HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-18 Agenda
Council
Agenda
Date:January 18, 2021
Time:7:00 p.m.
Location:Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) | 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: Michelle Chambers,
Administrative Assistant to the Clerk, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2101 or by email at
mchambers@clarington.net.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and video record of Council
meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a Council meeting, the Municipality will be
recording you and will make the recording public by publishing the recording 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
*Late Item added after the Agenda was published.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Moment of Reflection
3.Land Acknowledgement Statement
4.Declaration of Interest
5.Announcements
6.Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting(s)
6.1.Council Minutes - Minutes of a regular meeting of Council dated
December 14-15, 2020
6
7.Presentations
No Presentations.
8.Delegations
8.1.Randy Boissoin, Regarding Report PDS-001-21 Application to Amend
the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law (Item 2 of the Planning
and Development Committee Report)
9.Communications – Receive for Information
10.Communications – Direction
10.1.Tenzin Shomar, Executive Director, Clarington Youth Council,
Regarding Ward Boundary Review - Final Report (Item 3 of the General
Government Committee Report)
25
(Motion for Direction)
11.Committee Reports
11.1.Advisory Committee Reports
11.1.1.Minutes of the Agricultural Advisory Committee dated
December 10, 2020
27
31
Council Agenda
January 18, 2021
Page 2
11.1.2.Minutes of the Clarington Tourism Advisory Committee dated
December 3, 2020
11.1.3.Minutes of the Newcastle Memorial Arena Management Board
dated December 8, 2020
35
11.1.4.Minutes of the Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee dated
November 26, 2020
38
11.2.General Government Committee Report of January 4, 2021 42
11.3.Planning & Development Committee Report of January 11, 2021 48
12.Staff Reports
12.1.FSD-003-21 2021 COVID-19 Property Tax Deferral Program 55
13.Business Arising from Procedural Notice of Motion
14.Unfinished Business
14.1.FSD-004-21 2020/2021 Development Charges Background Study and
By-law
65
14.2.Resolution #GG-429-20, Regarding Correspondence from Melodie
Zarzeczny, Regarding Durham Hospice Clarington Update (Referred
from the November 30, 2020 General Government Committee Meeting)
195
Link to Correspondence
14.3.LGS-005-20 Municipal Law Enforcement Policy (Referred from the
December 14, 2020 Council Meeting)
Link to Report LGS-005-20
14.4.Minutes of a Special Meeting of December 9, 2020 (Referred from the
January 11, 2021 Planning and Development Committee Meeting)
Link to the December 9, 2020 Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
14.5.A.D. Lightstone, President, Valcoustics Canada Ltd., Regarding Noise
Studies of CP Railway Operations (Referred from the January 11, 2021
Planning and Development Committee Meeting)
Link to Correspondence
Council Agenda
January 18, 2021
Page 3
15.By-laws
15.1.2021-001 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632
from Part Lot Control
(Item 12 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.2.2021-002 - Being a By-law to Exempt a Certain Portion of Registered
Plan 40M-2614 from Part Lot Control
(Item 11 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.3.2021-003 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 2014-059 Entitled “a By-
law to Regulate Traffic and Parking on Highways, Private Property and
Municipal Property”
(Item 4 of the General Government Committee Report)
15.4.2021-004 - Being a By-law to Delegate Authority to Authorize the
Execution of Tax Arrears Extension Agreements Pursuant to Sections
378 of the Municipal Act, 2001
(Item 8 of the General Government Committee Report)
15.5.2021-005 - Being a By-law to Delegate Authority to the Assessment
Review Board to Exercise Certain Powers and Functions of Council
Pursuant to Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001
(Item 9 of the General Government Committee Report)
15.6.2021-006 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
196
(Item 7 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.7.2021-007 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
199
(Item 5 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.8.2021-008 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
200
(Item 8 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
Council Agenda
January 18, 2021
Page 4
15.9.2021-009 - Being a By-law to Constitute and Appoint a Committee of
Adjustment for the Municipality of Clarington pursuant to the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as Amended
(Item 10 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.10.2021-010 - Being a By-law to Impose Development Charges Against
Land in the Municipality of Clarington Pursuant to the Development
Charges Act, 1997
(Agenda Item 14.1)
15.11.2020-011 - Being a By-law to Impose Area-Specific Development
Charges Against Land in the Municipality of Clarington Pursuant to the
Development Charges Act,1997
(Agenda Item 14.1)
15.12.2021-012 - Being a By-law to Establish a Transparent, Consistent, Fair,
Unbiased, and Effective Process for Municipal Law Enforcement
(Agenda Item 14.3)
15.13.2021-013 Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive
Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
204
15.14.2021-014 - Being a By-law to Exempt Certain Portions of Registered
Plan 40M-2526 from Part Lot Control
208
16.Procedural Notices of Motion
17.Other Business
18.Confirming By-Law
19.Adjournment
Council Agenda
January 18, 2021
Page 5
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
Council Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
December 14-15, 2020
7:00 p.m.
Microsoft Teams
Present Were: Mayor A. Foster
Present Via Electronic
Means:
Councillor G. Anderson, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J.
Jones, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor M. Zwart
Staff Present: J. Gallagher, M. Chambers
Present Via Electronic
Means:
A. Allison, G. Acorn, L. Backus, S. Brake, A. Burke, F. Langmaid,
R. Maciver, T. Pinn, C. Salazar, G. Weir
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
Mayor Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Moment of Reflection
Councillor Anderson led the meeting in a moment of reflection.
3. Land Acknowledgement Statement
Councillor Anderson recited the Land Acknowledgement Statement.
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # C-504-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to add correspondence from the
following individuals regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment
for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment to the Agenda (Item
13.2):
Michael and Marian Chopik
Shawn Berger
Diane and Lance Crago
Edward Donnelly
Dale Hubble
Dave Winkle; and
Page 6
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
2
That Nick Pileggi be added as a delegation (Item 8.9) regarding Item 7 of the
General Government Committee Report - Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan -
Recommendation Report for Official Plan Amendment 124 -Report PSD-055-20.
Carried
4. Declaration of Interest
There were no declarations of interest stated at the meeting.
5. Announcements
Members of Council announced upcoming community events and matters of
community interest.
6. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting(s)
6.1 Minutes of a regular meeting of Council dated November 23-24, 2020
Resolution # C-505-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Council held on November 23 -24,
2020, be approved.
Carried
7. Presentations
7.1 George Rocoski, Chair, Energy from Waste-Waste Management Advisory
Committee (EFW-WMAC) , regarding the EFW-WMAC Annual Update
George Rocoski, Chair, Energy From Waste - Waste Management Advisory
Committee was present via electronic means regarding the Energy from Waste -
Waste Management Advisory Committee Annual Update. He made a verbal
presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. Mr. Rocoski reviewed the
current Committee members and provided an update on the current Committee's
work to date, which included tours of Durham Region Waste Management
Facilities. He noted that typically the Committee meets several times per year, with
the addition of two special meetings regarding the Durham Region Long-Term
Waste Management Plan for 2021-2041. He reviewed the main topics discussed at
the meetings held in 2020 and provided details on several motions passed by the
Committee with recommendations to be considered by Regional Staff for approval.
Mr. Rocoski provided a summary of the 2020 events which including tours of the
Durham Region Waste Management Facilities, updates on the Durham York
Energy Centre and the progress of the Organics Management proposal in Durham
Region, discussions on the Long-Term Waste Management Plan 2021-2041 and
the provinces proposed regulatory amendments to make producers responsible for
the operation Blue Box Programs. He concluded by noting this is the end of the
two-year term of the current Committee and asked Council to consider what they
would like the Committee to look like going forward into the new term. Mr. Rocoski
answered questions from the Members of Council.
Page 7
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
3
Resolution # C-506-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That the Presentation of George Rocoski, Chair, Energy from Waste-Waste
Management Advisory Committee (EFW -WMAC), regarding the EFW-WMAC
Annual Update, be received with thanks; and
That Council of the Municipality of Clarington encourages the Regional Public
Works Committee to ensure that full consideration is given to motions brought
forward by the EFW -WMAC.
Carried
Alter the Agenda
Resolution # C-507-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the Agenda be altered to consider Agenda Item 13.1 regarding the lifting of the
rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington, at this time.
Carried
13.1 Proposed Lifting Motion regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law
Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Resolution # C-508-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the matter of the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE
Clarington be lifted from the table.
Carried
8. Delegations
8.1 Stephen Shine regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment
for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Stephen Shine's name was called, and he was not present.
8.2 Peter Thorne regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment
for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Peter Thorne was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the
Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment. He explained that the expansion of the Environmentally Protected
(EP) designation has been confusing and this large expansion of EP designation is
a concern. Mr. Thorne explained that a portion of his land falls within the EP
designation. He advised Council that he applied to sever his land which is when he
learned about the restrictions of EP land. Mr. Thorne noted that he was advised
Page 8
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
4
that he would not be permitted to sever the land unless he gave 30% of his land to
the Municipality. He noted that he wants people to be made more aware of the
control of the EP designation. Mr. Thorne explained that Planning Staff visited his
property and the decision initially did not change and he was expected to pay for a
survey of his property and 5% tax in lieu of the donation of parkland. He added that
initially he was advised that five meters would be donated to the Municipal but after
the assessment he was asked to donate 15 meters and was told that the proposed
trail would start right in front of his home. Mr. Thorne requested a meeting with all
parties involved and the trail was redesigned to be further away from his property
and the requested land was reduced back to five meters. He added that the land
has since been severed, and the property was sold. Mr. Thorne concluded by
stating that the expansion of EP designation will result in further frustration and
backlash. He asked the Members of Council to come together and make a
common sense decision. Mr. Thorne answered questions from the Members of
Council.
8.3 Gord Robinson regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment
for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Gord Robinson was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the
Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment. Mr. Robinson advised the Members of Council that he wanted to
address the lifting and the two associated motions regarding rural portion of the
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. He stated that he feels both proposed
motions will allow the rural portion of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
move forward. Mr. Robinson believes the issues were created from the previous
Council, and encouraged the Members of Council to listen to the 2016 audio when
the Official Plan Amendment was considered and Council decided not to notify the
public. He stated that he has asked several times why additional EP designations
have been added and that he has not heard back from Staff. Mr. Robinson
explained that the rural property owners were advised, at a Town Hall, that going
forward the notification would be better. He asked why the motion for the proposed
review of the Greenbelt expansion for the properties was addressed so quickly, yet
the rural zoning issues have not been dealt with. Mr. Robinson concluded by
asking Members of Council to support Councillor Neal's motion and for it not to be
referred back to Staff. He answered questions from the Members of Council.
8.4 Alan Herring regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for
ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Alan Herring was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the
Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment. He explained that he supports the motions to move forward with the
rural portion of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Mr. Herring asked for the
proper notification, transparency and for Clarington to learn from the lessons of
East Gwillimbury. He stated that the mapping is wrong and this issue is weighing
heavily on the rural community and property owners. Mr. Herring asked for the
overreach to be corrected. He referred to a survey of his property and several
Page 9
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
5
maps including aerial and maps provided by Clarington Staff. Mr. Herring reviewed
the features and details of his property in relation to the EP designation.
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # C-509-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the delegation of Mr. Herring
for an additional two minutes.
Carried
Mr. Herring continued by explaining the issues with the mapping in relation to the
12 acres of his property. He answered questions from the Members of Council.
8.6 Bev Oda regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for
ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Bev Oda was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the Zoning
By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment. She noted the issue of EP land designation in rural Clarington was
brought to the attention of the rural property owners over 18 months ago. Ms. Oda
noted that the residents have provided comments on the matter by way of
correspondence and delegations. She feels there have been some improvements
however, as noted in a reply from Minister Steven Clark, Clarington added
additional EP land over the provincial requirements. Ms. Oda asked for only the
provincial requirements for EP land be included. She stated that she supports
Councillor Neal's proposed motion as she feels it is trying to find a solution and
shows that Council has listened to the residents. Ms. Oda added that she feels
Councillor Anderson's motion is made with the best of intentions but is too open
ended and does not address the issues. She reviewed the proposed options are
and stated that Councillor Anderson's motion will not satisfy the rural property
owners, will cause further frustration, and does not address East Gwillimbury. Ms.
Oda concluded by asking the Members of Council to support Councillor Neal's
motion. She answered questions from the Members of Council.
Recess
Resolution # C-510-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the Council recess for 10 minutes.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 9:04 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
Page 10
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
6
8.7 Sandrello Scimo regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law
Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Sandrello Scimo's name was called and was not present.
8.5 Carl Van Belle regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment
for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Carl Van Belle was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the
Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment. He thanked the Members of Council for voting unanimously to
remove the review of the proposed Greenbelt expansion for property owners south
of Highway 2 in Bowmanville. Mr. Van Belle is asking for Special Area 2 -
Greenbelt to be removed from the Clarington Officia l Plan as a Greenbelt
Designation. He asked why the property owners were not notified of Special Study
Area 2 and where this area was included in the maps when it was added to the
Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Van Belle does not feel that there is a need to add
more Greenbelt in Clarington. He asked how Council plans to notify the property
owners and he feels all property owners should be notified directly by mail and not
by newspaper ad. He concluded by asking for the Members of Council to support
Councillor Neal's motion and that Special Study Area 2 be deleted from the
Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Van Belle answered questions from the Members of
Council.
8.8 Jim Hamilton regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment
for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Jim Hamilton was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the
Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment. He explained he was present on behalf of the 200 landowners on
south side of Highway 2 in Bowmanville. Mr. Hamilton thanked the Members of
Council for rescinding the proposed Greenbelt expansion for this area. He noted
that he supports Councillor Neal's motion to specifically remove Special Study Area
2 in the Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Hamilton believes Councillor Neal's motion is
very specific, he has done his research, and addresses the issues. He asked the
Members of Council to support this motion to give direction Staff. Mr. Hamilton
concluded by asking for the proper notification to be given and for transparency on
the matter. He answered questions from the Members of Council.
8.9 Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., regarding Report PSD-055-20,
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Study
Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., was present via electronic means
regarding Report PSD-055-20, Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Study. He
explained he was present on behalf of White Owl Properties Ltd. (formerly Miller
Group). Mr. Pileggi noted that he provided correspondence which included
comments on specific policies and more specifically the policy which deals with
warning clauses in purchase and sale agreements. Mr. Pileggi requested that his
correspondence be forwarded to the Region of Durham for their consideration as
Page 11
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
7
part of the Official Plan Amendment prior to the final approval of the Secondary
Plan. Mr. Pileggi answered questions from the Members of Council.
Alter the Agenda
Resolution # C-511-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Agenda be altered to consider item 13.2 regarding the rural portion of the
Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington, at this time.
Carried
13.2 Proposed Motion from Councillor Neal for the Rural Portion of Zoning By-law
Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Resolution # C-512-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Staff be directed to bring forth a zoning by-law amendment which:
i. Retains the EP zoning in place prior to the zoning by-law review;
ii. Includes schedules from other authorities as additional information in the
zoning by-law listing applicable land use regulations;
iii. Contains advisories with respect to the obligations to comply with land use
controls of external agencies.
That Staff take all steps necessary to amend Clarington’s Official Plan (the “OPA
Amendment”) by way of a municipally initiated amendment, with the Natural
Heritage designation in Map D and Environmental Protection Area in Map A of the
Official Plan being limited to:
a. Provincially Significant Wetland;
b. Areas designated by CLOCA as being within a floodplain (red line on
CLOCA maps);
c. Areas designated by the GRCA as being within a floodplain;
d. Land designated on the current Region of Durham Official Plan, Schedule B
Map B-1 as containing Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features;
e. Land which is Significant Woodland;
That Section 17.3 of the Official Plan Special Study Area 2 -Greenbelt Expansion be
deleted.
That if any other amendments to the Official Plan are subsequently required as a
result of refined mapping, they shall be at no cost to the landowners for application
fees.
Page 12
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
8
Yes (7): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones,
Councillor Neal, Councillor Traill, and Councillor Zwart
Carried as Amended on a Recorded Vote Later in the Meeting, See following
Motions (7 to 0)
Resolution # C-513-20
Moved by Councillor Anderson
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Council to speak to
the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 for a second time.
Carried
Resolution # C-514-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Council to speak to
the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 for a third time.
Carried
Resolution # C-515-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Traill
That the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 be amended with the following changes to
paragraph one:
"That the words "report together with a draft" be inserted after the words "bring
forth".”
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 # C-516-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 be amended by adding the following as
2f:
"That land be included which is mandated by the Province to be designated
as Natural Heritage."
Carried
Page 13
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
9
Resolution # C-517-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 be amended with the following changes to
Paragraph 3:
"That the words "Staff initiate all public consultation such that" be inserted
after the word ”That”; and
That the word "deleted" be replaced with the word "reconsidered"."
Carried
The foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 was then carried as amended on a recorded
vote.
Suspend the Rules
Resolution # C-518-20
Moved by Councillor Anderson
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting until 12:00 a.m.
Carried
Recess
Resolution # C-519-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That the Council recess for 10 minutes.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 11:00 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
9. Communications – Receive for Information
None
Page 14
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
10
10. Communications – Direction
10.1 Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., regarding Report PSD-055-20,
Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Study
10.2 Correspondence regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law
Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
10.3 Gioseph Annello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham
regarding the Region of Durham's Long-Term Waste Management Plan 2021-
2041 (Response to Linda Gasser's Comments)
Resolution # C-520-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That Communications Item 10.1 to 10.3 be approved on consent as follows:
That Correspondence Item 10.1 from Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson
Ltd., regarding Report PSD-055-20, Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan
Study, be referred to the consideration of Item 7 of the General Government
Committee Report.
That the individuals who submitted correspondence regarding the rural
portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a
Clarington Official Plan Amendment, be advised of actions taken.
That the Correspondence Item 10.3 from Gioseph Annello, Director, Waste
Management Services, Region of Durham regarding the Region of Durham's
Long-Term Waste Management Plan 2021-2041, be referred to the
consideration of Item 1a of the Planning and Development Committee
Report.
Carried
11. Committee Reports
11.1 Advisory Committee Reports
11.1.1 Minutes of the Newcastle Arena Board dated November 10, 2020
11.1.2 Minutes of the Accessibility Advisory Committee dated December 2, 2020
Resolution # C-521-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That Advisory Committee Report Items 11.1.1 and 11.1.2, be approved.
Carried
Page 15
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
11
11.2 General Government Committee Report of November 30, 2020
Resolution # C-522-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the recommendations contained in the General Government Com mittee
Report of November 30, 2020 be approved on consent, with the exception of items
3, 8, and 16.
Carried
Item 3 - Municipal Law Enforcement Policy
Resolution # C-523-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Report LGS-005-20 - Municipal Law Enforcement Policy, be referred to the
January 18, 2021 Council Meeting.
Carried
Item 8 - Bowmanville Tennis Club – Lease Renewal
Resolution # C-524-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Report FND-050-20 be received;
That a lease extension agreement with the Bowmanville Tennis Club for the term
January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 be approved and to authorize the Mayor
and the Municipal Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the Municipality;
That the current annual rent of $1,630.80 be adjusted on December 31 of each year
by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Items Ontario,
(most current issue) as published by Statistics Canada;
That the Board of the Bowmanville Older Adult Association and the Bowmanville
Tennis Club be advised of Council’s decision.
Yes (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill
No (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwart
Motion Lost on a Recorded Vote (3 to 4)
Resolution # C-525-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That Report FND-050-20 be received;
Page 16
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
12
That a lease extension agreement with the Bowmanville Tennis Club for the term
January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 be approved and to authorize the Mayor
and the Municipal Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the Municipality;
That the current annual rent of $1,630.80 be adjusted on December 31 of each year
by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Items Ontario,
(most current issue) as published by Statistics Canada;
That the Purchasing Manager in consultation with the Director of Community
Services be given the authority to extend the lease agreement for up to three (3)
additional one (1) year terms to expire on December 31, 2024;
That the Board of the Bowmanville Older Adult Association and the Bowmanville
Tennis Club be advised of Council’s decision.
Yes (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor
Zwart
No (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill
Carried on a Recorded Vote (4 to 3)
Item 16 - 2021 CUPE Negotiations -Open Session Resolution
Resolution # C-526-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), attached to Report CAO-022-20
as Attachment 1, between CUPE Local 74 –Outside Bargaining Unit and the
Municipality of Clarington be approved to extend all the terms and conditions for the
Outside Bargaining Unit, for one additional year, to expire December 31, 2021;
That, consistent with past practice, student, non-permanent part-time employees
and special purpose and committee position rates be adjusted at the same rate as
the Outside CUPE employees, effective January 1 or July 1, as appropriate for
each group, and as included in the annual budget;
That, consistent with past practice, the terms and conditions of employment for
unionized employees as provided for under the extension MOU, be approved for
non-affiliated employees; and
That CUPE Local 74 Executive be thanked for their continued efforts to work
effectively with the Municipality, and that they be advised of Council’s decision.
Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones,
and Councillor Zwart
No (2): Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill
Carried on a Recorded Vote Later in the Meeting, See following Motions (5 to
2)
Page 17
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
13
Resolution # C-527-20
Moved by Councillor Traill
Seconded by Councillor Neal
That the foregoing Resolution #C-526-20 be referred to the end of the Agenda to be
considered during Closed Session.
Carried
11.3 Planning & Development Committee Report of December 7, 2020
Resolution # C-528-20
Moved by Councillor Anderson
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the recommendations contained in the Planning and Development Committee
Report of December 7, 2020 be approved on consent, with the exception of items 7,
8, and 11
Carried
Item 7 - Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan – Recommendation Report for
Official Plan Amendment 124
Resolution # C-529-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Report PSD-055-20 be received;
That Official Plan Amendment 124 to include the Southeast Courtice Secondary
Plan in the Clarington Official Plan be adopted with the addition of Section 5.4.5 as
follows:
Private streets and private lanes are not permitted within the Low Density
Urban Residential Designation;
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;
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;
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;
That the Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to execute
any agreements to implement the Secondary Plan once adopted by Council;
That OPA 124 be forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval; and
Page 18
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
14
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.
Carried
Item 8 - Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block of 17
Townhouse Units within a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Resolution # C-530-20
Moved by Councillor Zwart
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Report PSD-056-20 be received;
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;
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;
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;
That no further Public Meeting be required for the future Common Elements
Condominium;
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
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-056-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones,
and Councillor Zwart
No (2): Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill
Carried on a Recorded Vote (5 to 2)
Item 11 - Bill 229
Resolution # C-531-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That the matter of the Municipality of Clarington's concerns with the passing of
Schedule 6, regarding amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, of Bill 229,
Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020, be
received for information.
Carried
Page 19
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
15
11.4 Special Planning and Development Committee Report of December 9, 2020
Resolution # C-532-20
Moved by Councillor Jones
Seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the recommendations contained in the Special Planning and Development
Committee Report of December 9, 2020 be approved on consent, with the
exception of Item 2 which is amended as follows:
"That the following be added to the end of Confidential Resolution #CPD-008-20,
regarding the matter of Home Hardware’s Ministerial Zoning Order for 2423
Rundle Road:
That the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute the confidential draft
agreement, subject to the above modifications.”
Carried
12. Staff Reports
12.1 Report LGS-006-20 - Appointment of Deputy Clerk
Resolution # C-533-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That Report LGS-006-20 be received;
That John Paul Newman be appointed as Deputy Clerk fo r the Municipality of
Clarington; and
That the draft by-law, appointing John Paul Newman as Deputy Clerk, attached to
Report LGS-006-20 as Attachment 1, be approved.
Carried
13. Business Arising from Procedural Notice of Motion
13.1 Proposed Lifting Motion regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law
Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment.
Item 13.1 was considered earlier in the meeting immediately following the
Presentation portion of the Agenda.
13.2 Proposed Motion from Councillor Neal for the Rural Portion of Zoning By-law
Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Item 13.2 was considered earlier in the meeting immediately following the
Delegation portion of the Agenda.
Page 20
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
16
13.3 Proposed Motion from Councillor Anderson for the Rural Portion of Zoning
By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan
Amendment
Councillor Anderson withdrew his proposed motion regarding the rural portion of the
Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington.
13.4 Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (Motion to Remove All
Remaining Conditions)
Resolution # C-534-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That, in accordance with subsection 10.12.17 of the Procedural By-Law, Resolution
#C-418-20, regarding Council’s support of the Ministerial Zoning Order to change
the zoning of 2423 Rundle Road Bowmanville, previously adopted by Council at the
Special Council Meeting of October 26, 2020, be amended to remove the
conditions of support by deleting Paragraphs 2, and 4, which read:
That the applicant carrying out the necessary studies and implementing the
recommended works from:
Traffic Study;
Hydrological/Hydrogeological study;
Environmental Impact Study;
Servicing Study; and
Storm water management plan;
That should the Bowmanville site be redeveloped, the applicant commit that 25% of
the units be developed as affordable housing units (for low income families).
That the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised of:
(i) the foregoing deletion;
(ii) that the letter dated October 27, 2020 which was forwarded to the
Minister regarding Resolution C-418-20 is withdrawn and rescinded;
and
(iii) a replacement letter be sent advising the Minister of Resolution
#C-418-20, as amended above.
