
brought forward to remove the holding on the zoning.
Recommendation and Next Steps.
11.15 Conditions of Draft Approval contain special provisions to address the implementation of
all recommendations of the studies and reports submitted, including future reports (as
referenced in this report). Other standard conditions will address such items as dedication
of road widenings and cash -in -lieu of parkland.
11.16 The proposed Zoning By-law amendment would place lands in a site -specific residential
zone permitting the link townhouse dwellings with standard regulations regarding
setbacks, building height, landscaped areas, resident and visitor parking.
11.17 Upon approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment the
applicant will work with staff on implementation details:
Site plan Approval — Items such as architectural details, detailed engineering, entrance
design landscaping and lighting will be reviewed;
Condominium approval — will follow site plan approval and create a legal description for
each unit and derive a set of condominium rules for the development, and;
Approval of application for Exemption from Part Lot Control will follow site plan approval
allowing for individual Parcels -of -Tied -Land (POTL's) to be created.
12. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
Page 409
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-058-20
13. Conclusion
Page 18
It is respectfully recommended that in consideration of all agency, staff and resident
comments that the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and to amend Zoning By-law
84-63 to permit a 205 unit apartment and townhouse condominium development with a
private lane on the south side of Brookhill Boulevard between Green Road and Boswell
Drive be approved as contained in Attachment 1 and 2 of this report.
Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Senior Planner, (905) 623-3379 ex. 2424 or
bweiler@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Conditions of Draft Approval
Attachment 2 — Zoning By-law Amendment
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 410
CJaFbgtOR
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-058-20
Conditions of Draft Approval
File Number: S-C-2018-0002
Issued for Concurrence: November 9, 2020
Notice of Decision:
Draft Approved:
Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, RPP
Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Municipality of Clarington
Part 1 — Plan Identification
1.1 The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan
of subdivision S-C-2018-0002 prepared by GHD Inc. identified as job number
06290-Brookhill, dated May 14, 2018, which illustrates one low rise high density
block intended for a six storey apartment building with 86 units and underground
parking, 119 townhouse units, including 55 dual frontage townhouses units and 64
back-to-back townhouses units, private lanes, amenity space and visitor parking.
1.2 The redline revisions are:
(a) Add 0.3m reserves along the frontage of Brookhill Boulevard and Boswell
Drive where there are no vehicle entrances to the site.
Part 2 — General
2.1 The Owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington (the "Municipality") that contains all of the terms and
conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement respecting the
provision and installation of roads, services, drainage, other local services and all
internal and external works and services related to this plan of subdivision. A copy
of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement can be found at
https://www.clarington.net/en/do-business/resources/application-forms/subdivision-
agreement.pdf
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 Oo,gg4qrJIngton.net I www.clarington.net
2.2 The Owner shall name all private lanes included in the draft plan to the satisfaction
of the Municipality and the Regional Municipality of Durham (the "Region").
2.3 All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Municipality's Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings.
Architectural Control
2.4 (1) No residential units shall be offered for sale to the public on the draft plan
until such time as the exterior architectural design of each building has been
approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
(2) No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building on any
residential block on the draft plan, the exterior architectural design of each
building and the location of the building on the block has been approved by
the Director of Planning and Development Services.
Marketing and Sales
2.5 (1) The Owner shall prepare a Land Use Plan which shows the draft plan and
surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan shall be in a format approved by
the Director of Planning and Development Services.
(2) The Owner shall erect and maintain a sign on the development site and/or in
the sales office which shows the Land Use Plan as approved by the Director
of Planning and Development Services.
(3) The Owner shall submit its standard Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the
Director of Planning and Development Services which includes all warning
clauses/notices prior to any residential units being offered for sale to the
public.
Site Alteration
2.6 Draft plan approval does not give the Owner permission to place or dump fill or
remove fill from or alter the grade of any portion of the lands within the draft plan.
The Owner shall be required to obtain a permit from the Municipality under Site
Alteration By-law 2008-114, as amended, for any such work. If any portion of the
lands are within an area regulated by a conservation authority, the Owner shall
obtain a permit from the conservation authority in addition to obtaining approval
from the Director of Public Works regarding the intended haulage routes, the time
and duration of the site alteration work and security relating to mud clean
Page 12
Page 412
up, road damage and dust control in accordance with the Dust Management
Plan in Section 4.1(6). After registration of a subdivision agreement, the
provisions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement shall apply to
any proposed site alteration on the lands covered by the subdivision
agreement.
Part 3 — Final Plan Requirements
3.1 The Owner shall transfer to the Municipality (for nominal consideration free and
clear of encumbrances and restrictions) the following lands and easements:
(a) Reserves
• A 0.3 metre reserve to be shown on the revised draft plan along
Brookhill Boulevard and Boswell Drive where there are no vehicle
entrances to the site.