Carried
Page 21
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
17
14. Unfinished Business
14.1 Appointment of Department Liaisons and Deputy Mayor (Referred from the
November 30, 2020 General Government Committee Meeting)
Resolution # C-535-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That Resolution #GG-437-20 and Report CAO-023-20 regarding Department
Liaisons and the Deputy Mayor Appointments be referred to the January 4, 2021
General Government Committee meeting.
Carried
15. By-laws
15.1 2020-082 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
15.3 2020-084 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
15.4 2020-085 - Being a By-law to Appoint a Deputy Clerk
15.5 2020-086 - Being a By-law to Establish a Transparent, Consistent, Fair,
Unbiased, and Effective Process for Municipal Law Enforcement
15.6 2020-087 - Being a By-law to Authorize an Interim Tax Levy for 2021
15.7 2020-088 - Being a By-law to Authorize the Borrowing of $15,000,000 to Meet,
Until the Taxes are Collected, the Current Expenditures of the Municipality for
the Year 2021
15.9 2020-090 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 2009-123, the Sign By-law for the
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
15.10 2020-091 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning
By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Resolution # C-536-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That leave be granted to introduce By-laws 2020-082 to 2020-091 with the
exception of By-laws 2020-083, 2020-086 and 2020-089; and
That the said by-laws be approved.
Carried
Page 22
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
18
15.2 2020-083 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part
Lot Control
Resolution # C-537-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Item 15.2 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part
Lot Control be referred to the January 11, 2021, Planning and Development
Committee meeting.
Carried
15.8 2020-089 - Being a By-law to Exempt a Certain Portion of Registered Plan
40M-2614 from Part Lot Control
Resolution # C-538-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That Item 15.8 - Being a By-law to Exempt a Certain Portion of Registered Plan
40M-2614 from Part Lot Control, be referred to the January 11, 2021, Planning and
Development Committee meeting.
Carried
Closed Session
Resolution # C-539-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Anderson
That, in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended,
the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing a matter that deals with labour
relations or employee negotiations.
Carried
Rise and Report
The meeting resumed in open session at 12:14 a.m.
Mayor Foster advised that one item was discussed in “closed” session in
accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and one resolution was
passed on procedural matter and no resolutions were passed to provide direction to
staff.
Item 16 - 2021 CUPE Negotiations -Open Session Resolution - Continued
Resolution # C-540-20
Moved by Councillor Neal
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to
speak to the foregoing Resolution #C-526-20 for a second time.
Carried
Page 23
December 14-15, 2020
Council Minutes
19
The foregoing Resolution #C-526-20 was then carried on a recorded vote.
16. Procedural Notices of Motion
None
17. Other Business
None
18. Confirming By-Law
Resolution # C-541-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Jones
That leave be granted to introduce By-law 2020-092, being a by-law to confirm the
proceedings of the Council of the Municipality of Clarington at a regular meeting
held on the 14th to 15th day of December, 2020; and
That the said by-law be approved.
Carried
19. Adjournment
Resolution # C-542-20
Moved by Councillor Hooper
Seconded by Councillor Zwart
That the meeting adjourn at 12:22 a.m.
Carried
Mayor Municipal Clerk
Page 24
January 14, 2021
RE: Clarington Ward Boundary Review
Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council,
The Clarington Youth Council is a newly formed organization that represents youth across
Clarington. Over the coming months, we look forward to working with all of you to ensure that
the voices of Clarington youth are heard and that civic engagement amongst young people is
improved. In terms of our organizational structure, we are composed of an Executive Director
and two Youth Councillors representing each ward. We plan on making a delegation in the
coming months where we can introduce ourselves to Clarington Council and answer any
questions you may have about our organization. However, given that the Ward Boundary
Review is being considered at the January Council Meeting, we believe that our perspective
should be considered prior to Council making a final decision.
At our inaugural meeting on Januar y 11, Youth Council unanimously passed the following
motion:
“That the Clarington Youth Council request that Clarington Council not support the current
ward structure for the 2022 municipal election and consider supporting one of the options
outlined in the final report, or request that the consultants come back to Council with other
options.”
As Council is aware, Clarington is rapidly growing and the community looks much different than
in 1996, when Clarington’s ward boundaries were last reviewed. As Clarington changes, so too
should its ward boundaries. It is important to emphasize that we are not advocating for change
for the sake of change, as this would be unwise and irresponsible. Instead, we see Clarington’s
ward boundary review process as an opportunity for Council and the community to prioritize
which principles are most important in Clarington’s future ward structure.
Given Clarington’s unique geography, it is likely impossible to create perfect ward boundaries.
Youth Council understands that each option presented by Watson and Associates Economists
Ltd. has its own strengths and weaknesses. However, while each option presented by Watson
and Associates can support at least one of the guiding principles of effective representation, the
current ward boundaries fail to adequately meet any of them.
The current ward structure combines urban and rural interests in each of the four war ds. Some
may argue that the current boundaries ensures that each Councillor has a grasp of both urban
and rural issues. However, the main purpose of wards is to allow the community to send
representatives to Council who represent their distinct interests. In most cases, the concerns of
residents who live along Lake Ontario are different than those who live in the north. This is not
Page 25
to say that our current Council is unable to grasp rural issues. Instead, having distinct urban and
rural voices ensures increased accountability between constituents and councillors. There is
also the issue of population parity, something that our current structure fails to achieve. As we
set ward boundaries for the future, we must consider population trends and the importance of
equitable representation.
These principles are important, but they are often difficult to achieve at the same time. Youth
Council has analyzed all three options presented by Watson and Associates and feel that they
are all viable options for Council to consider. Option A allows for population parity and creates
a more natural divider for Bowmanville and slightly improved rural representation. Option B
greatly enhances rural representation and the expense of population parity. And while Youth
Council feels that the current size of Clarington Council is sufficie nt, the relatively low cost of an
additional ward may be worth a structure that balances competing principles. In any event,
Youth Council is of the belief that the current structure should be changed.
The decision before Clarington Council is a difficult one. The decision to undertake a ward
boundary review in the first place was an important one and we commend Clarington Council
for taking that initial step. The ward boundaries that Clarington Council adopts for the 2022
municipal elections are likely to be in place for the next 10-20 years. As such, the youth of today
will be using these ward boundaries to interact with their municipal government in the years to
come. With this in mind, we urge Council to change the ward boundaries, given that the curren t
boundaries are unsustainable. We would also suggest that Council can request that Watson and
Associates create new options based on further public consultation. If further consultation is
desired, we would be more than happy to participate in the process.
Thank you for your consideration and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us .
Best regards,
Tenzin Shomar
Executive Director, Clarington Youth Council
Email: claringtonyc@gmail.com
Page 26
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington Meeting
Thursday, December 10, 2020
Members Present: Eric Bowman John Cartwright Don Rickard
Tom Barrie Henry Zekveld Brenda Metcalf
Richard Rekker Les Caswell Councillor Zwart
Regrets: Jennifer Knox, Ben Eastman, Ted Watson
Staff: Amy Burke, Faye Langmaid – Planning and Development Services
Guests: MP Philip Lawrence, Northumberland-Peterborough South; Ryan
Cullen; Jordan McKay; Catherine Lokietek; Allison Brown, Region of
Durham Planning and Economic Development
Due to COVID 19 restrictions and to ensure social distancing, participation in the
meeting was electronic (using Microsoft Teams) and by conference call.
Eric welcomed all to the meeting, with introductions.
Declarations of interest
None.
Adoption of Agenda
020-23 Moved by John Cartwright, seconded by Richard Rekker
That the Agenda for December 10, 2020 be adopted.
Carried
Approval of Minutes
020-24 Moved by John Cartwright, seconded by Tom Barrie
That the minutes of the November 12, 2020 meeting be approved.
Carried
Page 27
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020
Presentation
Philip Lawrence, MP (Northumberland-Peterborough South): MP Lawrence
provided an overview and background on the private members bill that he introduced to
the legislature and is now in Second Reading. Private Members Bill, Bill C-206, An Act
to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, if passed, would extend the
exemption to paying the Federal Carbon Tax for qualifying farming fuel to marketable
natural gas and propane. These fuels are routinely used by farms for drying grain and
heating barns. MP Lawrence indicated that these types of farm fuel uses cannot be
reduced. As such, applying a Carbon Tax to these fuels would not incentivize an
appreciable reduction in their use. MP Lawrence stated that when the Carbon Tax in its
current format is fully escalated it will represent approximately 5% of the fuel cost that
farmers pay. A timeline for a final decision on the bill is not known at this time.
Delegations
None.
Business Arising from Minutes
“Share the Road” Signage: At the November Committee meeting a concern about the
busy nature of new Share the Road signs that have been seen in Durham Region
arose. With assistance from Allison Brown, it was clarified that these news signs are
from the Township of Scugog. The Region of Durham’s Share the Road signage has
not changed.
Request of Ministerial Zoning Order Resolution: Council has approved a
reconsideration of Resolution #C-418-20 discussed at the November AACC meeting,
and a resolution to revoke the following paragraph from that resolution:
“That the Province commit to reviewing the lands south of Highway 2 between Hwy 418
and Maple Grove Road for inclusion in the Greenbelt based on their contributions to the
systems of agriculture, natural heritage and water resources.”
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been advised of the revocation of this
request.
Special Study Area 2 in the Clarington Official Plan contains policies in relation to the
rural land located between Courtice and Bowmanville and Bowmanville and Newcastle,
north of Highway 401 and south of the Greenbelt Area. Policy direction to study the
agricultural value of these lands and to consider seeking the addition of any identified
high yielding agricultural lands to the Greenbelt stemmed from recommendation made
by the AACC during the Official Plan Review. In light of the growing concern in the
community about this policy direction, reconsideration may be needed. Committee
members were asked to review the background information and Special Study Area 2
policies previously circulated by Staff in advance of the next meeting. This matter will
be included on the January 2021 meeting agenda for discussion.
Page 28
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020
Correspondence, Council Items and Referrals
AACC 2021 – 2024 Member Appointments: On November 30, 2020 the General
Government Committee of Council made four appointment to the AACC for the 2021 –
2024 term, including reappointment of Committee members Brenda Metcalf and Henry
Zekveld. The appointments will be considered for ratification by Council on December
14, 2020.
This meeting was the final Committee meeting for longstanding members Ted Watson
and Les Caswell. Ted Watson was a founding member of the Committee. Sincere
appreciation was extended by the Committee for his hard work over many years to help
ensure that Council is informed on agriculture an agriculture-related issues. Great
thanks were also extended to Les Caswell for his time spent contributing to the
Committee and many of the Committee’s working groups.
Annual Update to Council: Annual AACC Report in development. Tentative dates for
the AACC Chair’s annual update are January 11 (Planning & Development Committee)
or January 18 (Council).
Liaison Reports
Durham Agriculture Advisory Committee: Tom Barrie provided an update from the
December 8 DAAC meeting in his email to all prior to the meeting. No further
discussion by the Committee.
Durham Region Federation of Agriculture: Rickard Rekker provided an update from
the November 18 DRFA meeting in his email to all prior to the meeting. No further
discussion by the Committee.
Clarington Board of Trade: Staff provided an update on the recent official opening of
the new Toyota warehouse in Bowmanville. The 350,000 square foot facility has
achieved high design standards for both environmental sustainability and accessibility.
New Business
Proposed Study on Soil Health: Correspondence from Hon. Robert Black (Senator –
Ontario) regarding this matter was forwarded to the Committee in advance of the
meeting. Mr. Black is seeking feedback and support on a potential request to the
Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for a new study to be
undertaken on the importance of soil health. The correspondence from Mr. Black
indicates that the last Federal report on soil health is 35 years old. Committee members
discussed a number of agencies and organizations that are engaged in similar work,
including OMAFRA / University of Guelph and the Soil & Crop Association.
Zone Clarington – Rural Areas Phase: Procedural notice was given that on
December 14, 2020, Council will consider “lifting” of the rural phase of the
comprehensive zoning by-law review project. In October 2019, Clarington’s Planning
and Development Committee of Council tabled the Rural Areas Phase of the project
indefinitely. This means that work on updating zoning for Clarington’s rural areas was
placed on hold. If a “lifting” motion is approved by Council on December 14, Council
Page 29
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020
may then give direction to Staff with respect to resuming work on reviewing zoning for
Clarington’s rural areas.
COVID-19 and Local Economic Impact: Henry Zekveld brought forward concerns
regarding the on-going economic / community impact of the restrictions placed on local
businesses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Henry questioned whether the
number of COVID cases locally warranted the level of restrictions in place and
expressed concern about the social, mental and long-term financial implications. While
many Committee members expressed agreement with concern for the community, it
was acknowledged that the local agricultural sector has adapted and maintained
viability.
Next Meeting
Thursday, January 14, 2021 @ 7:30 pm (Virtual Meeting)
Page 30
Page 31
o
o
o
o
Page 32
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page 33
o
Page 34
Newcastle Memorial Arena Management Board
Municipality of Clarington
Minutes of Meeting – Tuesday, December 8, 2020
(Not yet approved by committee)
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020
Page 1 of 4
Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee
Thursday, November 26, 2020, 7:00 PM
Microsoft Teams
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext 2131
Present:
Ashfaque Choudhry (until 8:41 p.m.)
Councillor Ron Hooper
Derryck Lamptey
Meera McDonald
Rajeshwari Saharan
John Sawdon (until 9:30 p.m.)
Rachel Traore
Also Present: Mayor Adrian Foster (until 8:41 p.m.)
Erica Mittag – Community Development Coordinator
Jack Ammendolia – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (until
7:23 p.m.)
Regrets: Sajida Kadri
Laila Shafi
The meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Land Acknowledgement
Rachel Traore read the Land Acknowledgement Statement.
2. Ward Boundary Review
Jack Ammendolia of Watson & Associates Economists presented an update
on the Ward Boundary Review currently underway in Clarington. More
information can be found at www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview.
Members are encouraged to complete the survey and share with their
networks.
Page 38
Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020
Page 2 of 4
3. Review of Agenda
Moved by Meera McDonald, seconded by Derryck Lamptey
That the agenda of the meeting of November 26, 2020 be approved
Carried
4. Review of Minutes
Moved by Councillor Ron Hooper, seconded by Councillor Ashfaque Choudhry
That the minutes of the meetings of September 24, 2020 be approved.
Carried
5. Update on Committee Elections
Erica Mittag confirmed with Clarington’s Clerks Department that we can hold
elections at the January 2021 meeting. Four members’ terms are ending
December 31, 2020 and Council will be appointing members to serve a new
four-year term; to be ratified December 14, 2020 at Council.
6. Communications – Received for Information
City of Oshawa – received for information; regarding Mental Health training for
Police Services (circulated with the agenda).
Anti-Racism Initiatives and the Anti-Racism Directorate – received for
information; regarding various initiatives the Directorate has undertaken
(circulated with the agenda).
Moved by Derryck Lamptey, seconded by Rachel Traore
That the communications be received for information.
Carried
7. Council and Community Updates
Councillor Ron Hooper shared:
a) Council reviewed applications to the vacancies (4) on the Diversity
Advisory Committee; appointments to be ratified at Council on
December 14, 2020.
Page 39
Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020
Page 3 of 4
b) Council received a letter from a resident regarding to the celebration of the
Festival of Diwali. Resident would like to request a permit for fireworks.
There is a by-law in place for fireworks. The Committee could look at
ways to educate the community about fireworks permitting for this and
other similar celebrations. Erica and Councillor Hooper to connect and
follow up with By-Law Services for more information.
c) The Durham Regional Police Services Board shared an update on their
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan with Regional Council. This letter is
shared for the Committee’s information.
Erica Mittag shared:
d) Engage Clarington – Our Clarington – Diversity and Inclusion Page is
active and Members are encouraged to share their stories to promote
discussion and engagement. The Community Diversity Survey is also
hosted on the site and is being promoted through social media.
7. Update on Anti-Black Racism Subcommittee
Meera McDonald reviewed proceedings of the most recent subcommittee work.
Angela Todd-Anderson and Erica Mittag will work with Samantha Aitken from the
Clarington Public Library on the planning of a virtual event for Black History
Month (February 2021).
An update was provided on two outstanding items requiring approval by the
Diversity Advisory Committee. The Terms of Reference were reviewed by the
Members. The Social Media Plan is to be reviewed by Members at our next
meeting.
Moved by Rajeshwari Saharan, seconded by Derryck Lamptey
That the Terms of Reference for the Anti-Black Racism Subcommittee be
approved.
Carried
8. Durham Black Accountability Coalition Meeting
Rachel Traore reviewed the responses to the Durham Black Accountability
Coalition petition requests. She will be taking this information and drafting a
response letter for further consideration by Council.
9. Black History Month
Erica Mittag shared that the Clarington Public Library is planning events and
resources surrounding Black History Month and if the Members have any
suggestions of activities or resources to be included, please forward to Erica.
Page 40
Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020
Page 4 of 4
The Diversity and Inclusion Staff Team is also planning recognition and events
for the month.
10. Community Support, Multi-Culturalism and Anti-Racism Initiatives
Erica Mittag shared information about this funding opportunity. If Members have
thoughts on initiative proposals and potential partners, please share with Erica.
11. Confidential Report
Moved by Councillor Ron Hooper, seconded by Meera McDonald
That in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended,
the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing the p rohibition of symbols of
hate, a matter that deals with advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege,
including communications necessary for that purpose.
Carried
12. Rise and Report
The prohibition of symbols of hate was discussed in “closed” session in
accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended and no
resolutions were passed.
Moved by Meera McDonald, seconded by Derryck Lamptey
That the General Government Committee recommend to Council that staff be
directed to prepare an amendment to the Sign By-law to prohibit the public
display of symbols of hate within the Municipality of Clarington; and
That the Mayor and Members of Council of the Municipality of Clarington, in
partnership with Clarington’s Diversity Advisory Committee, release an Official
Statement condemning the display of symbols of hate in our community.
Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Moved by Derryck Lamptey, seconded by Meera McDonald
Carried
Next meeting: Thursday, January 28, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
Virtually – Microsoft Teams
Page 41
Committee
Report to Council
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council Report Number: GGR-001-21
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021
Report Subject: General Government Committee Meeting of January 4, 2021
Recommendations:
1. Receive for Information
(a) 9.1 Memo from Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works,
Regarding North Bowmanville Dog Park
(b) 9.3 Minutes of the Newcastle Business Improvement Area dated
December 10, 2020
(c) 9.4 Minutes from the Tyrone Community Hall Board dated
September 10, 2020, October 21, 2020, and November 18,
2020
(d) 9.5 Minutes from the Newcastle Village Community Hall Board
dated November 17, 2020 and December 15, 2020
(e) 9.6 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services,
Regarding 2021 Interim Regional Tax Levy
(f) 9.7 Isabel Grace, Superintendent of Business and Finance,
Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic
District School Board, Regarding Notice of Passing of an
Education Development Charges By-law
(g) 10.1 Memo from Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works,
Regarding Public Access Via Stairs to Municipal Property East
of Mearns at Longworth Avenue
Page 42
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report GGR-001-21
(h) LGS-001-21 City of Oshawa Licensing of Payday Loan Establishments
(i) LGS-004-21 Fireworks Permitting
2. Sue Bernardi, CMO BA, MPS Team Leader, Municipality of Port Hope,
Regarding the Transfer of Low Radioactive Waste Material from Port
Granby Site to Port Hope Long-Term Waste Management Facility
Whereas the Municipality of Port Hope, the Municipality of Clarington, and the
Government of Canada are parties to the Legal Agreement for the cleanup an d the
long-term safe management of low level radioactive waste;
And Whereas Canadian Nuclear Laboratories request, on behalf of Atomic Energy
of Canada Ltd. (AECL), for an amendment to the Legal Agreement to allow for the
transfer of a limited portion of waste from the Port Granby to Port Hope long term
waste management facility;
And Whereas the Legal Agreement requires consensus of the parties to support an
amendment to the Legal Agreement.
Now therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of Clarington agrees to the
request of AECL regarding an amendment to the Legal Agreement to allow for the
transfer of a limited portion of waste from the Port Granby Project to the Port Hope
Long Term Waste Management.
3. Ward Boundary Review – Final Report
That Report LGS-002-21 be received;
That the Final Report on Clarington’s Ward Boundary Review, of Watson &
Associates Economists Ltd., be received;
That the Municipality of Clarington maintain the existing four ward boundary
system; and
That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-002-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
4. Proposed Amendment to By-law 2014-059, being a By-law to Regulate
Traffic and Parking on Highways, Private Property and Municipal
Property
That Report PWD-001-21 be received;
That the By-law, amending specific schedules of the Traffic By-law, attached to
Report PWD-001-21, as Attachment 2, be passed; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-001-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 43
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report GGR-001-21
5. Contracted Winter Control Services
That Report PWD-002-21 be received;
That Council approve the cancellation of Tender CL2020-30 for Winter Control
Services and the issuance of a tender for the replacement of four end of service life
combination plow trucks that were previously requested in the 2019 and 2020
Capital Budget submissions but have been deferred pending the outcome of the
contacted service investigation.
6. Appointments to the Energy from Waste – Waste Management
Advisory Committee
That Report LGS-003-20 be received;
That the Committee appoint Kerry Meydam, Sami Elhajjeh, Lyndsay Riddoch, and
Jim Vinson to the Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee
for a term ending December 31, 2022; and
That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-003-20 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
7. Request to Amend the Energy from Waste – Waste Management
Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference
That the Municipality of Clarington request that the Region of Durham amend the
Terms of Reference for the Energy From Waste - Waste Management Advisory
Committee, such that the Committees recommendations go to Regional Council
instead of the Region of Durham’s Public Works Committee.
8. Delegation of Authority to enter into Extension Agreements to the
Treasurer
That Report FSD-001-21 be received;
That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington delegate
authority to the Treasurer to enter into extension agreements pursuant to Section
378 of the Municipal Act, 2001, and;
That the By-law attached to Report FSD-001-21, as attachment 1, be approved.
9. Delegation of Authority - Section 357(1) (d.1) Sickness or Extreme
Poverty
That Report FSD-002-21 be received;
That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington delegate
authority to the Assessment Review Board to determine eligibility for property tax
reductions or refunds under the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 357 (1) (d.1) –
Sickness or Extreme Poverty; and
That the By-law attached to Report FSD-002-21, as attachment 1, be approved.
Page 44
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report GGR-001-21
10. Winter Maintenance on Newcastle Trails
Whereas, at the meeting of November 23, 2020, the Council of the Municipality of
Clarington approved Resolution #GG-391-20, that directed the Public Works
Department to provide winter maintenance on various trails to encourage outdoor
exercise in an effort to improve our physical, mental health and general overall well -
being due to COVID-19;
And Whereas a popular section of the Samuel Wilmot trail system between
Cobbledick Road and Toronto Street in Newcastle could not be included with this
program due to the steep grades on the trail system that may potentially create an
unsafe maintenance situation.
Now therefore be it resolved that the Public Works Department be directed to
include snow removal on the approximate one kilometer section of trail through the
Foster Creek Valley between Sunset Boulevard and Gusel Avenue in Newcastle;
That pre-budget approval be given to complete this additional work for the
2020-2021 Winter Season; and
That all interested parties be notified of Council’s decision, including the Clarington
Active Transportation and Safe Roads Committee.
11. Support of Opening Ski Hills in Ontario
Whereas Clarington Council remains a strong supporter of our Local Businesses
and Brimacombe (Oshawa Ski Club) is an important business in our community.
Brimacombe laid off 278 people on December 24, 2020 and this is a tremendous
loss to this local not-for-profit business and the effects it has on our local economy;
And Whereas Ski Hills in Ontario are mandated to be closed during the COVID -19
Province Wide Shut down in effect from December 26, 2020 until January 23, 2021,
and this Shutdown has resulted in 9000 job losses and $84 million losses and
includes 52 Ski areas in Ontario;
And Whereas thousands of Ontarians rely on snow sports over the winter for
employment, their physical health and mental Health;
And Whereas Snow Resort owners and ope rators across the Province have
implemented new protocols to keep all skiers and Ontarians safe and resorts are
separating their inside and outside offerings so adjustments can be made safely
and efficiently depending on the current COVID-19 measures in the provincial
framework and rules are in place to maintain physical distancing and Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE);
And Whereas Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America to shut down Ski
Resorts because of COVID-19;
Now therefore be it resolved:
That Clarington Council supports the reopening of the Ontario Ski Hills as soon as
possible;
Page 45
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report GGR-001-21
That, if the COVID-19 Province Wide Shutdown was to continue past January 23,
2021, Clarington Council supports removing Ontario Ski Hills from being included in
the Shutdown and be permitted to open; and
That this motion be distributed to Premier Ford, Minister Lisa MacLeod Minister of
Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture, MPP Lindsey Park, MPP David Piccini, all
Durham Region Municipalities, The Ontario Snow Resorts Association, and
Oshawa Ski Club (Brimacombe).
12. Review of the Seniors Snow Removal Program
That Staff report back, at a future General Government Committee Meeting, on the
Clarington Seniors Snow Removal Program regarding the cost to the Municipality,
cost to the resident, how the program is running, any comments that Clarington has
received over the past few years as feedback, and a comparison to other Senior
Snow Removal Programs in other areas.
13. Statements on Agendas
That the statement regarding motions, in the Committee Agendas, be replaced with
a statement regarding Policy F-11 Transparency and Accountability.
14. Appointment of Department Liaisons and Deputy Mayor
That Report CAO-023-20 be received;
That the Members of Council be designated as a Department Liaison, for a one
year term ending December 31, 2021 as follows:
Planning & Development Services Councillor Anderson
Public Works Councillor Hooper
Community Services Councillor Traill
Legislative Services Councillor Jones
Financial Services Councillor Neal
Office of the CAO Mayor Foster
Emergency Services Councillor Zwart
That a Member of Council be appointed as a Liaison for Economic Development, to
be Council’s representative on the Clarington Board of Trade, to report to Council;
Page 46
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report GGR-001-21
That the Economic Development Liaison be considered at the January 25, 2021
General Government Committee meeting; and
That Department Heads, or designate, only be required to attend Council of
Committee meetings if there is a matter on the agenda pertaining to their
Department, or if a Member of Council requests department representation, prior to
the meeting, for the purpose of answering a question(s) pertaining to their
department.
15. Item 10. 5 - Confidential Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of
Planning and Development Services, Regarding Potential Acquisition,
Future Works Yard
That Resolution #CGG-001-21, passed in Closed Session to give direction to staff,
be ratified.
Page 47
Committee
Report to Council
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council Report Number: PDR-001-21
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021
Report Subject: Planning and Development Committee Meeting of January 11, 2021
Recommendations:
1. Receive for Information
(a) 10.2 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services,
Region of Durham, Regarding Support of a Ministers Zoning
Order to Permit a Home Hardware Building Centre in the Rural
Area at the Southeast Corner of Rundle Road and Regional
Highway 2
(b) 10.3 Martha Vandepol, Regarding Support of the Ministerial Zoning
Order for 2423 Rundle Road, Bowmanville
(c) 10.4 Memo from Susan Siopis, Commissioner, Works, and Gioseph
Anello, Director, Waste Management Services regarding
Municipality of Clarington Resolution #C-506-20 regarding
Energy from Waste-Waste Management Advisory Committee
Motions to Works Committee
2. Applications to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law to
Allow a Nine-Storey Mixed Use Building and 45 Townhouse Units at
1465 Highway 2, Courtice
That Report PDS-001-21 be received;
That staff receive and consider comments from the public and Council with respect
to the above referenced applications; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-001-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 48
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDR-001-21
3. Correspondence of Jeff Kelso regarding Recreational Vehicle Storage
on Clarington Lands Zoned "A" and "EP"
That pre-budgetary approval of up to $15,000 to hire an outside planning consultant
to provide options for recreational vehicle storage in Clarington; and
That Planning Staff report back with a summary of what is currently permitted by
the Clarington’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws with respect to recreational
vehicle storage, and to identify any additional land use categories with the potential
for this use; and information on how recreational vehicle storage has been
addressed in similar municipalities.
4. Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Region
of Durham, Regarding Response to November 25, 2020 Notice of
Motion Regarding Minister's Zoning Orders
That the following Resolution from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of
Legislative Services, Region of Durham, regarding Response to November 25,
2020 Notice of Motion Regarding Minister's Zoning Orders, be endorsed by the
Municipality of Clarington as follows:
Whereas increasingly applicants are requesting Minister’s Zoning Orders in order
to bypass the public planning process and to expedite development projects; and
Whereas there is no defined MZO process to ensure that the appropriate
technical issues are fully addressed before an MZO is enacted; and
Whereas Regional Council wishes to ensure that all planning-related decisions
affecting lands in the Region of Durham are sound and in the public interest;
Now therefore be it resolved that:
1. Durham Region request that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing define what are matters of Provincial priority for
consideration of MZO’s;
2. Durham Region request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
to clarify when MZOs will (and will not) be used to expedite
development, and to clarify what safeguards can and will be put in
place to ensure that future land use decisions made by way of an
MZO represent good planning and are in the public interest;
3. That the Minister consult with the upper tier municipalities during the
consideration of any MZO that affects land in the Region. Since any
new development affects Regional infrastructure, (i.e. sewer, water,
roads), this consultation with the Region is imperative;
4. That the Minister consider whether the proposal confo rms to
provincial planning policy and consider whether the proposed
development would adversely affect any matter of provincial interest
set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act;
Page 49
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDR-001-21
5. That the Minister consider whether the proposal conforms to Regional
planning policy and facilitates uses that advance Provincial and
regional priorities;
6. That the Minister consider whether new development permitted by an
MZO adversely affects uses in the vicinity of the area;
7. That the Minister assess whether the project is “shovel-ready” and will
be constructed in a timely manner. In that regard, the MZO could
include a lapsing provision so that if a building permit has not been
issued for the proposal within a specified timeframe, the MZO could
be repealed;
8. That prior to the issuance of an MZO, the required technical studies
have been, or will be, completed to demonstrate there will not be any
unacceptable impacts on the natural environment;
9. That prior to the issuance of an MZO, the required technical studies
have been, or will be, completed to demonstrate that the Regional
infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the proposal, and where
necessary that a development agreement has been executed prior to
the enactment of the MZO to secure the
necessary infrastructure works and ensure that any fiscal impacts on
the Region have been addressed;
10. That the affected municipality/municipalities be reimbursed by the
proponent for time spent by municipal staff on the basis that a
significant amount of staff time is required to assist affected Councils
when considering MZO requests, to compensate for the foregone
planning application fee revenue that would otherwise have been
collected; and
11. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all local area
municipalities in Durham Region.
5. Rezoning to Facilitate 3 Severances at 1535 Ovens Road in
Newtonville
That Report PDS-003-21 be received;
That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and the By-law
contained in Attachment 1 of Report PDS-003-21 be passed;
That once all conditions contained in Report PDS-003-21 with respect to Removal
of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the Removal of the
(H) Holding Symbol be approved;
That the Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department and
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report
PDS-003-21 and Council’s decision; and
Page 50
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDR-001-21
That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-003-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
6. Fred Eisenberger, Mayor, City of Hamilton, Regarding Request for
Interim Cap on Gas Plant and Greenhouse Gas Pollution and the
Development and Implementation of a Plan to Phase-Out-Gas-Fired
Electricity Generation
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington strives to sustain our environment for future
generations and to foster a heathy community that nurtures the wellbeing of
residents to provide a high quality of life indefinitely;
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington declared a Climate Emergency on February
18, 2020, acknowledging the important role of governments in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions that are contributing to climate change;
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington recognizes governments have an important
role in reducing the local and global environmental damages associated with the
production, transportation and use of energy;
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington is taking action to mitigate climate change
through energy conservation and demand management planning and the
development of the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan;
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington has collaborated on the development of the
Durham Community Energy Plan, which promotes the transition to low carbon
energy to ensure the wellbeing of our community and environment;
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington recognizes the need for energy expenses to
be minimized to alleviate the financial burden on residents, businesses and the
municipality;
Now therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of Clarington respectfully requests
the Government of Ontario take the following actions to reduce GHG emissions in
the energy sector while promoting local economic development:
Prioritize the incorporation of carbon-free energy sources into the Ontario
power grid including wind, solar and nuclear;
Invest in local renewable energy production, transmission and storage, to
reduce GHG emissions and household energy expenses and create high
quality new jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and
recycling;
Introduce programs to incentivize energy retrofits for all buildings, as the
single most effective way to reduce energy demand, while encouraging
local economic development and jobs in the building sector;
Introduce programs and incentives to encourage the use of electric
vehicles by the public, businesses and municipalities to offset GHG
emissions from the transportation sector;
Page 51
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDR-001-21
That this resolution be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario; the
Honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines
and Minister of Indigenous Affairs; The Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks; Lindsey Park, MPP (Durham), David Piccini,
MPP (Northumberland-Peterborough South);
That this resolution be sent to the Region of Durham and Durham Area
Municipalities; and
That this resolution be sent to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and
the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) for circulation to municipalities with
a request for endorsement.
7. An Application by 2411 Baseline Limited to Amend the Zoning By-law
to Permit the Development of a Commercial Property for a Variety of
Uses at 2411 and 2415 Baseline Road, Bowmanville
That Report PDS-002-21 be received;
That the application to amend the Zoning By-law submitted by 2411 Baseline
Limited be approved and that the Zoning By-law contained in Attachment 1 to
Report PDS-002-21 be passed;
That a By-law lifting the Holding (H) Symbol be forwarded to Council once Site Plan
approval has been granted and including the following items are sati sfied:
a) Submission and acceptance of the intersection detail design and site
entrance design;
b) Construction of the access and any associated costs for the construction of
the access have been paid; and
c) Submission of a Stage One and Two Archaeological Assessment Clearance
Letter by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports, submission of a Phase
Two ESA Report and a Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance to the
Region's satisfaction.
That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report
PDS-002-21.
That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-002-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision by the Department.
8. Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited Proposed Red Line Revisions
to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning North-east
Corner of Grady Drive and Rudell Road, Newcastle
That Report PDS-004-21 be received;
Page 52
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDR-001-21
That the red-lined revision to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision submitted by
Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited to alter the lot frontages and road layout,
be supported subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1 to Report
PDS-004-21;
That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and that the
Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 2 to Report PDS-004-21 be passed;
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;
That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report
PDS-004-21 and Council’s decision; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-004-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
9. Seasonal Sidewalk Patio Program 2020 Results, Guidelines, and
Procedures
That Report PDS-005-21 be received for information;
That Council approve the allocation of $5,000.00 from each of the Bowmanville,
Newcastle, and Orono Community Improvement Programs ($15,000 total) to be
used to support any additional restaurants that may apply to participate in the
Seasonal Sidewalk Patio Program;
That $5000.00 be approved, to be used to support any additional restaurants in
participating in a Seasonal Sidewalk Patio Program for Courtice, to be allocated at
the discretion of the Director of Financial Services; and
That all interested parties and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
10. Committee of Adjustment By-law – New
That Report PDS-006-21 be received;
That By-law 83-83, and its amendments, be repealed, and the By-law attached to
Report PDS-006-21, as Attachment 2, be passed; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-006-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
11. Former Proposed By-law 2020-089 - Being a By-law to Exempt a
Certain Portion of Registered Plan 40M-2614 from Part Lot Control
That the proposed by-law to exempt a certain portion of Registered Plan 40M-2614
from Part Lot Control, be approved.
Page 53
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDR-001-21
12. Former Proposed By-law 2020-083 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of
Registered Plan N632 from Part Lot Control
That the proposed by-law to exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part Lot
Control, be approved.
Page 54
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021 Report Number: FSD-003-21
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: 2021 COVID-19 Property Tax Deferral Program
Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-003-21 be received;
2. That the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer be directed to establish a COVID -
19 Property Tax Deferral Program allowing a deferral of taxes, interest and penalty
free, to qualifying taxpayers for a period of up to sixty days for the first six months of
the year; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-003-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 55
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-003-21
Report Overview
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause financial concerns for some taxpayers, as well
as physical and mental health concerns. The Municipality of Clarington implemented several
financial supports in 2020 during the first wave lockdown . These supports were time
specific. With the second lockdown that started on December 26, 2020, the Municipality
should consider if a second round of financial support is needed, learning from support
offered by other municipalities and feedback from taxpayers regarding the 2020 support.
This report explains an administrative change to pre-authorized payment plans that will be
implemented in order to make it easier for taxpayers to join this plan and spread their
outstanding taxes out over the remaining payment period for 2021. A proposed deferral plan
of 60 days for those impacted by COVID-19 is also suggested which will benefit those
impacted by COVID while not writing off the interest and penalties that accrued prior to the
pandemic.
1. Background
COVID-19 Dates and Restrictions
1.1 On March 17, 2020, the Province of Ontario declared an emergency under the
Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act as it relates to COVID-19.
1.2 On June 19, 2020, the Region of Durham entered Stage 2 of the Provincial restart
program for the first wave and entered Stage 3 on July 24, 2020. Stage 3 allowed nearly
all businesses and public spaces to open, however restrictions still applied on capacity,
operating hours and other public health measures as applicable.
1.3 The Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020 came into force
on July 24, 2020 as the provincial declared emergency came to an end. The ROA
allows certain orders to be amended, subject to criteria, and does not allow new orders
to be created.
1.4 The Province of Ontario announced a lock-down effective December 26, 2020 lasting
for at least 28 days, potentially ending on or after January 23, 2021. Many retailers,
personal services, restaurants, gymnasiums, and recreational/social businesses are
forced to shut down or provide curb-side service.
Page 56
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-003-21
COVID-19 Financial Support Provided in 2020
1.5 On March 23, 2020, Council approved tax relief measures outlined in report FND-007-
20 which included a 60-day waiver of penalties and interest (May 1, 2020 and June 1,
2020) starting after the April 23, 2020 due date, waiving of service fees and delay in the
due date for the June installment by one month. Similar measures were taken by other
local area municipalities. This relief provided over $200,000 in financial support through
waived penalties and interest to all taxpayers in Clarington.
1.6 On July 6, 2020, Council approved the creation of the COVID Community Support Grant
Program, which provided $100,000 to local non-profit organizations who were impacted
by COVID-19. This funding provided support to offset increased operating costs or
forgone revenues as a result of the first-wave lockdown measures that were in effect
from March 2020 to June 2020.
1.7 Council also approved up to $1million for a COVID-19 Property Tax Rebate Program
which would provide qualifying residential taxpayers with the local portion of their taxes
back in the form of a refund. There were no qualifying applications under this program.
1.8 In September, the COVID-19 CIP Program was approved by Council to provide up to
$1million in financial support to local small businesses in addressing capital costs of
reopening and adhering to public health measures that are in place. This program would
provide funding to qualifying businesses which were forced to close as a result of the
emergency orders in March to June 2020 and met a financial means test. This program
is still open, and we have approved payments to three businesses so far. Staff will be
reporting back to Council in the first quarter of 2021 with an update on the program.
1.9 Municipalities in the Region of Durham passed similar measures as mentioned above.
Legislative Ability to Write-off Taxes
1.10 Section 354 of the Municipal Act, 2001 states that “Taxes shall not be written off except
in accordance with this section.” The section goes on to provide three times when the
Treasurer of a local municipality shall remove unpaid taxes from the tax roll:
The council of the local municipality, on the recommendation of the treasurer writes off
the taxes as uncollectible;
The taxes are no longer payable as a result of tax relief under section 319, 345, 357
358, 362,364,365,365.1 or 365.2 or a decision of any court; or
The taxes are no longer payable because the tax liability arose as result of the
assessment of land under subsection 33(1) of the Assessment Act for a period during
which a regulation made under subsection 33 (1.1) of that Act provides that subsection
33(1) of that Act does not apply to land.
Page 57
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-003-21
1.11 At this point, it is my opinion that there are no taxes that are uncollectible from 2020
given the variety of tools that are available for collection and the al lowed timeframe for
collection. Historically in Clarington, the provision for uncollectible taxes has been used
for small value write-offs where the cost to try and collect outweighs the actual amount
outstanding.
1.12 Section 319 of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not apply to the Municipality of Clarington
as it applies to a municipality other than a lower-tier municipality. This section provides
relief to low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities. The relief is in the
form of a tax deferral or cancellation of a tax increase on residential property. Any relief
under this section is determined by the Region of Durham.
1.13 Section 345 of the Municipal Act, 2001 relates to late payment charges for the non-
payment of taxes or any instalment by the due date. The local municipality shall cancel
or refund late payment charges for penalties and interest on overcharges of taxes
arising as a result of errors or changes (an assessment change, property class change
or allocation of property class change). Relief as a result of COVID-19 would not be
applicable under this section of the Act.
1.14 Section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 allows the local municipality to cancel, reduce or
refund all or part of taxes levied on land in respect of which the application is made if:
a. As a result of a change event, as defined by the Assessment Act, during the tax
year, the property or portion of the property is eligible to be reclassified in a different
class of real property which has a lower tax ratio for the taxation year (e.g. a
commercial property becomes a residential property during the year taxes may be
written off);
b. The land has become vacant land or excess land during the year or th e preceding
year;
c. The land has become exempt from taxation during the year or preceding year after
the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;
d. During the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll
i. a building on the land was razed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or
ii. was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it
substantially unusable;
d.1 The applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty;
e. A mobile unit on the land was removed during the year or during the preceding year
after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;
Page 58
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-003-21
f. A person was overcharged due to a gross or manifest error that is clerical or factual
in nature, including the transposition of figures, a typographical error or similar error
but not an error in judgment in assessing the property; or
g. Repairs or renovations to the land prevented the normal use of the land for a period
of at least three months during the year. (this was removed for years aft er 2007)
1.15 From the above, the only authority under section 357 would be due to sickness or
extreme poverty. This would be on a case by case basis and would not be, in my
opinion, justification for a broad write-off of taxes. This section could allow for an
application-based program for relief, this could be administratively burdensome and
potentially subjective which is why this section is not typically used for tax relief. Report
FSD-002-21 recommended that the Municipality delegate authority to the Assessment
Review Board for relief sought under this section.
1.16 Section 358 of the Municipal Act, 2001 relates to overcharges. Upon application to the
Treasurer of a local municipality, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all
or part of taxes levied on land:
a. In one or both of the two years preceding the year in which the application is
made for any overcharge caused by gross or manifest error in the preparation of
the assessment roll that is clerical or factual in nature;
b. In the year or years in respect of which an assessment is made under section 33
or 34 of the Assessment Act for any overcharge caused by a gross or manifest
error in the preparation of the assessment that is clerical or factual in nature.
1.17 Relief under section 358 would not be applicable in the current situation.
1.18 Section 362 of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not apply to lower-tier municipalities and is
therefore not applicable to the Municipality of Clarington. This section relates to relief
for those properties which are subject to capping on property taxes.
1.19 Section 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001 no longer applies as it related to vacant unit
rebates. This program was ended within the Region of Durham, as well as many
municipalities throughout the Province of Ontario, in 2019. This program was available
to commercial and industrial properties which had vacancies of at least 90 consecutive
days.
1.20 Section 365 of the Municipal Act, 2001 the Council of a local municipality may, in any
year, pass a by-law to provide for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes levied for
local and school purposes in the year by the council in respect of an eligible property of
any person who makes an application in that year to the municipality for that relief and
whose taxes are considered by the council to be unduly burdensome, as defined in the
by-law.
Page 59
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-003-21
1.21 Under section 365, eligible properties are those within residential, farm or the managed
forest property class. This would not apply to multi-residential, commercial or industrial
properties. Further, there is no requirement that the upper-tier have the same program,
if they do not the lower tier municipality would be required to pay the upper tier fo r the
full amount of the taxes. This is the section that the COVID-19 Property Tax Relief
Program was established in 2020. Clarington is, to my knowledge, the only municipality
in Ontario that established a program under this section for COVID -19.
1.22 Section 365.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides for cancellation of all or a portion of
taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on specified properties (a property for
which a phase two environmental site condition has been conducted) in respect of the
rehabilitation period and/or the development period of the property. This would not be
applicable in this situation. This type of relief is common in attempts to redevelopment
brownfield sites.
1.23 Section 365.2 allows tax reductions for heritage properties outlined in the Municipal Act,
2001. Again, this would be a targeted relief for specified types of properties that are
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. This would not be COVID-19 related.
1.24 The difficulty with application-based programs is the added layer of administration,
potential subjectivity unless the program is clearly prescribed. Feedback from the 2020
COVID-19 relief program included statements that the program only applied to
residential taxpayers (which legally is all it could apply to), it did not take into
consideration self-employed or business owners, it did not assist retired individuals or
those who had to quit or reduce their work hours to care for someone with COVID -19.
The program was very prescriptive which eliminate subjectivity, ensures equal treatment
of taxpayers and is able to be consistently applied; however, this provides limited
targeted relief.
Ability to Provide Financial Support
1.25 Section 106 of the Act prohibits a municipality from assisting directly or indirectly any
manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise through the
granting of bonuses for that purpose.
1.26 The Municipal Act, 2001 provides municipalities general powers, notwithstanding
section 106, to make grants in section 107 of the Act. Grants under this section includes
several powers including guaranteeing loans, providing for use of property, staff, sales
of property at a nominal price or the donation of foodstuffs and merchandise purchased
by the municipality for that purpose. These wo uld be to those organizations that are not
considered a manufacturing business or commercial enterprise.
1.27 Using the above authority, the Municipality could provide financial or in-kind support to
non-profit organizations that support the community. The Municipality’s Community
Grants Program is an example of this.
Page 60
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report FSD-003-21
1.28 Providing support or services for small business counselling is permitted under section
108 of the Municipal Act, 2001. This service could include the ability to acquire land and
buildings to provide leased premises to eligible small businesses, provide grants to
corporations, lease land to small businesses.
2. Options for Financial Support in 2021
Providing flexible payment options
2.1 While not a relief program, the Municipality does provide taxpayers the ability to have
taxes withdrawn from their bank account monthly. This provides taxpayers the ability to
spread their payments out monthly rather than four larger payments in February, April,
June and September. Staff will be increasing the communication for this program to
ensure taxpayers are aware of this option.
2.2 For new registrations enrolled during the year, a lump sum payment is required in order
to place the account in a similar position to all accounts on the plan. For example, an
account that missed the January first payment would pay the January withdrawal up-
front and begin withdrawals on February first. To provide an additional option for
residents requesting additional support, upfront payments can be spread over the
remaining months. Our pre-authorized payment plan is not currently setup this way due
to increased risk of clerical error. Given the pandemic, staff feel this option outweighs
the risk and could help residents avoid falling behind if they are unable to pay the catch-
up payment.
2.3 Staff will be temporarily changing the normal process, which is more manual due to
system limitations, to allow for new registrants to spread the balance of taxes over the
remaining period equally.
2.4 Taxpayers enrolled in the pre-authorized payment plan do not pay penalties or interest
during the period of enrollment, provided that payments are made as scheduled.
2.5 If taxes are withdrawn as part of the taxpayer’s mortgage payment, any changes to that
payment schedule need to be worked out between the mortgage company and the
taxpayer. Financial Services staff received many requests to hold payment or skip a
payment; however, we are only able to do that with pre-authorized payments set up
through the Municipality.
2.6 The Municipality continues to provide the ability to make payments through financial
institutions, including the institutions online or telephone banking programs. These
payments can be made at the taxpayer’s convenience without having to come to the
Municipal Administration Centre.
2.7 Cheques may be mailed to the Municipality or dropped off at the Municipal
Administration Centre.
Page 61
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report FSD-003-21
2.8 Currently, the Municipal Administration Centre is open, and payments may be made in
person through debit, cheque or cash. Staff are recommending the use of debit cards or
cheques.
Changing the due date for payments
2.9 The interim due dates were set in December 2020 with the passing of By-law 2020-087.
The due dates are set for February 18, 2021 and April 22, 2021. The interim tax bills are
currently being processed and will be mailed no later than January 28, 2021; due to
processing times for the tax bills it is not possible to have the due dates changed on the
tax bills and meet the statutory timelines. To meet the cash-flow needs of the
Municipality it is not recommended to change the interim tax levy due dates at this time.
2.10 In April or May when the final tax by-law is brought to Council, the due dates for the final
two installments may be changed from the typical June/September (residential) or
August/September (non-residential).
2.11 Taxpayers entering into the pre-authorized payment plan arrangement with the
Municipality will be able to spread the payment of taxes over the remaining period for
the year which could provide for better cash flow.
Waiving of Interest or Penalties
2.12 As a work-around for the due dates in 2020, staff recommended the waiving of penalties
and interest for 60 days which in essence moved the due date by two months. This
remains an option for Council.
2.13 One of the drawbacks for this method is that all penalties and interest are waived not
just the penalties and interest for those impacted by COVID-19. This costs
approximately $100,000 per month in lost revenue, most of which would not be related
to COVID-19. Administratively, this is the easiest option to process; however, it is felt
that this does not provide fair and equitable treatment to taxpayers as those who were in
arrears prior to March 2020 when COVID-19 started would have no interest and
penalties on their total arrears.
Deferral Program
2.14 An option that has been used by several municipalities including the City of Ottawa and
the City of Kitchener is an application-based tax deferral program. This program allows
qualifying taxpayers to defer payment of their taxes for a set period of time and avoid
penalties and interest, if the deferred amount is paid by the due date in full.
Page 62
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report FSD-003-21
2.15 Unlike the property tax relief program, there is no requirement to meet the criteria under
a by-law defining “unduly burdensome taxes”; this would eliminate the need to provide
personal financial information and would be easier to administer as financial means
would not need to be required. It also does not provide interest and penalty relief to a ll
taxpayers, even those not impacted by COVID-19.
2.16 This program would also be eligible for business owners as it would not be considered
bonusing as no financial support is being provided.
2.17 It is recommended that the deferral program be administratively easy to apply. Staff will
utilize online forms for taxpayers to register for their property and answer a series of
questions to determine if they meet the criteria. They will be required to certify that they
are providing accurate information and that if the information is not accurate that they
will be removed from the deferral program.