Part 4 —Plans and Reports Required Prior to Subdivision Agreement/Final Plan
Registration
4.1 The Owner shall submit the following plans and report or revisions thereof:
Phasing Plan
(1) The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Municipality
and the Region for review and approval. The Phasing Plan must show how the
associated infrastructure within each phase are intended to connect to subsequent
phases of development, including the provision of temporary or transitional works
such as temporary turning circles, external easements for temporary turning
circles, and associated frozen lots/units.
Noise Report
(2) The Owner shall submit to the Director of Public Works, the Director of Planning
and Development Services and the Region, for review and approval, updated
noise reports, based on the preliminary noise report entitled Noise Feasibility
Study Impact of Adjacent Commercial Uses on the Proposed Residential
Development South of Brookhill Blvd, prepared by HGC Engineering, dated April
8, 2019, Project No. 01800761 and preliminary noise report entitled Kaitlin
Corporation (Modo Bowmanville) Noise Study Report, prepared by Independent
Environmental Consultants, dated May 2018, Project No. SX16-0044-02. Only
one revised report is required provided it address all the requirements for traffic
and stationary noise and required warning clauses for both.
Functional Servicing
(3) The Owner shall submit an updated Functional Servicing Report satisfactory to the
Director of Public Works and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
Page 13
Page 413
Environmental Sustainability Plan
(4) The Owner shall submit an update of the Environmental Sustainability Plan based
on the preliminary Environmental Sustainability Plan entitled Energy Conservation
and Sustainability Plan Application for Draft Plan of Subdivision — Brookhill Site,
prepared by Kaitlin, not dated, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Development Services. Such plan shall identify the measures that the Owner will
undertake to conserve energy and water in excess of the standards of the Ontario
Building Code, reduce waste, increase recycling of construction materials and
utilize non -toxic, environmentally sustainable materials and finishes. The plan must
address the requirements of a Sustainability Report as outlined in Appendix A of
the Clarington Official Plan.
Soils Management Plan
(5) Prior to Authorization to Commence, the Owner shall provide a Soils Management
Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. Such plan shall
provide information respecting but not limited to any proposed import or export of
fill to or from any portion of the Lands, intended haulage routes, the time and
duration of any proposed haulage, the source of any soil to be imported, quality
assurance measures for any fill to be imported, and any proposed stockpiling on
the Lands. All imported material must originate from within the Municipality of
Clarington. The Owner shall comply with all aspects of the approved Soils
Management Plan. The Director may require the Owner to provide security relating
to mud clean up, dust control and road damage.
Dust Management Plan
(6) Prior to Authorization to Commence Works, the Owner is required to prepare a
Dust Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works.
Such plan shall provide a practical guide for controlling airborne dust which could
impact neighbouring properties. The plan must:
(a) identify the likely sources of dust emissions;
(b) identify conditions or activities which may result in dust emissions;
(c) include preventative and control measures which will be implemented to
minimize the likelihood of high dust emissions;
(d) include a schedule for implementing the plan, including training of on -site
personnel;
(e) include inspection procedures and monitoring initiatives to ensure effective
implementation of preventative and control measures; and
(f) include a list of all comments received from the Municipality, if any, and a
description of how each comment was addressed.
Page 14
Page 414
Part 5 —Special Terms and Conditions to be Included in the Subdivision
Agreement
5.1 Lands Requiring Site Plans
The owner shall not make an application for a building permit in respect of Block 1
until the Owner has received site plan approval from the Municipality under
Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.13.
5.2 Parkland
The Owner shall pay the Municipality an amount in lieu of conveying land for park
or other public recreational purposes under section 5.1. of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. The Owner acknowledges that this amount, represents either
5% or at the rate of 1 hectare of land for each 500 dwelling units of the lands
included in the draft plan, whichever is greater, and shall be based on the value of
the Lands as of the day before the approval of draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2018-
0002.
5.3 Noise Attenuation
The Owner shall not make an application for a building permit for Block 13, as
identified on site plan, project 07071, dated April 2015, until an acoustic engineer
has certified that the plans for the building are in accordance with the Noise
Report.
5.4 Common Elements
The Owner agrees to identify to purchasers and shall include the following site
features as common elements within the future condominium plan:
• Amenity Area
• Visitor Parking
• Wooden Privacy Fencing
5.5 Short Term Leases and Rentals
Upon the transfer of the POTL's, the Owner agrees to register covenants and
restrictions under Section 119 under the Land Titles Act prohibiting any short-term,
less than 30 days rental or lease of any dwelling unit(s) that is/are reliant on and
benefit from the common elements condominium. A draft is to be provided to the
Municipal Solicitor's office for review and approval, prior to registration.
Part 6 — Agency Conditions
6.1 Region of Durham
(1) The Owner shall prepare the final plan and shall include a land use table on
the basis of the approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by GHD,
Page 15
Page 415
identified as Project Number 06290-Brookhill, dated May 14, 2018, which
illustrates one low rise high density block.