2.18 While the wording of the program will be determined, the criteria is suggested to include:
a. Experienced a financial hardship such as a loss of pay/employment, excessive
revenue loss (greater than 30 per cent), business closure;
b. Taxes were current as at December 26, 2020;
c. Residential property tax class;
d. Commercial business property owners with an assessed value of less than $5
million;
e. Cannot receive compensation from business interruption insurance for property
taxes; and
f. Taxes deferred under the program must be paid in full by June 21, 2021 (60 days).
2.19 The tax deferral program would provide qualifying taxpayers an extension on their tax
due date which could assist in cash flow issues resulting from the second wave.
2.20 Depending on the economic situation in June 2021, a second intake for this program
could occur to provide a 60-day deferral. The 60-day deferral appears to be the length
of time most commonly used for deferral programs or penalty/interest waivers in
Ontario.
2.21 A concern with the deferral program would be that two payments would be due in June,
as well, regardless of the payment arrangements the Municipality puts into place there
are still obligations to make payments to the Region of Durham and the School Boards.
Extending payment terms too far could result in cash flow issues for the Municipality.
Page 63
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report FSD-003-21
2.22 We hope that more taxpayers would opt for the pre-authorized payment plan which
allows for monthly payments (interest free) rather than deferring two payments and
having three payments due in June. The pre-authorized payment plan, modified from
current practice, provides a win-win for the Corporation and taxpayers.
Tax Rebate Program
2.23 Council could consider re-instituting the COVID-19 Property Tax Rebate Program under
S.365 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for “unduly burdensome taxes”. This program requires
a means test be established to ensure equitable treatment and objective decisions on
qualification for the program.
2.24 The program would not take as long to set up this year as the means tests, by-laws and
research to establish the program have already occurred.
2.25 Staff do not recommend this approach, it is administratively burdensome, requires
personal information such as bank statements to be collected, which taxpayers are
hesitant to do, and in 2020 did not result in any fiscal support being provided.
3. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
4. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the creation of a tax deferral
program for qualifying taxpayers. This program as well as a change in the
administration of the pre-authorized payment plan for the 2021 tax year will provide
payment options for taxpayers seeking to mitigate personal cash flow concerns.
Staff Contact: Jessica James, CMRP(A), Taxation Services Manager, 905-623-3379 ext 2609
or jjames@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Not Applicable
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 64
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021 Report Number: FSD-004-21
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: 2020/2021 Development Charges Background Study and By-law
Recommendations:
1. That Report FND-053-20 be received;
2. That Report FSD-004-21 be received;
3. That the Draft Development Charges Background Study, October 15 2020 and the
Addendum to the Development Charges Background Study, November 3, 2020
prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. be approved and the
development-related capital program included therein be adopted, subject to annual
review through the Municipality’s normal capital budget process
4. That the municipal-wide development charges quantum for residential and non -
residential charges be approved as follows, subject to annual indexing:
Type of Development Development Charges
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling $ 21,461 per unit
Apartments – 2 Bedrooms or More $ 11,426 per unit
Apartments – Bachelor and 1 Bedroom $ 7,014 per unit
Other multiples $ 17,590 per unit
Industrial $ 37.46 per sq.m
Non-Industrial $ 107.30 per sq.m
Page 65
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report FSD-004-21
5. That Council in approving the Background Study, expresses its intent to ensure that
the increase in the need for services attributable to the anticipated development will
be met and any future excess capacity identified in the Study will be paid for by
development charges or other similar charges.
6. That for completed applications as determined by the Chief Building Official received
on or before January 18, 2021 and (where the development charges have been paid
by January 18, 2021) that the applicable development charges be calculated based
on By-law 2015-035;
7. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-004-21, as attachment 1, be approved to
repeal and replace By-law 2015-035;
8. That the Clarington Technology Park Area Specific development charges quantum
be approved as follows, subject to annual indexing:
Service $ Per Net Hectare
Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control $ 38,840
Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control $ 29,268
Lands Benefitting from Quality and Quantity
Control $ 68,107
9. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-004-21, as attachment 2, be approved
10. That the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer be directed to bring back an
amendment to the Development Charges By-law in 2021 or 2022 upon the approval
of pending secondary plans to update the capital program for those plans; and
11. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-004-21 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 66
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report FSD-004-21
Report Overview
The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Development Charges Act,
to obtain Council approval of a new Development Charges Background Study and By-law to
establish new development charge fees upon expiry of the existing By-law.
A public meeting was held on November 30, 2020 with five responses coming to the
Municipality afterwards (one being in late December 2020 and another in early January
2021).
1. Background
Update to Report FND-053-20
1.1 On November 30, 2020 Council referred report FND-053-20 to the Council meeting of
January 18, 2021. The January 18, 2021 Council meeting is the last scheduled meeting
prior to the expiry of the existing Development Charges By-law 2015-035 on January
24, 2021.
1.2 Since Report FND-053-20 was provided to Council there have been no changes to the
proposed charges, legislation, or study. This report should be read in addition to that
report. The attached by-laws take into account feedback received as part of the public
process including wording changes from the Municipal Solicitor and Chief Building
Official.
2. Proposed Future Amendment to the By-law
2.1 Feedback received to date from many developers has been that there are projects that
are not included in the DC background study that should be. These projects are in areas
that are currently undergoing the secondary plan process.
2.2 Given that the design of the secondary plan areas have not been finalized, the
secondary plan themselves have not been approved, and the costing of the capital
requirements cannot be estimated until the design and needs are established, it has
been recommended from our consultant that these costs not be included in the study at
this time. Capital items should only be included in the development charge study if there
is a document that supports their eventual inclusion (for example a traffic needs study,
secondary plan, recreation needs study or Council approved resolution). If projects are
not supported they may be appealable as there is no basis for their inclusion.
Page 67
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report FSD-004-21
2.3 It is recommended, and other municipalities in similar high-growth areas have, that the
by-law be amended before the next five-year review to include the capital projects once
they are approved and the costs can be better estimated. As the only change for the
amendment will be the capital program, the whole project will be scoped to just the
secondary plan areas that have changes in capital needs. In this case, as the population
growth for the secondary plans are in the study, but not all of the costs are in the
likelihood is that the charge will increase.
2.4 Undergoing a mid-study amendment promotes equity for developers. Currently there
are projects that may not be included as they within the seconda ry plan areas but they
realistically will be needed in four to six years from now. If we wait until five years to
include in the study any development that occurs in years one to five will benefit from
this infrastructure and likely should have contributed to this infrastructure but the cost
would be borne by later developers. It is anticipated that an amendment could be
completed prior to the actual start of construction within the secondary plan areas.
2.5 Similarly, there has been discussion at Council regarding a potential trail that would be
available in the winter for skating purposes. As this trail has not been identified in any of
the park needs studies, to date, and Council has not provided direction that they are in
support of this trail (the matter has been referred several times) at this point it is
recommended that it not be included in the study. An amendment to include the trail
could occur once there is supporting documentation that the trail is to be built. To be
clear, the skating trail is an eligible development charge project (subject to other
limitations), there just has to be an indication from Council (through approval of a plan or
a resolution itself) that the project will go ahead. At this time we do not have a location,
or proposed location, so waiting a year to two years for the amendment will not
jeopardize the projects ability to be recovered from development charges.
2.6 The Municipality of Clarington is a relatively high growth area with increasing growth
related capital costs. Reviewing the capital program more frequently, particularly in light
of the anticipated development within the secondary plan areas, will ensure that growth
continues to pay for growth.
3. Communication with Stakeholders
Responses to feedback prior to November 30, 2020
3.1 Attachment 3 provides the Municipality’s response to SCS Consulting’s October 21,
2020 letter.
3.2 Attachment 4 provides the Municipality’s response to Durham Region Homebuilders’
Asssociation’s letter dated November 12, 2020.
Page 68
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report FSD-004-21
Biglieri Group
3.3 The Municipality received feedback on November 30, 2020 (Attachment 5) from the
Biglieri Group. The feedback is an identification of projects that are not in the DC
Background study which related to the Soper Hills Secondary Plan area. A response
was provided on January 4, 2021.
3.4 The Soper Hills Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council at this
time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty for
the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is requi red in that area.
Reg Webster Consulting Sub-heading
3.5 The Municipality received feedback on November 30, 2020 (Attachment 6) from Reg
Webster Consulting. The feedback is an identification of projects that are not in the DC
Background study which related to the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan area
as well as the identification of benefit to existing taxpayer concerns. A response was
provided on January 4, 2021
3.6 The Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by
Council at this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide
more certainty for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is required in
that area.
SCS Consulting
3.7 SCS Consulting provided a letter (attachment 7) dated November 27, 2020 regarding
the Brookhill North Secondary Plan area identifying projects for that secondary plan to
be added to the study. A response was provided on January 4, 2021.
3.8 The Brookhill North Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council a t
this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty
for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is required in that area.
Weston Consulting
3.9 Weston Consulting provided a letter (attachment 8) dated December 22, 2020 regarding
the Soper Hills Secondary Plan and Soper Springs Secondary Plan. A letter of response
was provided on January 7, 2021.
3.10 Both the Soper Hills and Soper Springs Secondary Plans are have not been completed
or approved by Council. The completion of the design of both plans will provide more
certainty for the necessity, design and ultimate cost of capital required to service those
areas.
Page 69
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report FSD-004-21
UrbanMetrics
3.11 A letter from UrbanMetrics Inc was received on January 8, 2021 (attachment 9) the
letter was similar to the above letter from Weston Consulting. This has been forwarded
to our DC consultants for a response.
4. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
5. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that the recommendations outlined above are approved
and that the development charges bylaws be approved with an implementation date of
January 19, 2021
Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, 905-623-3379
ext.2602 or tpinn@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Draft Municipal Wide Development Charges By-law
Attachment 2 – Draft Area Specific Development Charges By-law
Attachment 3 – Response to SCS Consulting dated November 30, 2020
Attachment 4 – Response to Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association dated November 30,
2020
Attachment 5- Letter from The Biglieri Group dated November 30, 2020 and response
Attachment 6 - Letter from Reg Webster Consulting Inc dated November 27, 2020 and
response
Attachment 7 – Letter from SCS Consulting Group Ltd dated November 27, 2020 and
response
Attachment 8 – Letter from Weston Consulting Group Dated dated December 22, 2020 and
response
Attachment 9 – Letter from Urban Metrics Inc dated January 7, 2021
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 70
Attachment 1 to
FSD-004-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE E-1
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\856663492\856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law.docx
Appendix E
Proposed Municipal-wide D.C.
By-law
Page 71
Attachment 1 to
FSD-004-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE E-2
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\856663492\856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law.docx
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2021-0XX
to impose development charges against land in the Municipality of
Clarington pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997
WHEREAS subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27
provides that the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges
against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for
services arising from the development of the area to which the by-law applies.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY
OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOW S:
Part 1 — Interpretation
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
"accessory", where used to describe a building or structure, means that the
building or structure or part thereof that is naturally and normally incidental,
subordinate in purpose or floor area or both, and exclusively devoted to a
principal use, building or structure;
"Act" means the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27;
"air-supported structure" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act,
1992;
"apartment building" means (a) a residential building (other than a fourplex or
sixplex) containing 4 or more dwelling units that have a common entrance to
grade, common corridors, stairs and/or yards; and (b) the residential portion of a
mixed-use building containing 4 or more dwelling units that are located behind or
above a non-residential use and may have a separate entrance to grade, and
includes stacked townhouse;
“bedroom ”means a habitable room, including a den, study, loft, or other similar
area, but does not include a living room, a dining room, a bathroom, or kitchen;
Page 72
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-3
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
"building" means a building or structure that occupies an area greater than 10
square metres consisting of a wall, roof and floor or a structural system serving
the function thereof, and includes an air-supported structure;
"Building Code Act, 1992" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23
and all Regulations thereunder including the Ontario Building Code, 2012;
"Council" means Council of the Municipality;
"development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that
requires one or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 and
includes redevelopment;
"development charge" means a development charge imposed by this by-law;
"duplex" means a residential building containing 2 dwelling units divided
horizontally from each other;
"dwelling unit" means one or more habitable rooms designed or intended to be
used together as a single and separate housekeeping unit by one or more
persons, containing its own full kitchen and sanitary facilities, with a private
entrance from outside the unit itself;
“existing” means the number, use and size that existed at least 2 years before
the date of building permit application;
"fourplex" means a pair of duplexes divided vertically from the other by a
common wall;
"floor" includes a paved, concrete, wooden, gravel or dirt floor;
"grade" means the average level of the proposed finished surface of the ground
immediately abutting each building or mixed-use building at all exterior walls;
"gross floor area" means the total area of all floors, whether above or below
grade, measured between the outside surfaces of exterior walls, or between the
outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of a party wall or a demising
wall as the case may be, including mezzanines, air-supported structures, interior
Page 73
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-4
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
corridors, lobbies, basements, cellars, half-stories, common areas, and the space
occupied by interior walls or partitions, but excluding any areas used for,
(a) loading bays, parking of motor vehicles, retail gas pump canopies; and
(b) enclosed garbage storage in an accessory building;
"heritage building" means a building designated under section 29 of the Ontario
Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 and, for purpose of subsection 36(7), includes
any building identified as "primary resource" in the registry maintained by the
Municipality pursuant to section 28 of such Act;
"industrial", in reference to use, means any land, building or structure or portions
thereof used, designed or intended for or in connection with manufacturing,
producing, processing, fabricating, assembling, refining, research and
development, storage of materials and products, truck terminals, warehousing,
but does not include,
(a) retail service sales or rental areas, storage or warehousing areas used,
designed or intended to be used in connection with retail sales, service
or rental areas, warehouse clubs or similar uses, self -storage mini
warehouses, and secure document storage; and
(b) office areas that are not accessory to any of the foregoing areas or
uses or accessory office uses that are greater than 25% of the gross
floor area of the building;
“institutional”, in reference to use, means development of a building or structure
intended for use,
(a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the
Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007;
(b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the
Retirement Homes Act, 2010;
(c) by any of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the
institution:
Page 74
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-5
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing
operating funding from the Government of Ontario,
(ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university
described in subclause (i), or
(iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of
the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017;
(d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario
branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or
(e) as a hospice to provide end of life care.
"linked building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to
contain only two separate dwelling units, connected undergro und by footing and
foundation, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside
of the building and is located on a separate lot;
"lot" means a parcel of land within a registered plan of subdivision or any land
that may be legally conveyed under the exemptions provided in clause 50(3)(b)
or 50(5)(a) of the Planning Act;
"mezzanine" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992;
"mixed-use building" means a building used, designed or intended to be used
either for a combination of non-residential and residential areas and uses, or for
a combination of different classes or types of non-residential areas and uses;
"mobile home" means a dwelling unit that is designed to be made mobile, and
constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent or temporary residence for
one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer;
"multiple unit building" means a residential building or the portion of a mixed -use
building that contains multiple dwelling units (other than dwelling units contained
in an apartment building, linked building, semi-detached building or single
detached dwelling) and includes plexes and townhouses;
Page 75
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-6
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
"Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the
geographic area of the Municipality of Clarington, as the context requires;
“non-industrial” in reference to use, means lands, buildings or structures used or
designed or intended for use for a purpose which is not residential or industrial ;
“non-profit housing development” means development of a building or structure
intended for use as residential premises by,
(a) a corporation without share capital to which the Ontario Corporations
Act (or its successor legislation) applies, that is in good standing under
that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing;
(b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for-profit
Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and
whose primary object is to provide housing; or
(c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the
Co-operative Corporations Act;
"non-residential", in reference to use, means a building or portions of a mixed-
use building containing floors or portions of floors which are used, designed or
intended to be used for a purpose which is not residential, and includes a hotel,
motel and a retirement residence;
"owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an
approval for the development of land against which a development charge is
imposed;
"party wall" means a wall jointly owned and jointly used by 2 parties under an
easement agreement or by right in law and erected on a line separating 2 parcels
of land each of which is, or is capable of being, a separate lot;
"Planning Act" means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13;
"plex" means a duplex, triplex, fourplex or sixplex;
“rental housing” means development of a building or structure with four or more
dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises;
Page 76
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-7
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
"residential", in reference to use, means a building or a portion of a mixed-use
building and floors or portions of floors contained therein that are used, designed
or intended to be used as living accommodation for one or more individuals
provided in dwelling units and any building accessory to such dwelling units;
"retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a
mixed-use building that provides living accommodation, where common facilities
for the preparation and consumption of food are provided for the residents of the
building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary
facilities, less than full kitchen facilities and a separate entrance from a common
corridor;
“retirement residence unit” means a unit within a retirement residence;
"semi-detached building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so
as to contain only two separate dwelling units, each of which has an independent
entrance directly from outside of the building;
"service" means a service designated by section 10;
"single-detached dwelling" means a residential building containing only one
dwelling unit which is not attached to any other building or structure except its
own garage or shed and has no dwelling units either above it or bel ow it, and
includes a mobile home;
"sixplex" means a pair of triplexes divided vertically one from the other by a
common wall;
"stacked townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, townhouse or
apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units that (a) are
joined by common side walls with dwelling units entirely or partially above
another; and (b) have a separate entrance to grade;
"townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, stacked townhouse or
apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units, each of which
(a) is separated from the others vertically; and (b) has a separate entrance to
grade;
"triplex" means a residential building containing 3 dwelling units; and
Page 77
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-8
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
"Zoning By-laws" means the Municipality's By-law No. 84-63 and By-law No.
2005-109.
References
2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law is reference to
the Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to
time.
3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Schedules, Parts,
sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs are to Schedules, Parts, sections,
subsections, clauses and paragraphs in this by-law.
Word Usage
4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context
may require.
5. In this by-law, a grammatical variation of a defined word or expression has a
corresponding meaning.
Schedules
6. The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this by-law:
Schedule 1 —Municipal-Wide Development Charges
Schedule 2A — Clarington Energy Business Park
Schedule 2B — Clarington Science Park
Schedule 3A — Revitalization Area — Newcastle Village
Schedule 3B — Revitalization Area — Orono
Schedule 3C — Revitalization Area — Bowmanville
Schedule 3D — Revitalization Area — Courtice
Severability
7. If, for any reason, any section or subsection of this by-law is held invalid, it is
hereby declared to be the intention of Council that all the remainder of this by-law
shall continue in full force and effect until repealed, re-enacted or amended, in
whole or in part or dealt with in any other way.
Page 78
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-9
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Part 2 — Development Charges
Designated Services and Classes
8. It is hereby declared by Council that all development in the Municipality wi ll
increase the need for services.
9. Development charges shall apply without regard to the services which in fact are
required or are used by any individual development.
10. Development charges shall be imposed for the following categories of service
and class to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs
for services arising from development:
(a) Fire Protection Services;
(b) Growth Studies;
(c) Library Services;
(d) Parks and Recreation Services; and
(e) Services Related to a Highway.
Rules
11. For the purpose of complying with section 6 of the Act, the following rules have
been developed:
(a) The rules for determining if a development charge is payable in any
particular case and for determining the amount of the charge shall be in
accordance with sections 12 through 20.
(b) The rules for determining the indexing of development charges shall be in
accordance with section 21.
(c) The rules for determining exemptions shall be in accordance with Part 3
(sections 22 through 34).
(d) The rules respecting redevelopment of land shall be in accordance with
Part 4 (sections 35 through 39).
(e) This by-law does not provide for any phasing in of development charges.
Page 79
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-10
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(f) This by-law applies to all lands in the Municipality.
Imposition of Development Charges
12. Development charges shall be imposed on all land, buildings or structures that
are developed if the development requires,
(a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment thereto under section
34 of the Planning Act;
(b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act;
(c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of
the Planning Act applies;
(d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act;
(e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act;
(f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act,
1998, S.O. 1998, c.19; or
(g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a
building or structure.
13. Not more than one development charge for each service shall be imposed upon
any land, building or structure whether or not two or more of the actions or
decisions referred to in section 12 are required before the land, building or
structure can be developed.
14. Notwithstanding section 13, if two or more of the actions or decisions referred to
in section 12 occur at different times, additional development charges shall be
imposed in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by the
subsequent action or decision.
Basis of Calculation
15. Development charges for all services shall be calculated,
Page 80
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-11
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(a) in the case of residential buildings and the residential portions of mixed -
use buildings, on the basis of the number and type of dwelling units
contained in them; and
(b) in the case of non-residential buildings and the non-residential portion of
mixed-use buildings, on the basis of the gross floor area contained in the
non-residential building or in the non-residential portion of the mixed-use
building.
Amount
16. (1) The amount of the development charges payable in respect of residential
development shall be determined in accordance with clause 15 (1) (a) and
Schedule 1.
(2) The amount of the development charges payable in respect of non-
residential development shall be determined in accordance with clause
15(1)(b) and Schedule 1.
Timing of Calculation
17. (1) The total amount of a development charge is the amount of the
development charge that would be determined under the by-law on,
(a) the day an application for an approval of development in a site plan
control area under subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act was made
in respect of the development that is subject of the development
charge;
(b) if clause (a) does not apply, the day an application for an
amendment to a by-law passed under section 34 of the Planning
Act was made in respect of the development that is the subject of
the development charge; or
(c) if neither clause (a) or clause (b) applies, the day the first building
permit is issued for the development that is the subject of the
development charge.
(2) Subsection (1) applies even if this by-law is no longer in effect.
Page 81
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-12
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(3) Where clause (1)(a) or (b) applies, interest shall be payable on the
development charge, at the rate established by the Municipality’s Interest
Rate Policy, from the date of the application referred to in the applicable
clause to the date the development charge is payable.
(4) If a development was the subject or more than one application referred to
in clause (1)(a) or (b), the later one is deemed to be the applicable
application for the purposes of this section.
(5) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply if, on the date the first building permit
is issued for the development, more than two years has elapsed since the
application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b) was approved.
(6) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in the case of an application made
before January 1, 2020.
Timing of Payment
18. (1) Subject to subsections 18(2) and 18(3), development charges shall be
payable in full on the date the first building permit is issued for the
development of the land against which the development charges apply.
(2) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for rental
housing and institutional developments are payable in 6 installments
commencing with the first installment payable on the da te of occupancy,
and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the
anniversary date each year thereafter.
(3) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for non-profit
housing developments are payable in 21 installments commenc ing with
the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each
subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary
date each year thereafter.
(4) If the development of land is such that it does not require that a building
permit be issued before the development is commenced, but the
development requires one or more of the other actions or decisions
referred to in section 12 be taken or made before the development is
Page 82
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-13
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
commenced, development charges shall be payable in respect of any
increase in or additional development permitted by such action or decision
prior to the action or decision required for the increased or additional
development being taken or made.
(5) In accordance with section 27 of the Act, where apartment buildings
having a minimum of 3 stories are being developed, the Municipality may
enter into an agreement with a person who is required to pay a
development charge providing for all or any part of a development charge
to be paid after it would otherwise be payable.
(6) For the purpose of subsections 18(2) and 18(3) herein, “interest” means
the interest rate outlined in the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy.
Method of Payment
19. Payment of development charges shall be in a form acceptable to the
Municipality.
Unpaid Charges
20. Where a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid at any time after it
is payable, the amount shall be added to the tax roll and collected in the same
manner as taxes.
Indexing
21. The development charges set out in Schedule 1 shall be adjusted without
amendment to this by-law annually on July 1st in each year, commencing on July
1, 2021, at the rate identified by the Statistics Canada Non-Residential
Construction Price Index for Toronto based on the 12 month period most recently
available.
Part 3 - Exemptions
Specific Users
22. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to land, buildings or
structures that are owned by,
Page 83
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-14
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(a) a hospital as defined in section 1 of the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. P.40 and used, designed or intended for the purposes set out in such
Act;
(b) the Municipality, the Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham,
or their local boards as defined in section 1 of the Act and used, designed
or intended for municipal purposes;
(c) a board of education as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act,
1990, S.O. 1990, c.27 and used, designed or intended for school
purposes including the administration or the servicing of schools; and
(d) a college or a university as defined in section 171.1 of the Education Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 and used, designed or intended for purposes set out
in such Act.
Specific Properties
23. Buildings that are or will be located either in the Clarington Science Park or the
Clarington Energy Park (as shown in Schedule 2) are exempt from development
charges if the owner can provide evidence satisfactory to the Director of Finance
that the building will be used for research purposes including laboratories,
offices, amenity areas and service areas for staff who conduct research.
Existing Residential
24. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to residential
development if the only effect of such development is,
(a) an interior alteration to an existing residential building which does not
change or intensify the use of the building;
(b) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit;
(c) the creation of a second or third dwelling unit in an existing single
detached dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross
floor area of the additional unit(s) does not exceed the original gross floor
area of the existing dwelling unit; or
Page 84
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-15
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(d) the creation of a second dwelling unit in a semi-detached building or
townhouse dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross
floor area of the additional unit does not exceed the original gross floor
area of the existing dwelling unit.
New Residential
25. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to new residential
development if the only effect of such development is the creation of a second
dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential buildings,
including structures ancillary to dwellings, subject to the following restrictions:
Item
Name of Class
of Proposed
New Residential
Buildings
Description of Class of
Proposed New
Residential Buildings
Restrictions
1.
Proposed new
detached
dwellings
Proposed new residential
buildings that would not
be attached to other
buildings and that are
permitted to contain a
second dwelling unit, that
being either of the two
dwelling units, if the units
have the same gross floor
area, or the smaller of the
dwelling units.
The proposed new
detached dwelling must
only contain two dwelling
units.
The proposed new
detached dwelling must
be located on a parcel of
land on which no other
detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling would be located.
2.
Proposed new
semi-detached
dwellings or row
dwellings
Proposed new residential
buildings that would have
one or two vertical walls,
but no other parts,
attached to other
buildings and that are
permitted to contain a
second dwelling unit, that
being either of the two
dwelling units, if the units
have the same gross floor
area, or the smaller of the
dwelling units.
The proposed new semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling must only contain
two dwelling units.
The proposed new semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling must be located
on a parcel of land on
which no other detached
dwelling, semi-detached
dwelling or row dwelling
would be located.
3.
Proposed new
residential
buildings that
would be
ancillary to a
proposed new
detached
dwelling, semi-
Proposed new residential
buildings that would be
ancillary to a proposed
new detached dwelling,
semi-detached dwelling or
row dwelling and that are
permitted to contain a
single dwelling unit.
The proposed new
detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling, to which the
proposed new residential
building would be
ancillary, must only
contain one dwelling unit.
Page 85
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-16
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
detached
dwelling or row
dwelling
The gross floor area of the
dwelling unit in the
proposed new residential
building must be equal to
or less than the gross floor
area of the detached
dwelling, semi-detached
dwelling or row dwelling to
which the proposed new
residential building is
ancillary.
Agricultural Development
26. (1) In this section,
"agricultural", in reference to use, means land, buildings or structures
used, designed or intended to be used solely for an "agricultural
operation" as defined in section 1 of the Farming and Food Production
Protection Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.1 but does not include any facilities
located within urban areas as defined in the Municipality’s Official Plan ;
"agri-tourism" has the same meaning as in Zoning By-law 2005-109; and
"farm bunkhouse" means a building or buildings that are constructed on
land zoned agricultural ("A") in a Zoning By-law and is used, designed or
intended to be used exclusively to provide seasonal, interim or occasional
living accommodation to farm labourers.
(2) Land, buildings or structures used, designed or intended for agricultural
purposes or for agri-tourism are exempt from development charges.
(3) Farm bunkhouses are exempt from development charges provided there
is an existing dwelling unit on the same lot.
Places of Worship
27. (1) In this section, "place of worship" means a building or structure or part
thereof that is used primarily for worship and is exempt from taxation as a
place of worship under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31.
Page 86
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-17
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(2) Places of worship are exempt from non-residential development charges.
Garden Suites
28. (1) In this section, "garden suite" means a one unit detached residential
structure containing bathroom and full kitchen facilities that is (a) ancillary
to an existing residential structure; (b) designed to be portable; and (c) for
purposes of section 16, considered to be a dwelling unit in an apartment
building.
(2) The development charges paid in regard to a garden suite shall be
refunded in full, without interest, to the then current owner of the garden
suite, upon request, if the garden suite is demolished or removed within
the period of time that Council has authorized its temporary use.
Temporary Buildings
29. (1) In this section,
"temporary building" means a building or structure constructed, erected or
placed on land for a continuous period not exceeding twelve months and
includes an addition or alteration to a building or structure that has the
effect of increasing the gross floor area thereof for a continuous period not
exceeding 12 months; and
"sales office" means a building or structure constructed, erected or placed
on land to be used exclusively by a realtor, builder, developer or
contractor on a temporary basis for the sale, display and marketing of
residential lots and dwellings within a draft approved subdivision or
condominium plan.
(2) Temporary buildings and sales offices are exempt from development
charges.
(3) If a temporary building remains for a continuous period exceeding 12
months, it shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, a temporary
building, and the development charges thereby become payable.
Existing Industrial Development
Page 87
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-18
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
30. (1) In this section, "existing industrial building" has the same meaning as in
subsection 1(1) of O.Reg. 82/98. For ease of reference, the current
definition in the Regulation reads as follows:
"existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection
with:
(a) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing
something,
(b) research or development in connection with manufacturing,
producing or processing something,
(c) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something
they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at
the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes
place,
(d) office or administrative purposes, if they are,
(i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing,
processing, storage or distributing of something, and
(ii) in or attached to the building or structure used for that
manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution;
(2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an
existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is
payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with
this section.
(3) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 100 per cent or less, the amount of
the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero.
(4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 100 per cent, the amount
of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of
the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the
fraction determined as follows:
Page 88
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-19
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 100 per
cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement.
2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of
the enlargement.
(5) The exemption provided in this section shall apply equally to a separate
(non-contiguous) industrial building constructed on the same lot as an
existing industrial building.
(6) The exemption provided in subsections (1) though (5) above shall not
apply to existing industrial buildings located on land that is in the "large
industrial property class" as defined in subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 282/98
passed under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, however the
exemption provided in section 4 of the Act shall apply to such buildings.
New Industrial Development
31. The amount of the development charge payable in respect of a new industrial
building constructed on a vacant lot is 50% of the amount that would otherwise
be payable.
Purpose Built Rental Housing Development
32. (1) This section only applies to Purpose Built Rental Housing Developments
on lands within the Regional Urban Centres and Regional Corridors
designated in the Clarington Official Plan.
(2) In order to incent development, the amount of the residential development
charge payable in respect of development that is eligible pursuant to this
section is 50% of the residential amount that would otherwise be payable.
(3) To be eligible under this section buildings must conform to the Land Use
and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan
and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director
of Planning and Development.
Affordable Housing Development
Page 89
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-20
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
33. (1) This section only applies to Affordable Housing defined as new housing
developments qualifying under the Ontario Community Housing Renewal
Strategy and/or the National Housing Strategy Co-Investment Fund.
(2) In order to incent development, the amount of the residential development
charge payable in respect of development that is eligible pursuant to this
section is zero.
(3) To be eligible under this section buildings must conform to the Land Use
and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan
and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director
of Planning and Development.
Small Business Expansion
34. (1) This section only applies to specific areas in Newcastle Village (Schedule
3A), Orono (Schedule 3B), Bowmanville (Schedule 3C) and Courtice
(Schedule 3D) as Revitalization Areas.
(2) In this section, "existing commercial building" means an existing non -
residential building that,
(a) is not used, designed or intended for any industrial use;
(b) has a gross floor area of less than 250 square metres; and
(c) is located on land that is zoned commercial ("C") in a Zoning By-
law.
(d) Building expansions must conform to the Land Use and Urban
Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan and
Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the
Director of Planning and Development
(3) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an
existing commercial building, the amount of the development charge that
is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with
this section.
Page 90
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-21
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
(4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the
development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero.
(5) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent, the amount of
the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of
the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the
fraction determined as follows:
1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per
cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement.
2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of
the enlargement.
Part 4 - Redevelopment
Demolition and Conversion Credits
35. (1) In this section, "conversion" means the change in use of all or a portion of
a building as permitted under the provisions of a Zoning By-law.
(2) Where an existing building or structure is to be converted to another use,
in whole or in part, or converted from one principal use to another principal
use on the same land, the amount of the development charge payable
shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(3) Where a building or structure is destroyed in whole or in part by fire,
explosion or Act of God or is demolished and the property redeveloped,
the amount of the development charge payable in respect of the
redevelopment shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(4) The development charges otherwise payable in respect of redevelopment
described in subsections (2) and (3) shall be reduced by the following
amounts:
(a) in the case of a residential building or the residential portion of a
mixed-use building or structure, an amount calculated by multiplying
the applicable development charges under Schedule 1 by the
number, according to type of dwelling units that have been
Page 91
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-22
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
demolished or converted to another principal use or demolished and
reconstructed as the case may be; and
(b) in the case of a non-residential building or the non-residential portion
of a mixed-use building or structure, an amount calculated by
multiplying the applicable development charges under Schedule 2 by
the non-residential gross floor area that has been demolished or
converted to another principal use or demolished and reconstructed
as the case may be.
(5) Unless a building permit for the redevelopment has been issued, and not
revoked prior to the fifth anniversary of the date on which a demolition
permit was issued for the demolished building or structure or the date on
which the building or structure was destroyed in whole or in part by fire,
explosion or Act of God, whichever is applicable, the credit provided under
subsection (3) shall expire.
(6) The amount of any credit under subsection (4) shall not exceed the total
development charges otherwise payable.
(7) No development charge is payable for the conversion of a heritage
building located in any Revitalization Area described in section 34.
(8) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no credit shall be provided if,
(a) the demolished building or structure or part thereof would have
been exempt under this by-law;
(b) the building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt
under this by-law prior to the conversion, redevelopment or
reconstruction as the case may be; or
(c) the development is exempt in whole or in part or eligible for any
other relief under this by-law.
Brownfield Credit
36. (1) The amount of development charges otherwise payable for the
redevelopment of contaminated property shall be reduced by an amount
Page 92
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-23
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
equal to the actual costs directly attributable to the environmental
assessment and rehabilitation of the property, as approved by the
Municipality, and provided a Record of Site Condition has been filed for
the intended future use.
(2) The amount of any credit under subsection (2) shall not exceed the total
development charge otherwise payable.
Credit for Relocation of Building
37. No development charge shall be payable for any building or structure that is
relocated or reconstructed at a different location on the same lot.
Relocation of Heritage Buildings
38. (1) Where a heritage building is relocated to a different lot, an amount equal
to the development charge shall be refunded to the owner upon the
building being redesignated as a heritage building on the new lot.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection 35(3), no credit shall be provided in relation to
the property on which the heritage building was originally located.
Occupancy During Construction
39. A full development charge refund shall be given if an existing dwelling unit on the
same lot is demolished within 6 months or such longer period as may be
permitted by Council following the date of issuance of the building permit for a
new dwelling unit that is intended to replace the existing dwelling unit.
Page 93
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-24
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Part 5 - General
Cancelled Permits
40. A full development charge refund shall be given if a building permit is cancelled
prior to the commencement of construction.
Onus
41. The onus is on the owner to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the
Municipality which establishes that the owner is entitled to any exemption, credit
or refund claimed under this by-law.
Interest
42. The Municipality shall pay interest on a refund under sections 18 and 25 of the
Act at a rate equal to the Bank of Canada rate on the date this By-law comes into
force updated on the first business day of every January, April, July and October
until the date of the repeal or the expiry of this by-law.
43. Except as required under section 40, there shall be no interest paid on any
refunds given under this by-law.
Front-Ending Agreements
44. The Municipality may enter into front-ending agreements under section 44 of the
Act.
Effective Date
45. This by-law comes into force and is effective on December 15, 2020.
Expiry
46. This by-law expires five years after the day on which it comes into force.
Repeal
47. By-law No. 2015-035 is repealed effective January 19, 2021.
Page 94
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-25
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
PASSED this 18th day of January 2021.
____________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 95
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-26
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
SCHEDULE 1
SCHEDULE OF MUNICIPAL-WIDE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
NOTE: Charges are subject to indexing in accordance with section 21
Single and Semi-
Detached
Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
Apartments -
Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples Industrial Non-Industrial
Services Related to a Highway 12,006 6,392 3,924 9,841 34.02 103.86
Fire Protection Services 454 242 148 372 2.47 2.47
Parks and Recreation Services 7,678 4,088 2,510 6,293 - -
Library Services 1,007 536 329 825 - -
Growth Studies 316 168 103 259 0.97 0.97
Total Municipal Wide Services 21,461 11,426 7,014 17,590 37.46 107.30
NON-RESIDENTIAL (per sq.m. of
Gross Floor Area)
Service
RESIDENTIAL
Page 96
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-27
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Schedule 2A — Clarington Energy Business Park
Page 97
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-28
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Schedule 2B — Clarington Science Park
Page 98
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-29
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Schedule 3A — Revitalization Area — Newcastle Village
Page 99
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-30
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Schedule 3B — Revitalization Area — Orono
Page 100
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-31
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Schedule 3C — Revitalization Area — Bowmanville
Page 101
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-32
856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law
Schedule 3D — Revitalization Area — Courtice
Page 102
Attachment 2 to
FSD-004-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-1
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC
Background Study - FINAL.docx
Appendix F
Proposed Area-Specific D.C.
By-law
Page 103
Attachment 2 to
FSD-004-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-2
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC
Background Study - FINAL.docx
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 20202021-0XX
to impose area-specific development charges against land in the Municipality of
Clarington pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997
WHEREAS subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27
provides that the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges
against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increas ed needs for
services arising from the development of the area to which the by-law applies.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY
OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOW S:
Part 1 — Interpretation
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
"accessory", where used to describe a building or structure, means that the
building or structure or part thereof that is naturally and normally incidental,
subordinate in purpose or floor area or both, and exclusively devoted to a
principal use, building or structure;
"Act" means the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27;
"air-supported structure" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act,
1992;
"apartment building" means (a) a residential building (other than a fourplex or
sixplex) containing 4 or more dwelling units that have a common entrance to
grade, common corridors, stairs and/or yards; and (b) the residential portion of a
mixed-use building containing 4 or more dwelling units that are located behind or
above a non-residential use and may have a separate entrance to grade, and
includes stacked townhouse;
“bedroom” means a habitable room, including a den, study, loft, or other similar
area, but does not include a living room, a dining room, a bathroom, or kitchen;
Page 104
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-3
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
"building" means a building or structure that occupies an area greater than 10
square metres consisting of a wall, roof and floor or a structural system serving
the function thereof, and includes an air-supported structure;
"Building Code Act, 1992" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23
and all Regulations thereunder including the Ontario Building Code, 2012;
"Council" means Council of the Municipality;
"development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that
requires one or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 and
includes redevelopment;
"development charge" means a development charge imposed by this by-law;
"duplex" means a residential building containing 2 dwelling units divided
horizontally from each other;
"dwelling unit" means one or more habitable rooms designed or intended to be
used together as a single and separate housekeeping unit by one or more
persons, containing its own full kitchen and sanitary facilities, with a private
entrance from outside the unit itself;
“existing” means the number, use and size that existed at least 2 years before
the date of building permit application;
"fourplex" means a pair of duplexes divided vertically from the other by a
common wall;
"floor" includes a paved, concrete, wooden, gravel or dirt floor;
"grade" means the average level of the proposed finished surface of the ground
immediately abutting each building or mixed-use building at all exterior walls;
"gross floor area" means the total area of all floors, whether above or below
grade, measured between the outside surfaces of exterior walls, or between the
outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of a party wall or a demising
wall as the case may be, including mezzanines, air-supported structures, interior
Page 105
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-4
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
corridors, lobbies, basements, cellars, half-stories, common areas, and the space
occupied by interior walls or partitions, but excluding any areas used for,
(a) loading bays, parking of motor vehicles, retail gas pump canopies; and
(b) enclosed garbage storage in an accessory building;
"heritage building" means a building designated under section 29 of the Ontario
Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 and, for purpose of subsection 36(7), includes
any building identified as "primary resource" in the registry maintained by the
Municipality pursuant to section 28 of such Act;
"industrial", in reference to use, means any land, building or structure or portions
thereof used, designed or intended for or in connection with manufacturing,
producing, processing, fabricating, assembling, refining, research and
development, storage of materials and products, truck terminals, warehousing,
but does not include,
(a) retail service sales or rental areas, storage or warehousing areas used,
designed or intended to be used in connection with retail sales, service
or rental areas, warehouse clubs or similar uses, self-storage mini
warehouses, and secure document storage; and
(b) office areas that are not accessory to any of the foregoing areas or uses
or accessory office uses that are greater than 25% of the gross floor
area of the building;
“institutional”, in reference to use, means development of a building or structure
intended for use,
(a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the
Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007;
(b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the
Retirement Homes Act, 2010;
(c) by any of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the
institution:
Page 106
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-5
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
(i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing
operating funding from the Government of Ontario,
(ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university
described in subclause (i), or
(iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of
the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017;
(d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario
branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or
(e) as a hospice to provide end of life care.
"linked building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to
contain only two separate dwelling units, connected underground by footing and
foundation, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside
of the building and is located on a separate lot;
"lot" means a parcel of land within a registered plan of subdivision or any land
that may be legally conveyed under the exemptions provided in clause 50(3)(b)
or 50(5)(a) of the Planning Act;
"mezzanine" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992;
"mixed-use building" means a building used, designed or intended to be used
either for a combination of non-residential and residential areas and uses, or for
a combination of different classes or types of non-residential areas and uses;
"mobile home" means a dwelling unit that is designed to be made mobile, and
constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent or temporary residence for
one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer;
"multiple unit building" means a residential building or the portion of a mixed -use
building that contains multiple dwelling units (other than dwelling units contained
in an apartment building, linked building, semi-detached building or single
detached dwelling) and includes plexes and townhouses;
Page 107
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-6
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
"Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the
geographic area of the Municipality of Clarington, as the context requires;
"net hectare" means the area in hectares of a parcel of land exclusive of the
following:
(a) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the Municipality of Clarington or the
Region of Durham or a local board thereof;
(b) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the Ministry of Transportation for
the construction of provincial highways;
(c) hazard lands conveyed or to be conveyed to a conservation authority as
a condition of development; and
(d) lands for centralized storm water management facilities and naturalized
channel areas;
“non-industrial” in reference to use, means lands, buildings or structures used or
designed or intended for use for a purpose which is not residential or industrial ;
“non-profit housing development” means development of a building or structure
intended for use as residential premises by,
(a) a corporation without share capital to which the Ontario Corporations Act
(or its successor legislation) applies, that is in good standing under that
Act and whose primary object is to provide housing;
(b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for-profit
Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and
whose primary object is to provide housing; or
(c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the Co-
operative Corporations Act;
"non-residential", in reference to use, means a building or portions of a mixed-
use building containing floors or portions of floors which are used, designed or
intended to be used for a purpose which is not residential, and includes a hotel,
motel and a retirement residence;
Page 108
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-7
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
"owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an
approval for the development of land against which a development charge is
imposed;
"party wall" means a wall jointly owned and jointly used by 2 parties under an
easement agreement or by right in law and erected on a line separating 2 parcels
of land each of which is, or is capable of being, a separate lot;
"Planning Act" means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13;
"plex" means a duplex, triplex, fourplex or sixplex;
“rental housing” means development of a building or structure with four or more
dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises;
"residential", in reference to use, means a building or a portion of a mixed-use
building and floors or portions of floors contained therein that are used, designed
or intended to be used as living accommodation for one or more individuals
provided in dwelling units and any building accessory to such dwelling units;
"retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a
mixed-use building that provides living accommodation, where common facilities
for the preparation and consumption of food are provided for the residents of the
building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary
facilities, less than full kitchen facilities and a separate entrance from a common
corridor;
“retirement residence unit” means a unit within a retirement residence;
"semi-detached building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so
as to contain only two separate dwelling units, each of which has an independent
entrance directly from outside of the building;
"service" means a service designated by section 10;
"single-detached dwelling" means a residential building containing only one
dwelling unit which is not attached to any other building or structure except its
own garage or shed and has no dwelling units either above it or below it, and
includes a mobile home;
Page 109
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-8
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
"sixplex" means a pair of triplexes divided vertically one from the other by a
common wall;
"stacked townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, townhouse or
apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units that (a) are
joined by common side walls with dwelling units entirely or partially above
another; and (b) have a separate entrance to grade;
"townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, stacked townhouse or
apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units, each of which
(a) is separated from the others vertically; and (b) has a separate entrance to
grade;
"triplex" means a residential building containing 3 dwelling units; and
"Zoning By-laws" means the Municipality's By-law No. 84-63 and By-law No.
2005-109.
References
2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law is reference to
the Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to
time.
3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Schedules, Parts,
sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs are to Schedules, Parts, sections,
subsections, clauses and paragraphs in this by-law.
Word Usage
4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context
may require.
5. In this by-law, a grammatical variation of a defined word or expression has a
corresponding meaning.
Schedules
6. The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this by-law:
Page 110
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-9
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
Schedule 1 — Clarington Technology Park Area-Specific Development Charge
Schedule 2 – Clarington Technology Park Development Charge Area
Classification and Benefitting Properties
Severability
7. If, for any reason, any section or subsection of this by-law is held invalid, it is
hereby declared to be the intention of Council that all the remainder of this by-law
shall continue in full force and effect until repealed, re-enacted or amended, in
whole or in part or dealt with in any other way.
Part 2 — Development Charges
Designated Services
8. It is hereby declared by Council that development within the Clarington
Technology Park in the Municipality will increase the need for Stormwater
Management Services.
9. Development charges shall apply without regard to the services which in fact are
required or are used by any individual development.
10. Development charge shall be imposed for the following categories of service to
pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services
arising from development:
(a) Storm Water Management Services.
Rules
11. For the purpose of complying with section 6 of the Act, the following rules have
been developed:
(a) The rules for determining if a development charge is payable in any
particular case and for determining the amount of the charge shall be
in accordance with sections 12 through 20.
(b) The rules for determining the indexing of development charges shall be
in accordance with section 21.
Page 111
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-10
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
(c) The rules for determining exemptions shall be in accordance with Part
3 (sections 22 through 25).
(d) The rules respecting redevelopment of land shall be in accordance
with Part 4 (section 26).
(e) This by-law does not provide for any phasing in of development
charges.
(f) This by-law applies to all lands within the Clarington Technology Park,
as defined in Schedule 2, in the Municipality.
Imposition of Development Charges
12. Development charges shall be imposed on all land, buildings or structures that
are developed if the development requires,
(a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment thereto under
section 34 of the Planning Act;
(b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act;
(c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7)
of the Planning Act applies;
(d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning
Act;
(e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act;
(f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act,
1998, S.O. 1998, c.19; or
(g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to
a building or structure.
13. Not more than one development charge for each service shall be imposed upon
any land, building or structure whether or not two or more of the actions or
decisions referred to in section 12 are required before the land, building or
structure can be developed.
14. Notwithstanding section 13, if two or more of the actions or decisions referred to
in section 12 occur at different times, additional development charges shall be
imposed in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by the
subsequent action or decision.
Basis of Calculation
Page 112
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-11
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
15. Development charges for all services shall be calculated based on the number of
net hectares of the entire parcel of land on which development will occur in
accordance with benefits accrued per Schedule 2.
Amount
16. The amount of the development charges payable in respect of development shall
be determined in accordance with clause 15 and Schedule 1.
Timing of Calculation
17. (1) The total amount of a development charge is the amount of the
development charge that would be determined under the by-law on,
(a) the day an application for an approval of development in a site plan
control area under subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act was made in
respect of the development that is subject of the development
charge;
(b) if clause (a) does not apply, the day an application for an amendment
to a by-law passed under section 34 of the Planning Act was made in
respect of the development that is the subject of the development
charge; or
(c) if neither clause (a) or clause (b) applies, the day the first building
permit is issued for the development that is the subject of the
development charge.
(2) Subsection (1) applies even if this by-law is no longer in effect.
(3) Where clause (1)(a) or (b) applies, interest shall be payable on the
development charge, at the rate established by the Municipality’s Interest
Rate Policy, from the date of the application referred to in the applicable
clause to the date the development charge is payable.
(4) If a development was the subject or more than one application referred to
in clause (1)(a) or (b), the later one is deemed to be the applicable
application for the purposes of this section.
Page 113
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-12
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
(5) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply if, on the date the first building permit
is issued for the development, more than two years has elapsed since the
application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b) was approved.
(6) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in the case of an application made
before January 1, 2020.
Timing of Payment
18. (1) Subject to subsections 18(2) and 18(3), development charges shall be
payable in full on the date the first building permit is issued for the
development of the land against which the development charges apply.
(2) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for rental
housing and institutional developments are payable in 6 installments
commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy,
and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the
anniversary date each year thereafter.
(3) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for non-profit
housing developments are payable in 21 installments commencing with
the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each
subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary
date each year thereafter.
(4) If the development of land is such that it does not require that a building
permit be issued before the development is commenced, but the
development requires one or more of the other actions or decisions
referred to in section 12 be taken or made before the development is
commenced, development charges shall be payable in respect of any
increase in or additional development permitted by such action or decision
prior to the action or decision required for the increased or additional
development being taken or made.
(5) In accordance with section 27 of the Act, where temporary buildings are
being developed, the Municipality may enter into an agreement with a
person who is required to pay a development charge providing for all or
Page 114
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-13
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
any part of a development charge to be paid after it would otherwise be
payable.
(6) For the purpose of subsections 18(2) and 18(3) herein, “interest” means
the interest rate outlined in the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy.
Method of Payment
19. Payment of development charges shall be in a fo rm acceptable to the
Municipality.
Unpaid Charges
20. Where a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid at any time after it
is payable, the amount shall be added to the tax roll and collected in the same
manner as taxes.
Indexing
21. The development charges set out in Schedule 1 shall be adjusted without
amendment to this by-law annually on July 1st in each year, commencing on July
1, 2021, at the rate identified by the Statistics Canada Non-Residential
Construction Price Index for Toronto based on the 12-month period most recently
available.