(2) The Owner shall submit to the Region of Durham, for review and approval, a
revised acoustic report prepared by an acoustic engineer based on the
projected traffic volumes provided by the Region of Durham Planning and
Economic Development Department, and recommending noise attenuation
measures for the draft plan in accordance with the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks guidelines. The Owner shall agree in
the Subdivision Agreement to implement the recommended noise control
measures. The agreement shall contain a full and complete reference to the
noise report (i.e. author, title, date, and any revisions/addenda thereto) and
shall include any required warning clauses identified in the acoustic report.
The Owner shall provide the Region with a copy of the Subdivision
Agreement containing such provisions prior to the final approval of the plan.
(3) The Owner shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the subject
property and mitigation and/or salvage excavation of any significant heritage
resources to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport.
No grading or other soil disturbance shall take place on the subject property
prior to a letter of clearance from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport.
(4) Prior to the finalization of this plan of subdivision, the Owner must provide
satisfactory evidence to the Regional Municipality of Durham in accordance
with the Region's Site Contamination Protocol to address the site
contamination matters. Such evidence may include the completion of a
Regional Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance. Depending on the
nature of the proposal or the finding of any Record of Site Condition (RSC)
Compliant Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), an RSC
Compliant Phase Two ESA may also be required. The findings of the Phase
Two ESA could also necessitate the requirement for an RSC through the
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks accompanied by any
additional supporting information.
(5) The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region
of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington for review and approval if this
subdivision is to be development by more than one registration.
(6) The Owner shall grant such easements as may be required for utilities,
drainage and servicing purposes to the appropriate authorities.
(7) The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water
supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan
that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for
the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of
the plan which are required to service other developments external to this
subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be
designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of
Page 16
Page 416
the Region. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions
are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region and are to be completed
prior to final approval of this plan.
(8) Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region shall be satisfied
that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities
are available to the proposed subdivision.
(9) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the
Region. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a
subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the
provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other
regional services.
6.2 Conservation Authority
(1) Prior to any on -site grading or construction or final registration of the Plan,
the Owner shall submit and obtain approval from the Municipality of
Clarington, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for reports
describing the following:
(a) The intended means of controlling stormwater on the site and conveying
stormwater flow from the site to an appropriate outlet, including use of
stormwater techniques which are appropriate and in accordance with
the provincial guidelines, the Brookhill Neighbourhood Subwatershed
Study and the Brookhill West Stormwater Management Plan;
(b) The intended means of providing water quality treatment for the site in
accordance with provincial guidelines, the Brookhill Neighbourhood
Subwatershed Study and the Brookhill West Stormwater Management
Plan;
(c) The means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be
minimized on the site during and after construction in accordance with
the provincial guidelines. The report must outline all actions to be taken
to prevent an increase in the concentration of solids in any water body
as a result of on -site or other related works;
(d) Details on the types and use of Low Impact Development (LID)
measures to be implemented within the development to assist in
reducing stormwater runoff and meeting infiltration targets in
accordance with the water balance and CLOCA requirements.
(2) The Owner shall satisfy all financial requirements of the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority. This shall include Application Processing Fees and
Technical Review Fees as per the approved Authority Fee Schedule.
(3) The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of
Clarington shall contain, among other matters, the following provisions:
Page 17
Page 417
(a) The Owner agrees to carry out the works referred to in Condition 1 and
2 to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
(b) The Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater and erosion and sediment
control structures and measures operating and in good repair during the
construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority.
(c) The Owner agrees to advise the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority 48 hours prior to the commencement of grading or initiation of
any on -site works.
6.3 School Board
(1) The Owner shall agree to include in all offers of purchase and sale a
statement that advises the prospective purchaser that attendance at the local
public schools may not be guaranteed due to rising accommodation
pressures. Pupils may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or
directed to schools outside the area in accordance with continued
development and accommodation pressures.
6.4 Canada Post Corporation
(1) MODO Bomanville Urban Towns Ltd. covenants and agrees to provide the
Municipality of Clarington with evidence that satisfactory arrangements,
financial and otherwise, have been made with Canada Post Corporation for
the installation of Community Mail Boxes (CMB) as required by Canada Post
Corporation and shown on the approved engineering design drawings/Draft
Plan, at the time of sidewalk and/or curb installation. MODO Bomanville
Urban Towns Ltd. further covenant and agree to provide notice to
prospective purchasers of the locations of CMBs and that home/business
mail delivery will be provided via CMB.
(2) The Owner shall satisfy the following requirements of Canada Post
Corporation and the Municipality with respect to the provision of mail delivery
to the Subdivision Lands and the provision of community mailbox locations,
as follows:
(a) The developer will consult with Canada Post to determine suitable
permanent locations for the Community Mail Boxes or Lock box
Assemblies (Mail Room). The developer will then indicate these
locations on the appropriate servicing plans
(b) The developer agrees, prior to offering any units for sale, to display a
map on the wall of the sales office in a place readily accessible to
potential homeowners that indicates the location of all Community Mail
Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room)., within the development,
as approved by Canada Post.