Page 115
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-14
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
Part 3 - Exemptions
Specific Users
22. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to land, buildings or
structures that are owned by,
(a) the Municipality, the Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham,
or their local boards as defined in section 1 of the Act and used,
designed or intended for municipal purposes; and
(b) a board of education as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act,
1990, S.O. 1990, c.27 and used, designed or intended for school
purposes including the administration or the servicing of schools.
Existing Residential
23. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to residential
development if the only effect of such development is,
(a) an interior alteration to an existing residential building which does not
change or intensify the use of the building;
(b) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit;
(c) the creation of one or two additionala second or third dwelling units in an
existing single detached dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where
the total gross floor area of the additional unit(s) does not exceed the
original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit; or
(d) the creation of one additionala second dwelling unit in a semi-detached
building or townhouse dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the
total gross floor area of the additional unit does not exceed the original
gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit.
New Residential
24. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to new residential
development if the only effect of such development is the creation of a second
dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential buildings,
including structures ancillary to dwellings, subject to the following restrictions:
Page 116
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-15
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
Item
Name of Class
of Proposed
New Residential
Buildings
Description of Class of
Proposed New
Residential Buildings
Restrictions
1.
Proposed new
detached
dwellings
Proposed new residential
buildings that would not
be attached to other
buildings and that are
permitted to contain a
second dwelling unit, that
being either of the two
dwelling units, if the units
have the same gross floor
area, or the smaller of the
dwelling units.
The proposed new
detached dwelling must
only contain two dwelling
units.
The proposed new
detached dwelling must
be located on a parcel of
land on which no other
detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling would be located.
2.
Proposed new
semi-detached
dwellings or row
dwellings
Proposed new residential
buildings that would have
one or two vertical walls,
but no other parts,
attached to other
buildings and that are
permitted to contain a
second dwelling unit, that
being either of the two
dwelling units, if the units
have the same gross floor
area, or the smaller of the
dwelling units.
The proposed new semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling must only contain
two dwelling units.
The proposed new semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling must be located
on a parcel of land on
which no other detached
dwelling, semi-detached
dwelling or row dwelling
would be located.
3.
Proposed new
residential
buildings that
would be
ancillary to a
proposed new
detached
dwelling, semi-
detached
dwelling or row
dwelling
Proposed new residential
buildings that would be
ancillary to a proposed
new detached dwelling,
semi-detached dwelling or
row dwelling and that are
permitted to contain a
single dwelling unit.
The proposed new
detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling, to which the
proposed new residential
building would be
ancillary, must only
contain one dwelling unit.
The gross floor area of the
dwelling unit in the
proposed new residential
building must be equal to
or less than the gross floor
area of the detached
dwelling, semi-detached
dwelling or row dwelling to
which the proposed new
residential building is
ancillary.
Page 117
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-16
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
Existing Industrial Development
25. (1) In this section, "existing industrial building" has the same meaning as in
subsection 1(1) of O.Reg. 82/98. For ease of reference, the current
definition in the Regulation reads as follows:
"existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with:
(a) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing
something,
(b) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing
or processing something,
(c) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something
they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at
the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes
place,
(d) office or administrative purposes, if they are,
(i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing,
processing, storage or distributing of something, and
(ii) in or attached to the building or structure used for that
manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution;
(2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an
existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is
payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with this
section.
(3) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the
development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero.
(4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent, the amount of
the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the
development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the
fraction determined as follows:
1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per cent
of the gross floor area before the enlargement.
Page 118
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-17
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the
enlargement.
(5) The exemption provided in this section shall apply equally to a separate
(non-contiguous) industrial building constructed on the same lot as an
existing industrial building.
Part 4 - Redevelopment
Demolition and Conversion Credits
26. (1) In this section, "conversion" means the change in use of all or a portion of a
building as permitted under the provisions of a Zoning By-law.
(2) Where an existing building or structure is to be converted to another use, in
whole or in part, or converted from one principal use to another principal use
on the same land, the amount of the development charge payable shall be
determined in accordance with this section.
(3) Where a building or structure if is destroyed in whole or in part by fire,
explosion or Act of God or is demolished and reconstructedthe property
redeveloped, the amount of the development charge payable in respect of
the redevelopment shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(4) The development charges otherwise payable in respect of redevelopment
described in subsections (2) and (3) shall be reduced by the amount
calculated by multiplying the applicable development charges under
Schedule 1 by the net hectares under of the redeveloped property as
enumerated in Schedule 2.
(5) The amount of any credit under subsection (4) shall not exceed the total
development charges otherwise payable.
(6) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no credit shall be provided if,
(a) the demolished building or structure or part thereof would have been
exempt under this by-law;
Page 119
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-18
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
(b) the building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under
this by-law prior to the conversion, redevelopment or reconstruction as
the case may be;
(c) the development is exempt in whole or in part or eligible for any other
relief under this by-law; or
(d) development charges on the property were not paid under this by-law.
Part 5 - General
Cancelled Permits
27. A full development charge refund shall be given if a building permit is cancelled
prior to the commencement of construction.
Onus
28. The onus is on the owner to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the
Municipality which establishes that the owner is entitled to any exemption, credit
or refund claimed under this by-law.
Interest
29. The Municipality shall pay interest on a refund under sections 18 and 25 of the
Act at a rate equal to the Bank of Canada rate on the date this By-law comes into
force updated on the first business day of every January, April, July and October
until the date of the repeal or the expiry of this by-law.
30. Except as required under section 39, there shall be no interest paid on any
refunds given under this by-law.
Front-Ending Agreements
31. The Municipality may enter into front-ending agreements under section 44 of the
Act.
Effective Date
32. This by-law comes into force and is effective on January 19, 2021.
Expiry
Page 120
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-19
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
33. This by-law expires five years after the day on which it comes into force.
PASSED this 18th day of January 2021.
____________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________
C. Anne GreentreeJune Gallagher,
Municipal Clerk
Page 121
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-20
10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL
SCHEDULE 1
CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK AREA-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES
NOTE: Charges are subject to indexing in accordance with section 21
$ Per Net
Hectare
38,840
29,268
38,840
29,268
68,107 Total - Lands Benefitting from Quality and Quantity Control
Total - Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control
Stormwater Management Services - Quantity Control
Total - Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control
Service
Stormwater Management Services - Quality Control
Page 122
Attachment 2 to
FSD-004-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-21
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx
SCHEDULE 2
CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AREA CLASSIFICATION
Page 123
Attachment 2 to
FSD-004-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-22
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC
Background Study - FINAL.docx
CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AREA
BENEFITTING PROPERTIES
* Areas shown are net of (exclude) land for future right-of-ways, channels, etc.
Assessment Roll No.Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares)
181701001006000 2911 HIGHWAY 2 5.06
181701001006320 1100 BENNETT RD 2.72
181701001006400 2885 HIGHWAY 2 8.64
16.41
Assessment Roll No.Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares)
181701001001310 CON BF PT LOT 5 NOW RP 10R3357 PART 2 19.99
181701001001700 585 LAMBS RD 13.03
181701001001800 641 LAMBS RD 3.55
181701001001900 295 BASELINE RD 2.19
181701001002100 582 LAMBS RD 0.61
181701001002200 542 LAMBS RD 4.29
181701001006000 2911 HIGHWAY 2 2.93
181701001006300 1078 BENNETT RD 0.44
181701001006320 1100 BENNETT RD 1.96
181701001006400 2885 HIGHWAY 2 4.43
181701001008800 2805 HIGHWAY 2 0.67
181701001008900 2821-2825 KING ST E 0.27
181701001009100 2831 HWY 2 0.27
181701001009200 2839 HIGHWAY 2 0.42
181701001009300 2845 HIGHWAY 2 0.11
181701001009305 2849 HIGHWAY 2 0.25
181701001009400 1200 LAMBS RD 12.18
181702012019840 250 BASELINE RD 1.50
181702012019845 1122 HAINES ST 0.48
69.59
Assessment Roll No.Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares)
181701001001930 271 BASELINE RD E 1.45
181702012019830 210 BASELINE RD E 0.81
181702012019835 222 BASELINE RD E 1.29
181702012019840 250 BASELINE RD 2.13
181702012019844 1084 HAINES ST 0.57
6.26 Total
Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control
Total
Lands Benefitting from Both Quality and Quantity Control
Total
Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control
Page 124
Attachment 3 to
FND-004-21
Page 125
Memorandum
Address Contact Information Filepath
Plaza Three
101-2000 Argentia Rd.
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 1V9
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
www.watsonecon.ca
H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\SCS Response -
Southwest Courtice.docx
To Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality
of Clarington
From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date November 27, 2020
Re: Southwest Courtice Landowners Group Submission re: October
15, 2020 Development Charge Background Study
Fax Courier Mail Email
The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from SCS Consulting
Group (SCS) on behalf of the Southwest Courtice Landowners Group dated October 21,
2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background
Study. Subsequently Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. received this letter from the
Municipality on November 24, 2020.
The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded
through with stakeholders and Council are follows:
February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session,
including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix
substantiating the preliminary calculations;
April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council;
October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s
website; and
November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study.
The questions and comments in the October 21, 2020 SCS letter and our responses to
those questions are addressed in this memorandum and follow the order and titling of
the SCS letter for consistency and ease of reference.
1. General Comments
1.1 Development Forecast
SCS has suggested that the D.C. Background Study growth forecast to 2031 does not
include future population growth associated with the Southwest Courtice Secondary
Plan.
Page 126
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
SCS Response - Southwest Courtice
The growth forecast has been prepared based on the Municipality’s Official Plan
population projections to 2031. Furthermore, the Municipality has confirmed that the
Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan is within the 2031 urban boundaries and as such,
the population growth associated with the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan area is
contained within the D.C. Background Study growth forecast to 2031.
1.2 Proposed Municipality Road Network
Table 1 of the SCS letter identifies the following four road projects for potential inclusion
in the D.C. Background Study:
1. Towline Road Extension
a. The Clarington Transportation Master Plan identified the extension of
Townline Rd. from Southport Dr. to Prestonvale Rd. as a long-term project
that would be required beyond 2031. As such, the associated oversizing
of this project has not been included in the D.C. Study. Furthermore, the
traffic impact study for the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan identifies
that a two-lane road provides adequate capacity for forecast traffic
demands.
2. Fenning Drive Extension
a. Based on the local service policy contained in the Appendix D of the 2020
D.C. Background Study, the intersection works and sidewalk and cycling
facility would be considered a local service and direct developer
responsibility.
3. Prestonvale Road
a. This road has been included within the 2020 D.C. Background Study as
Services Related to a Highway, project #80 (Prestonvale Rd. from CPR
level crossing to 262m S. Southfield Ave.). This project includes
associated active transportation facilities and intersection works.
b. Services Related to a Highway, project #28 is included for the Prestonvale
Rd. Railroad Crossing at CPR level crossing. However, a grade
separation is not proposed to be included during the forecast period to
2031.
4. Proposed Collector Road (North-South Route between Townline Extension and
Prestonvale Rd.)
a. Based on the local service policy contained in the Appendix D of the 2020
D.C. Background Study, the intersection works, sidewalk and cycling
Page 127
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
SCS Response - Southwest Courtice
facility would be considered a local service and direct developer
responsibility.
1.3 Proposed Active Transportation
SCS has identified proposed active transportation projects to be included in the 2020
D.C. Background Study to connections to a future rail station, and connections across
the Hwy 401 corridor to ensure connectivity with the Energy Park employment lands,
Darlington Provincial Park, and a future community park.
The D.C. Background Study includes road works with active transportation components,
as well as sidewalk and cycling facility projects throughout the Southwest Courtice
Secondary Plan Area. The proposed active transportation projects identified in Table 2
of the SCS letter are not currently envisioned by the Municipality within the forecast
period to 2031. However, road improvements are proposed for a portion of Prestonvale
Road from Bloor Street to Proposed Townline Extension (i.e. D.C. project #80 –
Prestonvale Road from CPR level crossing to 262m S. Southfield Ave.) This project will
contain active transportation components within the design.
1.4 Benefit to Existing
No benefit to existing development has been included for bridge structure works, culvert
works, intersection works, sidewalk and cycling facility works, or streetlighting works as
the projects that have been identified are in response to future traffic demands and are
not required in the absence of increased traffic demands from new development.
Page 128
Attachment 4 to
FND-004-21
Page 129
Memorandum
Address Contact Information Filepath
Plaza Three
101-2000 Argentia Rd.
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 1V9
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
www.watsonecon.ca
H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\DRHBA
Response.docx
To Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality
of Clarington
From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date November 27, 2020
Re: DHHBA Submission re: Clarington D.C. By-Law Update 2020
Fax Courier Mail Email
The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from the Durham Region
Homebuilders’ Association (DRHBA) dated November 12, 2020 regarding the
Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background Study. Subsequently
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. received this letter from the Municipality on
November 23, 2020.
The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded
through with stakeholders and Council are follows:
February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session,
including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix
substantiating the preliminary calculations;
April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council;
October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s
website; and
November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study.
The November 12, 2020 DRBHA letter contained a memorandum from Altus Group
(Altus) including questions about the Municipality’s 2020 D.C. Background Study. Our
responses to those questions are addressed in this memorandum and follow the order
and titling of the Altus memorandum for consistency and ease of reference.
1. General Questions
1.1 Residential / Non-Residential Splits – Roads
Altus questions why the incremental employment growth forecast in the D.C.
Background Study does not include no-fixed-place-of-work (NFPOW) employment and
why this employment was not included in the residential/non-residential cost allocations.
Page 130
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
DRHBA Response
The increase in need for services for roads is based on the Municipality’s Transportation
Master Plan (TMP). The future travel demands in the TMP are forecast based on the
projected population and employment growth for the Municipality to 2031. The
employment projections utilized in the TMP explicitly exclude NFPOW employment. To
be consistent with the travel demands identified in the TMP and associated increase in
need for service, the allocation of D.C.-eligible costs to residential and non-residential
development is been based on the incremental population and employment growth
(excluding NFPOW) in the Municipality over that period.
1.2 Relationship of Calculated Maximum Allowable to D.C. Recoverable Costs
Altus suggests that the D.C. recoverable costs exceed the historical level of service cap
for Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Library Services. Furthermore, the Altus memo
acknowledges that interest costs are not counted against the historical level of service
cap.
The following table summarizes the D.C. recoverable costs (net of interest costs) and
the historical level of service cap for Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Library Services.
For each service the D.C. recoverable costs (net of interest costs) are less than the
historical level of service cap and is therefore compliant with the requirements of the
Development Charges Act.
2. Service Specific Questions
The service specific questions provided in the Altus memorandum are summarized and
responded to in the following subsections
2.1 Fire Services
2.1.1 Question regarding the increase in land values between the Municipality’s
2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies
Land valuations in the 2020 D.C. Background Study have been increased for inflation
based on the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index over
Fire Parks and Recreation Library
D.C. Recoverable Costs 5,594,609 77,619,427 10,179,948
less: Interest Costs - 7,491,053 113,584
Net D.C. Recoverable Costs 5,594,609 70,128,374 10,066,364
Historical Level of Service Cap 10,919,837 74,611,352 10,720,664
Difference 5,325,227 4,482,978 654,300
Description
Service
Page 131
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
DRHBA Response
the 2015-2020 period (i.e. 16.7% increase). Please note that the while the 2020
Background Study presents building values including items such as land, siteworks,
parking, landscaping, and furniture and equipment, the 2015 D.C. Background Study
presented these items separately. A true comparison of the facility replacement costs
contained in the 2015 D.C. Background Study should also contain the costs for land,
developed land and furniture and equipment.
2.1.2 Question regarding the differences between the number of vehicles
identified in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015
D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study
The inventory of vehicles that were in service for the 2010-2019 period have been
included reflective of updated information provided by the Municipality. The 2020 D.C.
Background Study includes additional types of vehicles and equipment that were not
included in the 2015 D.C. Background Study, i.e.:
Trailers;
Heavy Duty Trucks;
Medium Duty Trucks;
Polaris ATV; and
Hurst Tools.
2.1.3 Question regarding cost increases for Fire Services, Projects #2 and #6
The costs for the Fire Services project #2 (Expansion of Headquarters #1) is based on
the current building replacement costs per sq.ft. (i.e. $385 from the historical level of
service calculation) and the anticipated facility size of 4,500 sq.ft. The cost estimates
for project #6 (New Station #6 in Bowmanville) is based on the current building
replacement costs per sq.ft. (i.e. $385 from the historical level of service calculation)
plus 15% for equipment and siteworks and the anticipated facility size of 12,000 sq.ft.
Furthermore, costs for land acquisition have been included for 1 ha of land. In total, the
New Station #6 in Bowmanville has been included at a cost estimate of $501 per sq.ft.
2.2 Services Related to a Highway
2.2.1 Question regarding missing project numbers in the Services Related to a
Highway capital needs listing
This discrepancy was addressed in the November 3, 2020 addendum to the 2020 D.C.
Background Study.
Page 132
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
DRHBA Response
2.2.2 Question regarding the differences in costs per km for roads in the
historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background
Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study
Updated replacement costs were provided by the Municipality using benchmark cost
calculations based on the past 3-5 years historical costs.
2.2.3 Question regarding the differences in the replacement costs of the
Hampton Operations Centre and Orono Operations Centre in the historical
level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and
2020 D.C. Background Study.
The Municipality has undertaken an Operations Needs Assessments to assess the
future facility needs and construction costs. Replacement costs for the Hampton
Operations Centre and Orono Operations Centre have been updated based anticipated
facility construction costs identified in the 2020 Operations Needs Assessment and staff
direction. By way of comparison, the construction cost estimates in Operations Needs
assessment range between $456 to $869 per sq.ft. vs. $365 per sq.ft. in the D.C.
Background Study.
2.2.4 Question regarding inconsistencies with the Benefit to Existing (BTE)
deduction for roads projects
The BTE deductions have been developed by CIMA+ on a project by project basis for
improvements to existing roads. The BTE development has been calculated based on
the road treatment costs that are anticipated over a 20-year forecast period under a no
growth scenario. As such, the BTE deductions will differ by road based on the condition
of the existing road segment.
2.2.5 Question regarding the BTE deductions for sidewalk and cycling facilities
New sidewalk and cycling facilities have been allocated 100% to new development,
consistent with the approach utilized in the Municipality’s 2015 D.C. Background Study.
Projects #108, #124, #158, and #159 are for upgrades of an existing sidewalk to a multi-
use path, and as such, a 38% BTE deduction has been applied to recognize the
replacement of the existing sidewalk.
2.2.6 Question regarding BTE deductions for Streetlights compared to
Streetscape works
Similar to the approach for sidewalk and cycling facilities, new streetlights have been
allocated 100% to new development. Streetscape works are for improvements to
existing corridors and have been allocated to existing and new development on the
basis of population growth to existing population (i.e. 24% new development / 74%
existing development).
Page 133
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
DRHBA Response
2.2.7 Question regarding the increase capital cost estimates for roads projects
in the 2020 D.C. Background Study vs. the 2015 D.C. Background Study
The D.C. program has been updated by staff, in consultation with CIMA+, for the 2020
D.C. Background Study. The costs include various road components such as:
Road Construction;
Storm Sewer;
Sidewalk;
Streetlight;
Utility;
Streetscape;
Structures;
EA Costs; and
Land
With regard to the specific projects identified by Altus, the following breakdown of the
capital cost estimates are provided:
Page 134
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
DRHBA Response
Road Road Storm Sidewalk Streetlight Streetscape Structure
Project #Road/Project Description From To Year Factor Construction Sewer Construction Installation Works Works Total
4 Grady Dr. Structure (and Road Link)
At Foster
Creek 2024 70 1 749,397 - - 41,530 - 2,196,527 2,987,454
42 Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing)
West
Bowmanville
Boundary Green Rd.2020 420 1 186,663 260,930 119,497 50,854 71,275 - 689,219
64 Trulls Rd.
Bloor St.
(Reg. Rd. 22)Baseline Rd.2023 1820 1 3,759,597 1,315,193 588,431 250,420 327,975 - 6,241,615
Length
(metres)
Page 135
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7
DRHBA Response
2.2.8 Question regarding the decrease in BTE deductions for specific roads
projects
As identified above, the BTE deductions have been developed by CIMA+ on a project
by project basis for improvements to existing roads. The BTE deductions have been
calculated based on the road treatment costs that would have been required over a 20-
year forecast period under a no growth scenario. With the BTE deductions having been
reassessed through the preparation of the 2020 D.C. Background Study, there are
expected differences between the 2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies.
2.3 Parks and Recreation Services
2.3.1 Question regarding the costs for debt and future expansions of the Diane
Hamre Recreation Complex
Capital costs have been included for the growth-related share of remaining debt
payments for a prior expansion to the Dian Hamre Recreation Complex. This debt was
issued in 2007 and will expire in 2022. The Diane Hamre Recreation Complex – Ph1
Expansion project is related to a future expansion of this facility.
2.3.2 Question regarding debt included for additional Operations Centre facility
space
The Municipality has determined the need for additional operations facility space to
meet the needs of future development through the 2020 Facility Needs Assessment.
Furthermore, this need has been identified in prior D.C. Background Studies approved
by Council. It is anticipated that the facility will be funded through the issuance of debt
and as such the anticipated principal and interest costs have been included in D.C.
calculation.
2.3.3 Question regarding the D.C. eligible share for the Diane Hamre Recreation
Centre Debt payments and Bowmanville Indoor Soccer facility
Ten percent (10%) of the growth-related debt payments for the above referenced
facilities had been funded from non-D.C. sources, as municipalities were required to
witness this statutory deduction under the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.) under the
2015 D.C. Background Study. With the recent amendments to the D.C.A., the 10%
statutory deduction has been removed, and as such the full amount of the remaining
growth-related debt payments have been included in the calculation of the charge.
2.3.4 Question regarding differences between the number of parkland amenities
in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C.
Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study
The inventory of parkland amenities that were in service for the 2010-2019 period have
been included reflective of updated information provided by the Municipality. It is not
Page 136
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8
DRHBA Response
uncommon for these inventories to be revised and updated between study periods as
municipalities gain a better understanding of their assets and improve asset
management practices.
2.3.5 Question regarding the cost estimate of the Courtice Waterfront Park
The Courtice Waterfront Park capital cost estimate was provided by staff based on
recent expenditures and the intended project scope.
2.3.6 Question seeking further detail on Parks and Recreation Projects #51-#55
Further detail on these projects can be found in the Municipality’s 2017 Indoor Facilities
Development Strategy.
2.3.7 Question regarding clarification on the lack of a BTE deduction for the
South Bowmanville Facility (Phase 2)
The BTE deductions for each of the new indoor recreation facility projects (i.e. projects
#49-55) were assessed based on whether the facility components address the needs of
the existing community or are being created to meet the needs of new development.
Phase 2 of the South Bowmanville Facility is for the creation of additional indoor aquatic
facility space in the Municipality. The full costs of the project have been allocated to
new development, with 55% of the costs being attributed to growth beyond the 10-year
forecast period, as the existing indoor aquatic facility needs of the Municipality are being
addressed through the Courtice Community Complex – Aquatic Expansion project.
2.3.8 Question regarding the attribution of trail projects and waterfront park
development projects to new development
The need to expand the provision of parkland and recreational trails in response to new
development has been assessed by the Municipality. Consistent with the approach
utilized by the Municipality in prior D.C. Background Studies, 100% of these costs have
been allocated to new development as the existing community has a sufficient level of
service.
2.4 Library Services
2.4.1 Question regarding the increase in land values between the Municipality’s
2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies
Building and land valuations in the 2020 D.C. Background Study have been increased
for inflation based on the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Building Construction Price
Index over the 2015-2020 period (i.e. 16.7% increase). Please note that the while the
2020 Background Study presents building values including items such as siteworks,
parking, landscaping, and furniture and equipment, the 2015 D.C. Background Study
presented these items separately. A true comparison of the facility replacement costs
Page 137
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9
DRHBA Response
contained in the 2015 D.C. Background Study should also contain the costs for parking
lots, access roads, other paved infrastructure, furniture and equipment.
2.4.2 Question regarding the Courtice Library projects
Library Services Projects #2 and #3 reflect the outstanding growth-related debt
payments for the Courtice Library Branch. Project #4 (Provision for Courtice Street
Library Space) is for the costs of a future growth-related expansion to Library facility
space in Courtice.
2.5 Growth Studies
2.5.1 Question regarding the potential duplication of D.C. Study costs
The 10-year capital program for Growth Studies includes cost for the preparation of the
2020 D.C. Background Study (Project #1) and the subsequent review in 5-years
(Project #26). The timing for project #26 should be 2024-2025.
Page 138
BUILDING YOUR IDEAS - INTO BIG PLANS
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
PLANNING | DEVELOPMENT | PROJECT MANAGEMENT | UBAN DESIGN
20 Leslie Street, Suite 121, Toronto, Ontario M4M 3L4
126 Catharine Street, Hamilton, Ontario L8 R 1J4
Office: (416) 693-9155 Fax: (416) 693 -9133
tbg@thebiglierigroup.com
November 30, 2020
Municipality of Clarington
Finance Department
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Attention: Trevor Pinn, Treasurer
Dear M r . Pinn ,
RE: 2020 Development Charges Background Study
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
Municipality of Clarington
TBG Project No. 19568
On behalf of our client, Soper Hills Holdings Inc ., The Biglieri Group Ltd. is pleased to submit our
comments relating to the 2020 Development Charges Background Study, prepared by Watson &
Associates (October 15, 2020 ) and the Soper Hills Secondary Plan study , which is currently on -going.