(c) The owner/developer will be responsible for officially notifying the
purchasers of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the
Page 18
Page 418
closing of any home sales with specific clauses in the Purchase offer,
on which the homeowners do a sign off
(d) The Builder/Owner/Developer will confirm to Canada Post that the final
secured permanent locations for the Community Mailboxes will not be in
conflict with any other utility; including hydro transformers, bell
pedestals, cable pedestals, flush to grade communication vaults,
landscaping enhancements (tree planting) and bus pads.
(e) The developer agrees to include in all offers of purchase and sale a
statement which advises the purchaser that mail will be delivered via
Community Mail Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room). The
developer also agrees to note the locations of all Community Mail
Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room)., within the development,
and to notify affected homeowners of any established easements
granted to Canada Post to permit access to the Community Mail Boxes
or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room).
(f) The owner/developer will agree to prepare and maintain an area of
compacted gravel to Canada Post's specifications to serve as a
temporary Community Mailbox location. This location will be in a safe
area away from construction activity in order that Community Mailboxes
may be installed to service addresses that have occupied prior to the
pouring of the permanent mailbox pads. This area will be required to be
prepared a minimum of 30 days prior to the date of first occupancy.
(g) The owner/developer will install concrete pads at each of the
Community Mailbox locations as well as any required walkways across
the boulevard and any required curb depressions for wheelchair access
as per Canada Post's concrete pad specification drawings.
(h) The developer agrees to provide the following for each Community Mail
Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies, and to include these requirements on
the appropriate servicing plans: (if applicable)
i. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, per municipal
standards.
ii. - If applicable, any required curb depression for wheelchair access,
with an opening of at least two meters (consult Canada Post for
detailed specifications).
6.5 Utilities
(1) The Owner shall coordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution
plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities including the separation
between utilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
(2) All utilities will be installed within the proposed road allowances. Where this is
not possible, easements will be provided at no cost to the utility provider.
Proposed easements are not permitted on lands owned by the Municipality
unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other alternative. Such
Page 19
Page 419
easements must not impede the long-term use of the lands and will be at the
discretion of the Director of Public Works.
(3) The Owner shall cause all utilities, including hydro, telephone, and cable
television within the streets of this development to be installed underground
for both primary and secondary services.
Part 7 — Standard Notices and Warnings
7.1 The Owner shall include a clause in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots
informing the purchaser of all applicable development charges in accordance with
subsection 58(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, C.27.
7.2 The Owner shall include the notices and warnings clauses set out in Schedule 3 of
the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement in Agreements of Purchase and
Sale for all Blocks.
7.3 The Owner shall include the following notices and warning clauses in Agreements
of Purchase and Sale for the Blocks to which they apply:
7.4 Noise Report
(1) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase
and Sale for units in Blocks 9 to 16 as identified on site plan, project 07071,
dated April 2015, and the Apartment Building:
Purchasers/tenants are advised that due to the proximity of the adjacent
commercial facilities, noise from the commercial facilities may at times be
audible."
(2) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase
and Sale for all units in the Apartment
Building—
Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of noise control
features in the development and within the building units, sound levels due to
increasing road traffic may on occasions interfere with some activities of the
dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the
Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks."
(3) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase
and Sale for all units in the Apartment Building:
"This dwelling unit has been supplied with a central air conditioning system
which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby
ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the
Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks."
Pag(_ 110
Page 420
7.5 Canada Post Corporation
The Owner shall include the following notice in the agreements of purchase and sale
for all lots:
"Mail Service - Purchasers are advised that Canada Post intends to service
this property through the use of community mailboxes and lock box assembly
that may be located in several locations within this subdivision."
7.6 Nearby Farm Operations
The Owner shall include the following warning clause in agreements of purchase
and sale for all lots:
"Farm Operations —There are existing greenhouse farming
operations nearby and that such farming activities may give rise to
noise, odours, truck traffic and outdoor lighting resulting from normal
farming practices which may occasionally interfere with some activities
of the occupants."
Part 8 - Clearance
8.1 Prior to final approval of the plan for registration, the Municipality's Director of
Planning and Development Services shall be advised in writing by,
(a) the Region of Durham how Conditions 6.1 have been satisfied;
(b) the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority how Conditions how
Conditions 6.2 have been satisfied;
(c) Canada Post how Conditions 6.4 have been satisfied;
Part 9 — Notes to Draft Approval
9.1 Terms used in these conditions that are not otherwise defined have the meanings
given to them in the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement.
9.2 As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all
conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft
approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to
final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at
any time prior to final approval.
9.3 If final approval is not given to this plan within Three (3) years of the draft approval
date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file
shall be closed. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is
submitted to the Director of Planning and Development Services for the
Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date.
9.4 Where an agency requirement is required to be included in the Municipal
subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agency in
order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The
'age 111
Page 421
addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are:
(a) Durham Regional Planning Department, 605 Rossland Road East, P.O. Box
623, Whitby, Ontario L1 N 6A3 (905) 668-7721.
(b) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa,
Ontario LIH 3T3 (905) 579-0411.
(c) Canada Post, Metro Toronto Region, 1860 Midland Ave. 2nd Floor
Scarborough ON, M1 P 5A1
\\netapp5\group\Planning\^Department\Appli cation Files�ZBA-Zoning\2016�ZBA2016-0031 Brookhill Boulevard (SPA2017-0013)\Draft Approval\S-C-2018-0002 Conditions of
Draft Approval_5'Nov'2020.docx
Page 112
Page 422
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-058-20
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2020-
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for
the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to amend By-law 84-63 of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for
ZBA2016-0031;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 15.4 "Special Exceptions — Urban Residential Type Four (R4) Zone" is
amended by adding Special Exception Zone 15.4.46 as follows:
15.4.46 Urban Residential Exception (R4-46) Zone
Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 c., g. iv), 3.22 g.; 15.1 a., 15.2 a., c., d., e., f., g., h.,
and i those lands zoned R4-46 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be
used for an apartment building, stacked townhouse dwelling and link townhouse
dwelling.
a. Density (maximum) 140 units per hectare
i) Maximum number of townhouse units 119 units
ii) Maximum number of apartment units 86 units
b. Regulations for Link Townhouse Dwellings
For the purposes of establishing regulations for each Stacked Townhouse
Dwelling, the following specific regulations shall apply as if each unit is
located on a lot.
i) Lot area (minimum) 100 square metres
ii) Lot frontage (minimum) 4.5 metres
iii) Lot coverage (maximum) 75 percent
iv). Yard Requirements (minimum)
a) Front Yard 4.0 metres to a dwelling
6.0 metres to a garage door
b) Interior side yard 1.5 metres,
nil where a building has a common wall with
any adjacent unit in the same zone
c) Exterior side yard 4.20 metres to a private lane
2.3 metres to a visitor parking space
Page 423
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\1583576545\15835. 3,,,Attachment 2 to Report PSD-058-20.docx
c
Z
d) Rear Yard 4.0 metres to a dwelling
2.5 metres to a porch fronting a public street
2.5 metres to a porch fronting onto amenity space
v) Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 10 percent
vi) Building Height (maximum) 12.0 metres
Where a Link Townhouse Dwelling Lot is a through lot with frontage on
both a Public Street and a Private Lane, the lot line along the Public Street
shall be deemed to be the Rear Lot Line.
vii) Special Yard Regulations
a) An unenclosed and uncovered deck with a minimum height
of 2.5 metres may encroach into the required front yard a
maximum of 4.0 metres provided it is located over a parking
space provided at grade.
Regulations for Stacked Townhouse Dwellings
i) For the purposes of establishing regulations for each Stacked
Townhouse Dwelling, the following specific regulations shall apply
as if each unit is located on a lot.
ii) Lot Area (minimum) 80 square metres
iii) Lot Frontage (minimum) 6.5 metres
iv) Lot coverage (maximum) 80 percent
v) Yard Requirements (minimum)
a) Front Yard
6.0 metres to a garage
4.0 metres to a dwelling
2.5 metres to a porch
b) Exterior Side Yard
4.0 metres to a dwelling
2.0 metres to a porch
c) Interior side yard
2.0 metres, Nil where a building
has a common wall with any building
on an adjacent unit in the same zone
d) Rear Yard
Nil where a building has
a common wall with any building on
an adjacent unit in the same zone
vi) Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 7 percent
vii) Building Height (maximum) 12.0 metres
viil) Special Yard Regulation
a) An unenclosed and uncovered deck with a minimum height
of 2.5 metres may encroach into the required front yard a
maximum of 4.0 metres provided it is located over a parking
space provided at grade.
Regulations for Apartment Building
i) Yard Requirements (minimum)
a) Front Yard
Page 424
4.5 metres
b) Exterior Side Yard 4.5 metres
c) From a private lane or visitor parking space 4.5 metres
ii) Dwelling Unit Area (minimum)
a) One Bedroom Dwelling Unit 43.0 square metres
b) Two Bedroom Dwelling Unit 62.0 square metres
iii) Lot coverage (maximum) 50 percent
iv) Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 25 percent
v) Building Height (maximum) 23.0 metres
v) Building Height (maximum) 6 Storeys
vii) Bicycle Parking (minimum)
a) 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit
b) 75% of the required spaces shall be within a building or
structure
viii) Parking structure regulations (minimum)
a) Setback from the property line 0.6 metres
b) No portion of the underground parking structure, above
finished grade, shall be located within the front or exterior
side yard, with the exception of air intake or exhaust shafts
not exceeding 0.5 metres above finished grade.
e. Provisions for Watermeter Building
i) Yard Requirements (minimum)
a) Setback from a private lane 1.0 metres
2. Schedule `3' to By-law 84-63, is amended by changing the zone designation from
"Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Urban Residential Exception (R4-46) Zone" as
illustrated on the attached Schedule `A' hereto.
3. Schedule `A' attached forms part of this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
By -Law passed in open session this day of , 2020
Adrian Foster, Mayor
Page 425 June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Clarington
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: December 7, 2020 Report Number: PSD-059-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: PLN 34.5.2.55 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Proposed Amendment to Heritage Designation By-law 2014-84; 210 and
224 King Ave. W, Newcastle
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-059-20 be received;
2. That the Municipal Clerk and staff be authorized to carry out the necessary actions,
including the notification to amend the designation By-law 2014-084 for 210 and 224
King Avenue W. pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18;
3. That the Mayor and Municipal Clerk be authorized to enact the amending By-law,
being Attachment 2 to Report PSD-059-20, to amend heritage designation By-law
2014-84; and
4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-059-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision.
Page 426
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-059-20
Report Overview
Page 2
The Planning and Development Services Department received a request from the owner of
224 King Avenue West, Newcastle to amend the legal description of designation By-law
2014-084 under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Heritage designation By-law 2014-084 applies to lands which formerly consisted of the
original parcel at 210 King Ave. W. In 2017, the lands were severed to create one additional
lot (224 King Ave. W), and lands on the east side of the designated dwelling were dedicated
to the Municipality for a future trail.
The purpose of this report is to recommend the designation By-law 2014-084 legal
description be updated.
1. Background
1.1 In 1995, Council approved By-law 95-30 to designate 210 King Avenue W., known as
`the Hollows', in Newcastle under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The lands
subject to the heritage designation are illustrated in the Key Map within Figure 1, below.
1.2 In 2014, designation By-law 95-30 was repealed and replaced with designation By-law
2014-084 (Attachment 1), which updated the By-law in accordance with OHA
requirements and modified the list of identified heritage attributes by removing certain
interior attributes from the By-law.
1.3 In 2017, a Land Division Application (File No. LD 078/2015) was approved to sever the
subject lands (210 King Ave. W.) to create one additional lot for residential purposes
(224 King Ave. W). As part of the application, lands to the east of the dwelling were
dedicated to the Municipality for a future trail (see Figure 1). At the time of the Land
Division Application it was determined the severance would not affect the designated
heritage attributes of the property.
1.4 The heritage designation By-law 2014-084 registered to the subject lands was not
updated subsequent to the severance of the property, and as such is still registered
against the newly created lot (224 King Ave. W), and the Municipality's future trail lands.
1.5 The property owner of the newly created lot has requested the heritage designation be
removed from 224 King Ave. W. at this time in order to facilitate the sale of the lands. It
would remove 224 King Ave. W from the lands subject to the heritage designation by-
law. The by-law must be amended to change the legal description in accordance with
the OHA.
Page 427
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-059-20
Page 3
_ __ ■11111;
�
®
�
�
�
�
� ®� ®
,
IIIIIIIIC = ■11 � J�
°"ram
m
�� � ma
MOVE
Illll _�, ■ :'
®
i ,
1■111111111� 1■1 111.
.,
r'am
pp _ �
�. 1111111111
.
1
1111111111HE ► '��
ll Ilry��� ■ ■•i■C
� IIIIIIIIIIP. �� �
1`f ► IMEN 11� "�� Ir 11� ■
-login
Figure 1: Aerial Photo and Key Map; Subject Lands; 210 King Ave. W, 224 King Ave. W and
Future Trail Lands
2. Ontario Heritage Act Regulations
2.1 The OHA empowers a municipality to pass a by-law designating a property of cultural
heritage value or interest. Section 30.1 of the OHA states that where Council intends to
amend a designation by-law the Clerk of the Municipality is to serve notice of the
amendment to the designation by-law on the affected property owner(s).
Page 428
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-059-20
Page 4
2.2 The notice of intent to amend a designation by-law is to contain an explanation of the
purpose and effect of the proposed amendment and to give the owner the opportunity to
file an objection with the Clerk within 30 days of receiving the notice.
2.3 The OHA requires Council consult with its Heritage Committee prior to amending a
designation by-law. The Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC) has been informed of the
request to amend the designation By-law 2014-84. CHC members have not indicated
any objection to the proposed technical amendment. However, the CHC does not meet
again until January.
3. Discussion
3.1 At the time of the Land Division application (File LD 078/2015), the severance of the
lands to the west of the heritage dwelling to create a new lot was considered not to
affect the designated heritage attributes of the property. The proposed amendment to
designation By-law 2014-084 would correct the legal description to reflect the current
extent of the designated property at 210 King Ave. W.
3.2 The proposed amendment to designation By-law 2014-084 also includes the removal of
the lands for the future municipal trail to the east of the dwelling at 210 King Ave. W.
The proposed amendment will update designation By-law 2014-084 to reflect the
revised extent of the designated heritage property.
3.3 The property at 224 King Ave. W is designated and zoned for residential purposes by
Clarington's Official Plan and Zoning By-law 84-63. The lot currently supports an
accessory building without a principle use (e.g. a dwelling). The structure was
recognized as legal non -complying by Minor Variance Application (File A2016-0071)
approved in conjunction with the Land Division Application to create the lot. As per the
conditions of approval of the Minor Variance Application, the accessory building is not
permitted to be used for any purpose until such time as a permitted principle use has
been established on the lot.
3.4 In accordance with the conditions of the Consent Agreement registered on title of 224
King Ave. W, any house proposed to be developed on the subject lands shall be built in
accordance with the applicable Architectural Control designs. Further, the design must
be sympathetic to and not detract from the designated heritage dwelling on the abutting
property (210 King Ave. W.).
3.5 In accordance with the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and the
OHA, any development proposed at 224 King Ave. W. will be evaluated and required to
demonstrate that the heritage attributes of the designated heritage property at 210 King
Ave. W. will be conserved.
Page 429
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-059-20
Page 5
3.6 As per the OHA, should no objections to the proposed amendment be received within
the prescribed 30-day objection period following issuance of the Notice of Intent to
amend the designation by-law, the Mayor and Clerk can execute the amending by-law
(Attachment 2). Any objections to the proposed amendment will be referred to the
Conservation Review Board, in accordance with the requirements of the OHA.
4. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Planning and Development Services received a request from the owner of the property
at 224 King Ave. W., Newcastle to remove the heritage designation on the severed
property by amending designation By-law 2014-084.
5.2 Heritage designation By-law 2014-084 applies to lands which formerly consisted of a
larger parcel at 210 King Ave. W. In 2017, the lands were severed to create one
additional lot (224 King Ave. W). Lands on the east side of the designated dwelling were
dedicated to the Municipality for a future trail.
5.3 It is recommended that the Municipal Clerk prepare and send the required Notice of
Intention pursuant to subsection 30.1 of the OHA to amend heritage designation By-law
2014-084 to correct the legal description to reflect the existing extent of the designated
heritage property at 210 King Ave. W.
Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Planner II, 905-623-3379 x 2419 or sallin@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Heritage Designation By-law 2014-084
Attachment 2 — Draft by-law to amend By-law 2014-084
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 430
Attachment 1 to Report PSD-059-20
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2014-084
being a by-law to designate the property known for municipal purposes
as 210 King Avenue West, Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington as a
property of historic or architectural value or interest under the Ontario
Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 0.18
WHEREAS the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.0.18 authorizes the Council
of the Municipality to enact by-laws to designate properties to be of historic or
architectural value or interest for the purposes of the Act; and
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington has
caused to be served upon the owner of the property known for municipal purposes
at 210 King Avenue West, Newcastle and upon the Ontario Heritage Foundation,
Notice of Intention to Designate the aforesaid real property and has caused such
Notice of Intention to be published in the Clarington This Week, a newspaper
having general circulation in the area of the designation on May 28, 2014; and
WHEREAS the reasons for the designation of the aforesaid property under the
Ontario Heritage Act are contained in Schedule "A" attached to and forming part of
this by-law; and
WHEREAS the Clarington Heritage Committee has recommended that the property
known for municipal purposes as 210 King Avenue West, Newcastle, be designated
as a property of historic or architectural value or interest under the Ontario Heritage
Act; and
WHEREAS no notice of objection to the proposed designation was served upon
the Municipal Clerk within the period prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The property known for municipal purposes at 210 King Avenue West,
Newcastle, which is more particularly described in Schedule "B" which is
attached to and forms part of this by-law, is hereby designated as a property
which has historic or architectural value or interest under Section 29 of the
Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.,0.18.
2. The Solicitor for the Municipality of Clarington is hereby authorized to cause a
copy of this by-law to be registered against the title to the property described in
Schedule "B" hereto.
3. The Municipal Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be
served upon the owner of the property described in Schedule "B" hereto and
on the Ontario Heritage Foundation. The Municipal Clerk also is authorized
to cause notice of the passing of this by-law to be published in the Clarington
This Week, a newspaper having general circulation in the area of the
designation.
4. That by-law 95-30 be Repealed.
By-law passed in open session this 7t" day of July, 2014
Adrian Foster,,IVlayor
Municipal Clerk
Page 431
SCHEDULE `A"
TO BY-LAW NO. 2014-084
Description of Property
"The Hollows", 210 King Avenue West in Part Lot 29, Concession 2, former Village of
Newcastle. The Hollows is a 2-storey structure found on the north side of King Avenue
West (also known as the King's Highway 2). The frame building incorporates elements
from separate periods of the 19t" century and is comprised of an older portion in the rear
and later addition and porch on the front, closest to the road.
Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest
The property's design and physical cultural heritage value lies in it being an excellent
example representative of Upper Canada vernacular style architecture which includes
the practice of building the house on an axis with a gable end forming the front facade.
The building also incorporates elements of an early trend in Edwardian Classicism
including its box -like massing, full two -storeys tall, largely devoid of exterior ornament
with the exception of its generous verandahs, classical columns, and chunky railing.
Also of note on the interior of the house are: the staircase leading to the kitchen and the
original pine flooring, early examples typical of a farmhouse kitchen; the main wooden
staircase which displays a high degree of craftsmanship; and the fireplace surrounds
and mantles with built in cast and copper burning units, a unique example of a
construction method.
The property's cultural heritage value lies in its association with prominent early settlers
and residents of Newcastle Village and Clarke Township. The property which
accommodates the building was part of a Crown grant to Captain John McGill, a high-
ranking government official and personal friend and associate of John Graves Simcoe.
McGill sold the lot in question in 1801 to Robert Baldwin, one of the first settlers of
Clarke Township. Robert Baldwin was also connected to Governor Simcoe. Baldwin
was appointed by Simcoe as the Lieutenant of Durham County (1804-1807). This
official title and role was Governor Simcoe's attempt to promote aristocracy, which met
with disapproval by the Home Government and was soon abandoned.
The oldest section of the frame house was built around 1830, at a time when that part of
the village was known as Crandell's Corners. Very few houses in Newcastle Village of
this age remain. The two-story portion of the building and porch at the front were a later
addition constructed by a Newcastle carpenter named Poole in the early 1900s. The
house was known as "The Hollows" and owned by Major David Bennett, who ran an
antique business and resided there for many years.
The property's contextual cultural heritage value lies in its importance in defining,
maintaining or supporting the character of the area as a gateway feature in the Foster
Creek Valley as you enter/exit Historic Downtown Newcastle.
Page 432
Description of Heritage Attributes
Key attributes of the structure that reflect its values as an example of Upper Canada
vernacular style and Edwardian Classicism include:
- The frame facade;
- The two storey L-shaped verandah and verandah rails;
- Material and location of the 2 over 2 sash windows and storms;
- The three 20 paned windows and large paned windows;
- Material and location of the two main wooden doors, one from the 1830s portion
and one from the 1900s portion
Key attributes of the structure that reflect its value in defining the character of the
historic west entrance to Newcastle Village include:
- Its location in the valley of the Foster Creek on the former Danforth Road (now
Highway 2) at the western extent of the village
Page 433
SCHEDULE 'B'
TO BY-LAW 2014-084
Legal Description
LT 3 BLK Q PL Village of Newcastle Hannings PL Dated 1868 Newcastle PT LT
2 BLK Q PL Village of Newcastle Hannings PL Dated 1868 Newcastle PT LT 4
BLK Q PL Village of Newcastle Hannings PL Dated 1868 Newcastle PTS 1 & 2
10R1848 except PT 9 10R3101
Page 434
Attachment 2 to Report PSD-059-20
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2020-
being a By-law to Amend By-law 2014-084, being the Heritage Designation of
210 King Avenue West (Part of lots 2, 3, and 4, Block Q, Village of Newcastle,
Hannings Plan dated 1868, Clarington) under the Ontario Heritage Act
WHEREAS By-law 2014-084 was intended to designate the property known as `The
Hollows' located at 210 King Avenue West, Newcastle as a property of cultural heritage
value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act;
AND WHEREAS Section 30.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18
authorizes the Council of a municipality to amend a by-law designating property under
that Act;
AND WHEREAS the property has been severed (File No. LD 078/2015) and the
heritage designation does not apply to the severed portions of the former lot now
described as Part of Lots 2 & 3, Block Q, Newcastle, Hannings Plan dated 1868,
designed as Part 1, 40R-29574 t/w easement over part 4, 40R-29574, municipally
known as 224 King Avenue West, PIN 26658-0705 and Part of Lots 3 & 4, Block Q,
Newcastle, Hannings Plan dated 1868, designed as Part 3, 40R-29574, PIN 26658
0701.
AND WHEREAS the owner of the property known municipally as 224 King Avenue
West, Newcastle as applied to have the heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage
Act thereon amended in order to correct the legal description of the property;
NOW THEREFORE BE IS RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. That By-law 2014-084 is hereby amended by deleting the Legal Description
contained in Schedule `B' and replacing it with the following:
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\16195821702\16195821702,,,Attachment 2 to Report PSD-059-20.docx
Page 435
Legal Description
Part Lots 2 to 4, BLK Q, Village of Newcastle Hannings PL dated 1868;
Part 2, Plan 40R29574;
Municipality of Clarington
Regional Municipality of Durham
PIN 26658-0704 (LT)
2. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.
By -Law passed in open session this day of
2020
Adrian Foster, Mayor
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 436
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Planning and Development Committee
RESOLUTION #
DATE December 7, 2020
MOVED BY Councillor Joe Neal
SECONDED BY Councillor Janice Jones
That Council appoint an ad hoc Committee consisting of Staff, 3 members of
Council, and a member of the Jury Lands Foundation to negotiate in earnest with
the owner of the lands to attempt to resolve any issues such that the land can be
conveyed from the owner, along with a payment of funds as previously agreed to.
Page 437