Soper Hills Holdings Inc. is a member of the Bowmanville East Developers Group. Soper Hills
Holdings Inc. property is l egally described as Part of Lot 6, Concession 1 (Darlington ) a nd is located
on the south side of Con cession Street East, east of Lambs Road.
SOPER HILLS SECONDARY PLAN AREA
The Soper Hills Secondary Plan A rea is bounded by the CPR Tracks to the north, Lambs Road to the
west, Durham Highway 2 to the south, and Providence Road/road allowance between lots 4 and 5 to
the east. The lands are mostly comprised of agricultural and rural residential uses.
Our comments relate to the various Municipal Roads and Related Costs identified in the 2020
Development Charges Background Study within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area.
Road Network
Upon review of the list of Services Related to a Highway, we have identified various items in and
around the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area that are consistent with the transportation network within
the adopted Official Plan (June 2018 Consol i dation) and Clarington Transportation Master Plan
(December 2016). These include :
➢Lambs Road Box Culvert at Soper Creek Tributary (Project No. 8);
➢Highway 2 sidewalk and street lighting between Soper Creek and Bennett Road (Project Nos.
152 and 172);
➢I mprovements to Lambs Road between Baseline Road and Concession Road 3 (Project Nos.
48, 55, 61 and 86);
➢I mprovements to Concession Street E. between Soper Creek Drive and Providence Road
(Project Nos. 70 and 94);
Attachment 5 to
FND-004-21
Page 139
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
2
➢ Improvements to the Lambs Road and Concession Street E. intersection (Project No. 30);
and,
➢ Extension of Bennett Road between Highway 2 and Concession Street E. (Project No. 101).
In addition , we have identified several items that should be considered in the 2020 Development
Charges Background Study. These items are as follows:
➢ Lambs Road Grade Separation at CPR Tracks;
➢ East-West Collector Road between Lambs Road and Providence Road, north of Concession
Street E.;
➢ East-West Collector Road between Lambs Road and future Bennett Road, south of
Concession Street E.;
➢ North -South Collector Road between Highway 2 and the future Collector Road north of
Concession Street E.
Please refer to Attachment 1 for the included items and recommendations listed above.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2020 Development Charges Background Study. We
look forward to hearing back from Municipal staff shortly on this matter .
We trust you will find all in order, however , if you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully,
THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
Mark Jacobs, MCIP, RPP
Planner
Attachments: Attachment 1 – Map J3 Clarington Official Plan (redlined)
cc. Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting (Bowmanville East Developers Group)
Joe Valela, Soper Hills Holdings Inc.
Page 140
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
XY XY XY XY XYXYLIBERTY STREETREGIONAL ROAD 42AVENUE
CONCESSION STREET
KING STREET
BASELINE ROAD C. P R.C. N. R.
HIGHWAY 401REGIONAL ROAD 57CONCESSION ROAD 3
SCUGOG STREETLIBERTY STREETAVENUESIMPSON AVENUEPROVIDENCE ROADGREEN ROADLO N G W O R TH
MEARNSLAMBS ROADNORTHGLEN BOULEVARD
NASH ROAD
MAPLE GROVEROADMIDDLE ROADBENNETT ROAD
BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA
OFFICIAL PLANMUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTONOCTOBER, 2017OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ROADS AND TRANSIT
MAP J3
³
Lake On t a r io
FUTUREFREEWAY INTERCHANGE
PROPOSEDGRADE SEPARATION
EXISTINGFREEWAY INTERCHANGE
EXISTINGGRADE SEPARATION
!(
!(
!!!!RAIL TRANSIT LINE
FREEWAY
TYPE B ARTERIAL ROAD
TYPE C ARTERIAL ROAD
REGIONAL TRANSIT SPINE
COLLECTOR ROAD
URBAN AREA
TYPE A ARTERIAL ROAD
RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION HUB
XY
XY
GO
GO
D1-Deferred by theRegion of Durham
D1-Deferred by theRegion of Durham
D1-Deferred by theRegion of Durham
D2-Deferred by theRegion of Durham
DEFERRED BY THEREGION OF DURHAM
Appealed byPL170817PL171459
8
48
55
61
70
86
94
30 101
152,
172
CPR Grade
Separation
New
Collector
Roads
ATTACHMENT 1
IDENTIFIED PROJECT
IN 2020 DCBS
RECOMMENDED
ADDITION TO
2020 DCBS
New
Collector
Roads
Page 141
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
January 4, 2021
The Biglieri Group Ltd.
20 Leslie Street, Suite 121
Toronto, Ontario M4M 3L4
Attention: Mark Jacobs, Planner
Dear Mark:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge
Background Study, received on November 30, 2020.
Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway within the
Soper Hills Secondary Plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the
timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on
January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the
matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC
implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as
approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC
by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these
growth-related needs.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary
Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law.
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA
Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
Attachment 5(a) to
FND-004-21
Page 142
To: Mr. Trevor Pinn, Treasurer – Finance Department, Municipality of Clarington
cc: Mr. Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design
Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc. (Filipe Dias)
From: Michael May, P.Eng., Reg Webster Consulting Inc.
Date: November 27, 2020
Project: Brookhill Secondary Plan Area
Re: Municipality of Clarington – Proposed DC Background Study
______________________________________________________________________________
On behalf of Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc., please find attached the following comments as it relates
to the review of the Municipality of Clarington – Proposed Development Charge Background Study,
dated October 15, 2020 and subsequent Addendum dated November 3, 2020. For reference, Brookhill
Durham Holdings Inc. is the owner of the following properties within the Brookhill Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan Area:
2499 Nash Road;
2538 Bowmanville Avenue (Regional Road 57); and
2494 Bowmanville Avenue (Regional Road 57).
While it is understood that the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area is not completed at the
time of preparing these comments, however, the below comments will in the near future have impact to
the Proposed DC Background Study.
1.Services Related to a Highway within the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area
Upon review of the Proposed DC Background Study, all Services Related to a Highway pertaining to
the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area, (i.e. bridge structure works, intersection works, roads, sidewalks
and cycling facilities, and streetlighting) have been marked on the included Attachment 1: Draft
Brookhill Secondary Plan – Land Use and Transportation.
Based on review of Attachment 1: Draft Brookhill Secondary Plan – Land Use and Transportation, the
below road works (illustrated in red) are not included in the Proposed DC Background Study. Please
provide a response to why these road works are not included in the Proposed DC Background Study.
Nash Road (Arterial Road Type B with dedicated bicycle lanes) from West Boundary Limit of
the Brookhill Neighbourhood to the Future Clarington Boulevard.
Green Road (Arterial Road Type B with dedicated bicycle lanes) from 670m North of
Longworth Avenue to Nash Road.
Clarington Boulevard (Collector Road with on-street bicycle lanes) from Brookhill Boulevard
to Longworth Avenue.
Attachment 6 to
FND-004-21
Page 143
Page 2 of 2
o While it is noted that this is a collector road, refencing Appendix D: Local Service
Policy, the inclusion of on-street bicycle lanes would require oversizing costs to
accommodate the road structure.
Clarington Boulevard (Collector Road with on-street bicycle lanes) from Longworth Avenue
to South 90 degree curve.
o While it is noted that this is a collector road, refencing Appendix D: Local Service
Policy, the inclusion of on-street bicycle lanes would require oversizing costs to
accommodate the road structure.
2. Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area
Parks and Recreation Services projects within the Proposed DC Background Study were compared by
the September 2020 version of the Brookhill Neighbourbood Secondary Plan – Schedule B: Open
Space and Parks, with the following comments:
There are two additional Neighbourhood Parks included (Project Nos. 32 and 39) in the
Proposed DC Background Study that are not reflective in the current Brookhill
Neighbourhood Secondary Plan information.
On the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan – Schedule B, dated September 2020, there
are 6 total parkettes, however, the Proposed DC Background Study includes one (1) parkette
for “Brookhill”.
Brookhill Neighbourhood Park 2 (Project No. 26) net capital cost of $1.5M is much larger
than the other neighbourhood park infrastructure costs.
No trails illustrated within the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan – Schedule B are
included in the Proposed DC Background Study.
Please provide a response to the above discrepancies.
3. Benefit to Existing Development
There appears to be inconsistencies with the application of benefit to existing development for
several infrastructure categories in the costs covered in the DC Calculations. Under the Services
Related to a Highway, the Bridge/Culvert Works, Intersection Works, Road Works, Sidewalk &
Cycling Facility Works, and Street Light Works all include a varying number of projects that have no
benefit to existing reduction.
Please provide clarification related to the inconsistencies of the application within each category.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions and/or comments.
Regards,
Michael May, P.Eng.
Reg Webster Consulting Inc.
8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 104 | Vaughan, ON | L4K 0C5 | Tel: 905-660-7667 Ext. 231 | Cell: 905-243-9161
E-mail: mike.may@rwconsultinginc.net | Visit us at: www.rwconsultinginc.net
Page 144
Project No. 136
Project No. 116Project No. 114
Project
No. 137Project
No. 75
Project No. 56
Project No. 85
Project No. 17
Project No. 42
Project No. 47
Project No. 14
Project
No. 1
Markup of Proposed DC
Background Study Projects
Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc.
Page 145
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
January 4, 2021
Reg Webster Consulting Inc.
8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 104
Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5
Attention: Michael May, P.Eng., General Manager
Dear Mike:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge
Background Study, received on November 27, 2020.
Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway and
Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan area are being
reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and
with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible
date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the
Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising
from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will
consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material
changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs.
In response to your questions about the benefit to existing deductions for Services
Related to a Highway, the attached letter from CIMA is provided for information.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary
Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law.
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA
Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
Attachment 6(a) to
FND-004-21
Page 146
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443
cima.ca
December 18, 2020
Municipality of Clarington
Public Works Department
[via email]
Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure
RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Bagshaw:
The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the
Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of
Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program.
1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS
1.1 DEFERRED COSTS
For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of
an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020
dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to
the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the
Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle
activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road
conditions.
This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be
sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the
case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement
management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard
appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going
resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc.
This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads.
Page 147
December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca
1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE
For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic
growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial
highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth
population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to
growth.
1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING
For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that
are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established.
2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS
The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and
widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three
components making-up the project cost:
• BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year
in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and
77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth.
• Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances
where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects.
• Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably
to growth with no BTE.
For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established
based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year.
3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS
3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY
Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility
(i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility
with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth.
3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING
For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth
related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE).
Page 148
December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca
4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS
Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new
structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required
to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS
For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based
on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and
26% is allocated to growth.
6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS
Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they
are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road
corridors due to growth.
Sincerely,
CIMA Canada Inc.
Dan Campbell
Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure
dan.campbell@cima.ca
Page 149
Attachment 7 to
FND-004-21
Page 150
Page 151
Page 152
Page 153
Page 154
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
January 4, 2021
SCS Consulting Group ltd.
30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100
Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8
Attention: Candice Ward
Dear Candice:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge
Background Study, received on November 27, 2020.
Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway and
Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan area are being
reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and
with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible
date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the
Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising
from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will
consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material
changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs.
In response to your questions about the benefit to existing deductions for Services
Related to a Highway, the attached letter from CIMA has been provided for information.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary
Plan and future amendment to the D.C. Background Study and By-law.
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA
Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
Attachment 7(a) to
FND-004-21
Page 155
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443
cima.ca
December 18, 2020
Municipality of Clarington
Public Works Department
[via email]
Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure
RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Bagshaw:
The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the
Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of
Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program.
1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS
1.1 DEFERRED COSTS
For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of
an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020
dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to
the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the
Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle
activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road
conditions.
This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be
sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the
case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement
management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard
appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going
resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc.
This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads.
Page 156
December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca
1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE
For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic
growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial
highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth
population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to
growth.
1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING
For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that
are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established.
2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS
The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and
widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three
components making-up the project cost:
• BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year
in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and
77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth.
• Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances
where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects.
• Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably
to growth with no BTE.
For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established
based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year.
3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS
3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY
Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility
(i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility
with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth.
3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING
For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth
related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE).
Page 157
December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca
4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS
Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new
structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required
to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS
For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based
on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and
26% is allocated to growth.
6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS
Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they
are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road
corridors due to growth.
Sincerely,
CIMA Canada Inc.
Dan Campbell
Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure
dan.campbell@cima.ca
Page 158
Attachment 8 to
FND-004-21
Page 159
Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58DC Roads Projects Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020Table 1Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToBridge Structure WorksBridge Structure Works1Longworth Ave. Structure at BrookhillBrookhill Tributary Crossing20221,213,2281,213,228 - -1,213,2281,006,979206,2492Baseline Rd.At Bennett Rd. Channel Crossing20231,108,5011,108,501 - -1,108,501920,056188,4453Lambs Rd.At Bennett Rd. Channel Crossing20231,108,5011,108,501 - -1,108,501920,056188,4454Grady Dr. Structure (and Road Link)At Foster Creek20242,987,4542,987,454 - -2,987,4542,479,587507,8675Lambs Rd. Grade Seperationat CNR Crossing203015,006,54715,006,547 - -15,006,54712,455,4342,551,1136Bennett Rd.At Soper Creek Tributary20311,108,5011,108,501 - -1,108,501920,056188,445Culvert WorksCulvert Works- - ----7Hancock Rd. Box Culvert (99077)at Black Creek Tributary20221,012,6001,012,600679,000 -333,600276,88856,7128Lambs Rd. Box Culvert (99069)at Soper Creek Tributary2023286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,6309Baseline Rd. Culvert (99065)at Darlington CreekWest of Green Rd.2027286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,63010Baseline Road Culvert (99063)140m East of Holt Rd.2028286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,63011Baseline Rd. Culvert (99055)at Robinson Creek (w. of R.R. 34)2028286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,63012Baseline Rd. Culvert (99057)at Tooley Creek (e. of R.R. 34)2029286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,630Intersection WorksIntersection Works13George Reynolds Dr.At Courtice Rd.2020821,850821,850 - -821,850682,136139,71514Green Rd.At Brookhill2021207,746207,746152,996 -54,75045,4439,30815King Ave./Baldwin St./North Street2021316,231158,116 316,231122,916 -35,20029,2165,98416King St.At Ontario St.2021207,746207,746152,996 -54,75045,4439,30817Longworth Ave./Green Rd. (Intersection)2022316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86418Bennett Rd.At Lake Road2022432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43219Bennett Rd. Railroad Crossingat CNR Level Crossing2022381,670381,670 - -381,670316,78664,88420Trulls Rd.At Sandringham Dr.2022432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43221Baseline Rd.At Haines St.2023310,925310,925 - -310,925258,06852,85722Baseline Rd.At Caristrap St.2023310,925310,925 - -310,925258,06852,85723Baseline Rd.At Mearns Ave./Mearns Ct.2023621,850621,850 - -621,850516,136105,71524Arthur St. Railroad Crossingat C.P.R Level Crossing2024636,117636,117 - -636,117527,977108,14025Clarington Blvd.At Prince William Blvd2024506,000506,000282,736 -223,264185,30937,95526Prestonvale Rd.At Robert Adams Dr.2024316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86427Mearns Ave./Concession St. (Signals)2026316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86428Prestonvale Rd. Railroad Crossingat CPR Level Crossing2026636,117636,117 - -636,117527,977108,14029Baseline Rd.At Maple Grove Rd.2027621,850621,850 - -621,850516,136105,71530Conc. St. E/Lambs Rd. Intersection2027316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86431King St./Simpson Ave. (Intersection)2028432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43232King St./Scugog St. (Intersection)2030432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43233Toronto St./Mill St. Intersection2030207,74651,937 207,746152,996 -2,8132,33547834Trulls Rd.At George Reynolds Dr.2031432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43235Baseline Rd./Holt Rd. (Signals)2031316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86436Baseline Rd.At Simpson Ave.2031532,377532,377 - -532,377441,87390,50437Holt Rd./Bloor St. (Signals)2031316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86438Longworth Ave.At Mearns Ave.2031207,746207,746152,996 -54,75045,4439,308Road WorksRoad Works39Baseline Rd.Trulls Rd.Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.)20202,463,8982,463,898945,020 -1,518,8781,260,669258,20940George Reynolds Dr.Courtice Rd.Harry Gay Dr.20202,439,4992,439,499 - -2,439,4992,024,784414,71541Lake Rd. (Through Existing GFL Site)Bennett Rd.250m West of Bennett Rd.20201,512,666348,000 1,512,666 - -1,164,666966,673197,99342Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing)West Bowmanville BoundaryGreen Rd.2020689,219689,219 - -689,219572,051117,16743Rudell Rd.Grady Dr.CPR20201,521,3721,521,372 - -1,521,3721,262,739258,63344Conc. Rd. 3500m East of Middle Rd.Liberty St.20211,131,7211,131,721327,748 -803,974667,298136,67645Conc. Rd. 3Liberty St.90m W. of Jollow Dr.20211,283,8281,283,828347,338 -936,490777,287159,20346Darlington Blvd.Highway 2Foxhunt Trail20212,265,9242,265,924538,710 -1,727,2141,433,588293,62647Green Rd.Ross WrightFuture Longworth Avenue2021514,419514,41912,481 -501,938416,60885,32948Lambs Rd.CPR TracksConc. Rd. 32021451,491451,491332,504 -118,98798,75920,22849Maple Grove Rd.Hwy 2Future Longworth Ave2021383,768383,768282,628 -101,13983,94617,19450Middle Rd.890m N of Conc 3Taunton Rd.20211,498,9511,498,9511,103,914 -395,038327,88167,15651Bennett Rd.South Service Rd.South End (East Beach Rd.)20221,756,7441,756,744243,804 -1,512,9401,255,740257,20052Conc. Rd. 3200m East of Reg. Rd. 57100m West of Middle Rd.20221,783,3191,783,319661,886 -1,121,432930,789190,64353Hancock Rd.Nash Rd.0.65km North20221,308,8321,308,83238,730 -1,270,1021,054,185215,91754Hancock Rd.275m South of Nash. Rd.Nash Rd.2022543,699543,699126,691 -417,008346,11770,89155Lambs Rd.Highway 2Concession St. E20224,629,7704,629,770163,844 -4,465,9263,706,718759,20756Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing)Bowmanville CreekGreen Rd.20222,527,1352,527,135 - -2,527,1352,097,522429,61357Nash Rd.50m East of Harry Gay Dr.Hancock Rd.20221,011,4221,011,422187,935 -823,487683,495139,99358Port Darlington Rd.Port Darlington East BeachEast Shore Drive20221,505,6031,505,603 - -1,505,6031,249,650255,95259Baseline Rd.Mearns Ct.Haines St.20231,356,3871,356,387600,171 -756,216627,659128,55760Baseline Rd.Haines St.Lambs Rd.20231,382,5841,382,584255,286 -1,127,298935,657191,64161Lambs Rd.300m North of Baseline Rd.Highway 220231,152,1531,152,153393,520 -758,633629,666128,96862Queen St. ExtensionSt. George St.Frank St.2023719,084719,084 - -719,084596,840122,24463Trulls Rd.230m South of Yorkville Dr.Reg. Rd. 2220232,374,7682,374,768432,707 -1,942,0611,611,910330,15064Trulls Rd.Bloor St. (Reg. Rd. 22)Baseline Rd.20236,241,6156,241,6151,797,196 -4,444,4193,688,868755,55165Conc. Rd. 3Mearns Ave.Reg. Rd. 4220231,498,9511,498,9511,103,914 -395,038327,88167,15666East Shore Dr.Port Darlington Rd.Lake Rd.20231,457,5201,457,520318,728 -1,138,792945,197193,59567Maple Grove Rd.Baseline Rd.Bloor St.2023880,408880,408648,383 -232,025192,58139,44468Prince William Blvd.Pethick St.Reg. Rd. 5720241,129,2951,129,295 - -1,129,295937,315191,98069Arthur St.CPR Level Crossing1.13km N. of CPR20242,236,0862,236,0861,135,694 -1,100,392913,325187,06770Concession St. E.Soper Creek Dr.Lambs Rd.20241,930,4351,930,435599,758 -1,330,6771,104,462226,21571Haines St.Baseline Rd.Reg. Highway 220243,155,1023,155,10255,386 -3,099,7162,572,764526,95272Holt Rd.Reg. Highway 2Future Longworth Ave.2025948,597948,597188,648 -759,949630,758129,19173Longworth Ave.Holt Rd.Maple Grove Rd.20253,062,4473,062,447 - -3,062,4472,541,831520,61674Longworth Ave.Maple Grove Rd.West Bowmanville Boundary20251,485,5151,485,515 - -1,485,5151,232,978252,53875Nash Rd. (Future Clarington Blvd.)South 90 degree CurveNorth 90 degree Curve20252,023,3812,023,38121,211 -2,002,1701,661,801340,36976Old Scugog Rd.Conc. Rd. 4Taunton Rd.2025952,647952,647701,584 -251,063208,38342,68177Pebblestone Rd.Reg. Rd. 55 (Townline Rd.)Tooley Rd.2025555,334555,334408,980 -146,354121,47424,88078Pebblestone Rd.Trulls Rd.Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.)2025370,223370,223272,653 -97,57080,98316,58779Lambs Rd.Highway 401Baseline Rd.20261,646,1401,646,14039,940 -1,606,2001,333,146273,05480Prestonvale Rd.CPR Level Crossing262m S. Southfield Ave.20263,559,7783,559,778345,023 -3,214,7562,668,247546,50881Simpson Ave. ExtensionKing St.Future Church St.2026505,624505,624 - -505,624419,66885,95682Arthur St.1.13 km North CPR Level CrossingConc. Rd. 320271,018,2001,018,200508,547 -509,652423,01286,641Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx1 of 4Page 163
Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToIncreased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)83Baseline Rd.170m East of Darlington CreekHolt Rd.20275,057,0105,057,010286,546 -4,770,4643,959,485810,97984Energy Drive410m East of Osborne Rd.Crago Rd.20271,677,8701,677,870 - -1,677,8701,392,632285,23885Green Rd.Future Longworth Ave.670 m North of Longworth Ave.20272,297,7372,297,73755,749 -2,241,9891,860,851381,13886Lambs Rd.Concession St. ECPR Tracks20273,806,6993,806,699522,388 -3,284,3112,725,978558,33387Stevens Rd.Reg. Rd. 57East End2027766,489766,48944,985 -721,504598,848122,65688Baseline Rd.Prestonvale Rd.Trulls Rd.20283,621,6333,621,633220,198 -3,401,4352,823,191578,24489Osbourne Rd.Energy Dr.Megawatt Dr.2028994,543994,543116,404 -878,139728,856149,28490Baseline Rd.Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.)Hancock Road20292,547,0392,547,039150,182 -2,396,8571,989,391407,46691Conc. Rd. 3Reg. Rd. 17Arthur St.20291,459,0901,459,090428,376 -1,030,714855,493175,22192Crago Rd.Osbourne Rd.South Service Rd.20295,315,6615,315,661401,190 -4,914,4714,079,011835,46093Bennett Rd.Highway 401Reg. Highway 220301,858,4621,858,462545,628 -1,312,8341,089,652223,18294Concession St. E.Lambs Rd.Providence Rd.20302,846,4512,846,451498,815 -2,347,6361,948,538399,09895Green Rd. WideningBaseline Rd.Reg. Highway 220301,461,9831,461,983 - -1,461,9831,213,446248,53796Green Rd.Baseline Rd.South End20302,366,3272,366,327567,446 -1,798,8811,493,071305,81097Lambs Rd.Port Darlington Rd.Lake Rd.20301,057,0491,057,04912,852 -1,044,197866,684177,51498Mearns Ave.Conc. Rd. 3300m North Conc. Rd. 320301,028,8381,028,83857,162 -971,676806,491165,18599Toronto St.Mill St.CNR Level Crossing20303,823,8473,823,847185,276 -3,638,5713,020,014618,557100Baseline Rd.Lambs Rd.Bennett Rd.20311,788,4541,788,454 - -1,788,4541,484,416304,037101Bennett Rd.Hwy 2Conc. St. East20314,537,0404,537,040 - -4,537,0403,765,743771,297102Holt Rd.Baseline Rd.300m South of Baseline Rd.2031900,628900,62855,514 -845,114701,444143,669103Holt Rd.Baseline Rd.Bloor St.20315,621,5325,621,532134,977 -5,486,5554,553,840932,714104Holt Rd.Bloor St.Reg. Highway 220312,043,1322,043,132124,027 -1,919,1051,592,857326,248105Trulls Rd.Billett GatePebblestone Rd.20313,669,5213,669,521183,273 -3,486,2482,893,586592,662Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksSidewalk & Cycling Facility Works106Bloor St. SidewalkTownline Rd. S210m E of Townline Rd.202047,29947,299 - -47,29939,2588,041107Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 SidewalkPrestonvale Rd.65m E of Prestonvale Rd.202038,03338,033 - -38,03331,5676,466108Highway 2 Sidewalk271m East of Clarington Blvd.Reg. Rd. 572020192,676192,67674,168 -118,50898,36220,146109Manvers Road (East Side Sidewalk)Mill St.Remi Court202076,57976,579 - -76,57963,56113,018110North St. SidewalkGeorge St.Remi Court202039,41639,416 - -39,41632,7156,701111Prestonvale Rd. SidewalkBloor St.230m N of Bloor St.202051,80351,803 - -51,80342,9978,807112Prestonvale Rd. Sidewalk230m N of Bloor St.Meadowglade Rd.202037,16337,163 - -37,16330,8466,318113Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Aspen Springs Dr.Hwy 22020286,707286,707 - -286,707237,96748,740114Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Highway 2Stevens Rd.2020157,982157,982 - -157,982131,12526,857115Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideCPRHwy 2202056,30856,308 - -56,30846,7369,572116Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideHwy 2Stevens Rd.202060,81360,813 - -60,81350,47510,338117Trulls Rd. SidewalkStrathallan Dr.Highway 2202054,05654,056 - -54,05644,8669,189118Liberty St. SidewalkBons Ave.Concession Rd. 32021374,342374,342 - -374,342310,70463,638119Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East Side140m N of Baseline Rd.Waverly Rd.202140,54240,542 - -40,54233,6506,892120Regional Rd. 34 SidewalkNash Rd.North Urban Boundary20211,183,5811,183,581 - -1,183,581982,372201,209121Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk East SideRemi Ct.375m N of CPR2021130,635130,635 - -130,635108,42722,208122Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk West SideRemi Ct.375m N of CPR2021131,761131,761 - -131,761109,36222,399123Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Baseline Rd.Prestonway Dr.2021496,179496,179 - -496,179411,82984,350124Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Prestonway Dr.Aspen Springs Dr.2021275,005275,005104,502 -170,503141,51828,986125Tooley Rd. Sidewalk265m N of Nash Rd.Adelaide Ave.2021169,609169,609 - -169,609140,77528,834126Hancock Rd.Highway 2275m South of Nash. Rd.2022363,332363,332 - -363,332301,56561,766127Highway 2 Sidewalk35/115 GO Parking LotRudell Rd.2022217,349217,349 - -217,349180,40036,949128Highway 2 SidewalkNewcastle Fire HallRudell Rd.202296,85096,850 - -96,85080,38516,464129Regional Highway 2Police Station (2046 Maple Grove Rd.)170m West of Maple Grove Rd.202238,28938,289 - -38,28931,7806,509130Regional Highway 2170m West of Maple Grove Rd.Boswell Dr.2022357,827357,827 - -357,827296,99660,831131Frank St.Future Queen St.Prince St.202328,15428,154 - -28,15423,3684,786132Lambs Rd.Baseline Rd.300m North of Baseline Rd.202367,57067,570 - -67,57056,08311,487133Rudell Rd. SidewalkSunset Blvd.Hart Blvd.2023141,503141,503 - -141,503117,44824,056134Courtice Rd. SidewalkStagemaster Cr.Bloor St.2024254,513254,513 - -254,513211,24543,267135Coutice Rd. (Regional Road 34)Bloor St.CPR/Future GO Station20241,971,9161,971,916 - -1,971,9161,636,690335,226136Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideStevens Rd.Nash Rd.20241,453,3271,453,327 - -1,453,3271,206,262247,066137Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Stevens Rd.Nash Rd.2024772,354772,354 - -772,354641,054131,300138Trulls Rd. SidewalkSandringham Dr.Strathallan Dr.202470,94870,948 - -70,94858,88712,061139West Scugog Lane SidewalkMill Ln (south leg)Bons Ave.2024126,130126,130 - -126,130104,68821,442140West Townline Rd. SidewalkDudley CourtSouth Regional Urban Limit2024264,241264,241 - -264,241219,32044,921141Bloor St. (North Side Sidewalk)Courtice Rd.Hancock Rd.2025193,700193,700 - -193,700160,77132,929142Bloor St. Sidewalk210m E of Townline Rd.415m Easterly202546,17346,173 - -46,17338,3237,849143Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 Sidewalk65m E of Prestonvale Rd.Courtice Rd.2025585,117585,117 - -585,117485,64799,470144Bloor St. (South Side Sidewalk)Trulls Rd.Courtice Rd.2025897,319897,319 - -897,319744,775152,544145Bloor St. (South Side Sidewalk)Robinson CreekTrulls Rd.2025180,186180,186 - -180,186149,55430,632146Bloor St. (South Side MUP)Prestonvale Rd.Robinson Creek2025320,116320,116 - -320,116265,69654,420147Bloor St/Reg. Rd. 22 MUPTownline Rd.Prestonvale Rd.2025620,224620,224 - -620,224514,786105,438148Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 MUPTrulls Rd.Courtice Rd.20251,024,3721,024,372 - -1,024,372850,229174,143149Nash Rd.Green Rd.Future Clarington Blvd.2025284,759284,759 - -284,759236,35048,409150Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideHartwell Ave.CPR2025123,878123,878 - -123,878102,81921,059151Scugog St. SidewalkKing St.Rehder Ave.2025141,896141,896 - -141,896117,77424,122152Highway 2 SidewalkSoper CreekBennett Rd.2026333,794333,794 - -333,794277,04956,745153Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk East Side375m N of CPRConc. Rd. 32027229,737229,737 - -229,737190,68239,055154Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk West Side375m N of CPRConc. Rd. 32027229,737229,737 - -229,737190,68239,055155Nash Rd. (Cycling Lanes)Solina Rd.Maple Grove Rd.20282,372,9922,372,992 - -2,372,9921,969,583403,409156Highway 2 Sidewalk on South SideEast End of PlazaHancock Road (Realigned)2029120,049120,049 - -120,04999,64120,408157Baseline Rd.Green Rd.Spicer Sq.2030608,522608,522 - -608,522505,073103,449158Baseline Rd.Regional Rd. 57Spry Ave.2030246,334246,33494,823 -151,511125,75425,757159Baseline Rd.Spicer Sq.Regional Rd. 572030122,875122,87547,299 -75,57662,72812,848160Baseline Rd. (South Side Cycling Facility)Spry Ave.Liberty St.20301,042,9711,042,971 - -1,042,971865,666177,305161Courtice Rd. MUPHighway 2South End of Plaza203073,14073,140 - -73,14060,70612,434162Courtice Rd. MUPSouth End of PlazaSouth Urban Boundary2030204,874204,874 - -204,874170,04634,829163Courtice Road (East Side Sidewalk)Sandringham Dr.Bloor St.20301,792,6511,792,651 - -1,792,6511,487,900304,751164Highway 2 (North Side Cycling Facility)Courtice Rd.Future Transit Hub2030160,605160,605 - -160,605133,30227,303165Liberty St. SidewalkConc. Rd. 3North Urban Boundary2030527,044527,044 - -527,044437,44689,597166Baseline Rd.Liberty St.Haines St.20311,475,5451,475,545 - -1,475,5451,224,702250,843167Baseline Rd.Haines St.Lambs Rd.2031242,823242,823 - -242,823201,54441,280Street Lighting WorksStreet Lighting Works168Reg. Rd. 57 StreetlightingCPRBaseline Rd.2021413,028413,028 - -413,028342,81370,215169Highway 2Boswell Dr.Courtice Rd.2022446,283446,283 - -446,283370,41575,868170Hancock Rd.Highway 2275m South of Nash. Rd.202235,83335,833 - -35,83329,7416,092171Highway 2 StreetlightingEast of Firehall35/115 GO Parking Lot2022125,123125,123 - -125,123103,85221,271P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx2 of 4Page 164
Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToIncreased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)172Highway 2 StreetlightingSoper CreekBennett Rd.2023360,063360,063 - -360,063298,85361,211173Reg. Rd. 57 StreetlightingHighway 2Nash Rd.2024379,500379,500 - -379,500314,98564,515174Courtice Rd. StreetlightingStagemaster Cr.Bloor St.2024274,542274,542 - -274,542227,87046,672175Coutice Rd. (Regional Road 34)Bloor St.Highway 401 Interchange2024506,567506,567 - -506,567420,45086,116176Regional Rd. 17 StreetlightingRemi Ct.375m N of CPR2024142,130142,130 - -142,130117,96824,162177Courtice Road StreetlightingSandringham Dr.Stagemaster Cr.202429,31829,318 - -29,31824,3344,984178Bloor St. (Streetlighting)Courtice Rd.Hancock Rd.2025208,944208,944 - -208,944173,42335,520179Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 StreetlightingPrestonvale Rd.Courtice Rd.2025437,324437,324 - -437,324362,97974,345180Regional Rd. 17 Streetlighting375m N of CPRConc. Rd. 32027247,817247,817 - -247,817205,68842,129Streetscape WorksStreetscape Works181Newcastle Streetscape Phase 1North St.Mill St.2021781,043781,043575,205 -205,838170,84634,992182Frank St. (Streetscape)King St.Future Queen St.2023423,297423,297311,740 -111,55792,59218,965183Newcastle Streetscape Phase 2Mill St.Beaver St.2023260,553260,553191,886 -68,66756,99411,673184St. George St. Tree Planting (Streetscape)King St.Queen St.202312,67812,6789,337 -3,3412,773568185Newcastle Streetscape Phase 3Beaver St.Arthur St.2025567,617567,617418,026 -149,591124,16125,431186King St. Corridor Improv. (Streetscape)Liberty St.Simpson Ave.20281,341,5251,341,525987,975 -353,549293,44660,103187King Street Corridor Improv. (Streetscape)Simpson Ave.Mearns Ave.20281,289,4261,289,426949,607 -339,819282,05057,769188Highway 2 StreetscapeTownline Rd.Darlington Blvd.2029368,323368,323271,254 -97,06980,56716,502189Highway 2 StreetscapeDarlington Blvd.Centrefield Dr.2029417,105417,105307,180 -109,92591,23818,687190Highway 2 StreetscapeCentrefield Dr.Prestonvale Rd.2030848,176848,176624,646 -223,531185,53138,000191Highway 2 StreetscapePrestonvale Rd.Trulls Rd.2030989,158989,158728,472 -260,685216,36944,317192Highway 2 StreetscapeTrulls Rd.Maplefield Drive20311,066,4251,066,425785,376 -281,049233,27047,778193Highway 2 StreetscapeRichard Gay Ave.Courtice Rd.2031811,461811,461597,607 -213,855177,50036,355194Highway 2 StreetscapeCourtice Rd.Hancock Rd. (Realigned)2031686,721686,721505,741 -180,980150,21430,767Engineered Services Studies & Non Site-Specific ImprovementsEngineered Services Studies & Non Site-Specific Improvements195 Bowmanville Waterfront Redevelopment Transportation Network Needs and Feasibility Study2020 60,000 60,000 - - 60,000 49,800 10,200196Active Transportation and Trails MP202060,00060,000 - -60,00049,80010,200197 Development Traffic Monitoring Studies for D.C. Project Implementation2020-2031 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400198Erosion Protection Works2020-20312,675,0462,675,046882,765 -1,792,2811,487,593304,688199 ES Report to Establish an East/West Transportation Corridor North of Highway No.22023 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400200 ES Report to Establish an East/West Transportation Corridor South of Highway No.22023 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400Recovery of DebentureRecovery of Debenture201NPV Principal Payments - Green Rd Debenture2020-20293,988,7533,988,753 - -3,988,7533,310,665678,088202NPV Interest Payments - Green Rd Debenture2020-2029779,211779,211 - -779,211646,745132,466OperationsOperations203Provision for additional fleet - Roads (24)2020-20312,786,5612,786,561 - -2,786,5612,312,845473,715204 Provision for additional facility space - Roads (NPV of Future Debt Payments)2020-2031 6,091,842 6,091,842 - - 6,091,842 5,056,229 1,035,613Other StudiesOther Studies205Hospital Transportation Review2020-203140,00040,00010,000 -30,00024,9005,100206Transportation Master Plan Update202175,00075,00018,750 -56,25046,6889,563207Operations Needs Assessment Study Update202450,00050,00012,500 -37,50031,1256,375208Transportation Master Plan Update2026150,000150,00037,500 -112,50093,37519,125209Transportation Master Plan Update203175,00075,00018,750 -56,25046,6889,563Reserve Fund Adjustment(20,917,074)(17,361,171)(3,555,903)Total223,962,001 558,053 223,962,001 31,938,781 - 170,548,102 141,554,932 28,993,176 223,403,948 170,548,093 141,554,917 28,993,176 P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx3 of 4Page 165
Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToIncreased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)DRAFT Proposed projects to be added to DC Roads project listTable 2Road WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Highway 2Concession St ERoad WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Concession St EEast-West Collector 'M'Road WorksAddBEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)Lambs RdNorth-South Collector 'N'Road WorksAddBEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)North-South Collector 'N'Bennett Rd.Road WorksAddBennett Rd.Concession St EEast-West Collector 'M'Bridge Structure WorksAddBennett Rd. Grade Seperationat CNR CrossingCulvert WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Soper Creek Tributary286,059286,059286,059237,42948,630Intersection WorksAddLambs Rd at East-West Collector 'M' Intersection316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddLambs Rd at Highway 2 Intersection2022316,231316,231TBC193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Highway 2 I'N'tersectio'N'316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddBennett Rd at Highway 2 Intersection2031316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd300m North of Baseline Rd.Highway 22023 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd.Highway 2Concession St. E2022 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd.Concession St. ECPR Tracks2027 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd.CPR TracksConc. Rd. 32021 TBC Road WorksAddConcession Rd. 390m W. of Jollow Dr.Mearns Ave.2023 TBC Road WorksAddBEDG West-South Collector 'A' (26m ROW)300m North Conc. Rd. 3Liberty St NRoad WorksAddLiberty St NConc. Rd. 3West-South Collector 'A'2030Road WorksAddLiberty St NWest-South Collector 'A'North Urban BoundaryCulvert WorksAddLiberty St Nnorth of Concession Rd 32030286,059286,059286,059237,42948,630Culvert WorksAddMearns Avenorth of Concession Rd 32030286,059286,059286,059237,42948,630Intersection WorksAddLiberty St N at West-South Collector 'A' Intersection2030316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddConcession St 3 at Mearns Ave intersection2030316,231316,231 TBC 193,316160,45232,864Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddConcession St 3 SidewalkLiberty St NMearns Ave2030 TBC Street Lighting WorksAddConcession St 3 Street LightingLiberty St NMearns Ave TBC 25Colour LegendProject located in vicinity of eastern Soper Hills secondary plan areaProject located in vicinity of northern Soper Springs secondary plan areaNotesRefer to Development Concept plans by Weston Consulting dated Jan 24, 2018.Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020.It is unknown if current municipal roadworks project estimates already include for all cost components per DC Study sub-headings: intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities. ROW land will need to be acquired/ expropriated from Non-Participant at Concession Rd 3 at Liberty St N. for West-South Collector A. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. Additional ROW land will need to be acquired from Participant for future CNR crossing at Bennett Rd extension. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. AbbreviationsBowmanville East Developers Group (BEDG)Development Charge (DC)Current DC Amounts by BEDG Secondary Plan Area LocationNorth 5,470,382 - 5,470,382 1,836,162 03,634,2223,016,403617,817East 38,322,975 - 38,322,975 2,633,745 035,689,23129,622,0626,067,170Total BEDG 43,793,357 - 43,793,357 4,469,907 - 39,323,453 32,638,465 6,684,987 Proposed Additional Projects by BEDG Secondary Plan Area LocationNorthEastTotal BEDG - - - - - - - - P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx4 of 4Page 166
Proposed Additional DC Road Needs 07-Dec-20
Bowmanville East Developers Group
Project Type per DC Study DC Project
No.
Road From To
Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Highway 2 Concession St E
Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Concession St E East-West Collector 'M'
Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)Lambs Rd North-South Collector 'N'
Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)North-South Collector 'N'Bennett Rd.
Road Works Add Bennett Rd.Concession St E East-West Collector 'M'
Bridge Structure Works Add Bennett Rd. Grade Seperation at CNR Crossing
Culvert Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Soper Creek Tributary
Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at East-West Collector 'M' Intersection
Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at Highway 2 Intersection
Intersection Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Highway 2 I'N'tersectio'N'
Intersection Works Add Bennett Rd at Highway 2 Intersection
Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd 300m North of Baseline Rd.Highway 2
Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd.Highway 2 Concession St. E
Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd.Concession St. E CPR Tracks
Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd.CPR Tracks Conc. Rd. 3
Road Works Add Concession Rd. 3 90m W. of Jollow Dr.Mearns Ave.
Road Works Add BEDG West-South Collector 'A' (26m ROW)300m North Conc. Rd. 3 Liberty St N
Road Works Add Liberty St N Conc. Rd. 3 West-South Collector 'A'
Road Works Add Liberty St N West-South Collector 'A'North Urban Boundary
Culvert Works Add Liberty St N north of Concession Rd 3
Culvert Works Add Mearns Ave north of Concession Rd 3
Intersection Works Add Liberty St N at West-South Collector 'A' Intersection
Intersection Works Add Concession St 3 at Mearns Ave intersection
Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Concession St 3 Sidewalk Liberty St N Mearns Ave
Street Lighting Works Add Concession St 3 Street Lighting Liberty St N Mearns Ave
25
Colour Legend
Project located in vicinity of eastern Soper Hills secondary plan area
Project located in vicinity of northern Soper Springs secondary plan area
Notes
Refer to Development Concept plans by Weston Consulting .
Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020.
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)
It is unknown if current municipal roadworks project estimates already include for all cost components per DC Study sub-headings: intersections, culvert
works, sidewalks, cycling facilities.
ROW land will need to be acquired/ expropriated from Non-Participant at Concession Rd 3 at Liberty St N. for West-South Collector A. Land cost to be included
in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund.
Additional ROW land will need to be acquired from Participant for future CNR crossing at Bennett Rd extension. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the
project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund.
Page 167
December 7, 2020
Our File: 4987
Bowmanville East Developers Group
c/o Weston Consulting
201 Millway Ave
Suite 19
Vaughan, ON
L4K 5K8
Attn: Ryan Guetter
6 Ronrose Drive, Concord, Ontario L4K 4R3
Tel: (905) 738-6100 Fax: (905) 738-6875
Tor. Line: (416) 213-5590 Email: general@schaeffers.com
S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D .S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D .S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D .S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D .
Re: DC Roads Projects Review
Clarington 2020 Development Charges Background Study Addendum
Bowmanville East Developers Group
Dear Mr. Guetter,
We have reviewed the roads project list included in the Clarington DC Background Study Addendum
dated November 3 ,2020. The DC projects were reviewed in conjunction with the anticipated
development concept plans for the eastern Soper Hills Secondary Plan and the northern Soper Springs
Secondary Plan.
We also participated in the meeting coordinated by Weston Consulting today with Trevor Pinn of the
municipality. Mr. Pinn suggested that we provide our initial questions in writing for his more effective
follow up with technical engineering staff.
Current DC Projects
Attached is a working table containing the DC road projects shown in the Addendum to the DC
Background Study (see Table 1). The table was colour coded to flag those DC projects located in vicinity
of either of the two above mentioned Secondary plans.
We have the following questions regarding the current DC project list at this time.
Scopes
1. Can it be clarified if the colour coded projects under the sub-heading ‘Road Works’ already
include for all other cost components listed under adjacent sub-headings on the same list:
intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities.
2. The location of DC No. 3 is not clear. Does it overlap with DC project No. 8?
3. Can it be clarified if the project descriptions assume the railway north of Concession Street East
is owned by CNR ?
4. Regarding DC No. 5 future arterial grade separation at railway, does the project amount include
for any additional ROW land to be acquired from the adjacent Participating Owner?
5. There appears to be a section of Concession Road 3 which is missing in the DC list: Concession
Rd 3 (from 90m west of Jollow Dr to Mearns Ave.). Can this project be included in the DC list?
Page 168
Page 169
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or
Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 14 of the Development Charges
Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant:
Appellant:
Amacon Development (City
Centre) Corp.
Fogerhill Equities Inc.
Subject: Development Charges By-law No.
46-2015
Municipality: Regional Municipality of Peel
OMB Case No.: DC150017
OMB File No.: DC150017
OMB Case Name:
Amacon Development (City
Centre) Corp. v. Peel Regional
Municipality)
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Regional Municipality of Peel P. DeMelo
Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp.
S. Rosenthal
I. Banach
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement
local
ISSUE DATE: June 11, 2019 CASE NO(S).: DC150017
Heard: May 8 – 12 and October 3 – 6, 2017 in
Brampton, Ontario and Written
Submissions to December 18, 2017
Page 170
2 DC150017
DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER AND ORDER OF
THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
[1] The Regional Municipality of Peel (“Region”) adopted Development Charges By-
law No. 46-2015 (“By-law”). The By-law was appealed to this Board by various interests.
The Region engaged in extensive consultation and discussions with these various
interests. By the time of the hearing of the merits, the only appeal that remained
outstanding was that of Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. (“Amacon”). This
decision deals with the Amacon appeal.
LEGISLATION
[2] The Development Charges Act (“Act”) is specific and precise. The Tribunal’s role
in deciding this appeal does not include analysis of the policy preference that may
underlay a municipality’s decision on the form and application of its By-law. For
example, there may be a policy preference to encourage a particular sector and a wish
to do so through discounted development charges. The policy preference remains that
of the municipality. The Tribunal’s role is simply to determine if the expression of that
policy preference in the By-law and its application has met the requirements of the Act.
[3] Section 2(1) of the Act sets out the principle to guide the development of the By-
law. This principle is often summarized as “growth pays for growth”:
The council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges
against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of
increased needs for services arising from development of the area to
which the by-law applies.
[4] If a cost is unrelated to an increased need that arises because of growth then it
cannot be included in the By-law. If there is benefit to existing development, that benefit
must be identified and deducted in the calculation of the By-law’s charge. This is set out
in section 5(1)6:
Page 171
3 DC150017
The increase in the need for service must be reduced by the extent to
which an increase in service to meet increased need would benefit
existing development…
[5] Similarly, s. 5(1)4 requires that if there is a benefit that extends beyond the
period permitted by the Act then that, too, must be identified and deducted in the
calculation of the By-law’s charge.
[6] Where a municipality has identified different types of development it may only
impose a development charge on that type of development for the increased need that
is generated by growth in that particular type of development. The Region recognizes
two basic types of development: residential and non-residential. Having recognized
different types of development, the Region is then constrained to ensure that the
development charge applied to either category results solely from the increased need
generated by growth in that category. Phrased another way: one category cannot
subsidize the other category.
[7] A development charge by-law is forward looking in that it is based on projected
growth. Identifying that projected growth requires a background study that must meet
certain requirements that are set out in the Act. Central to the requirements of the
background study is that it must analyze and set out clearly the basis for the proposed
charges to ensure that they are for the increased service needs that are required by the
anticipated growth within a specified category within the period. The study must be
transparent in its analysis and its chosen methodology must support development
charges that conform to the requirements of the Act.
ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[8] There is no dispute between the parties about the works to be undertaken or the
costs of the works.
[9] The elements of this dispute may be grouped into two main issues:
Page 172
4 DC150017
1. Have the increased costs required by the increased need from growth been
properly allocated between the residential and non -residential categories?
2. Have the proposed charges been based on an analysis that:
i. included only the increased costs required because of increased needs of
growth within the period; and
ii. excluded benefits to existing development and benefits to the post-period?
Witnesses Heard
[10] The Tribunal heard from six witnesses whom the Tribunal qualified to provide
independent expert opinion evidence in their respective fields. The Region called a land
economist, a transportation planner and a professional engineer expert in water and
wastewater matters. Amacon called a professional engineer expert in water and
wastewater matters, a traffic engineer who is also a transportation planner, and a land
economist who is also a land use planner.
Allocation between Categories
[11] Amacon contends that the allocation of costs between categories for some works
and services, and some administrative practices, result in the residential category
subsidizing the non-residential category contrary to the Act. Included in this topic are a
service, known as Transhelp, to assist the physically disabled to reach various locations
in the Region, paramedics, police, water and wastewater and administrative treatment
of the reserve fund.
Transhelp:
[12] Transhelp is a service to assist the physically disabled to get to various locations
in the Region. The Region acknowledges that Transhelp is a shared ride service and
Page 173
5 DC150017
describes the service as being the same as public transit with the same fares.
[13] Transhelp rides are not based on the purpose of the trip. Although Transhelp
operates within the Region, it does not distinguish eligible riders by whether they are
residents or non-residents or whether the purpose of the trip is recreational, commercial
or personal. The service is available to the full population, including non-resident
employees, yet Transhelp is attributed entirely to the residential category.
[14] The background study, required by the Act before a By-law may be adopted,
contains no rationale or calculation that supports attributing Transhelp entirely to the
residential category. Transhelp clearly benefits the non-residential employment sector
and warrants a non-residential attribution.
[15] The Tribunal finds that attributing Transhelp entirely to the residential category
constitutes a subsidy from residential to non-residential that is contrary to the Act. In the
absence of appropriate analysis to justify allocation entirely to the residential sector, the
Tribunal is persuaded that a reasonable basis for allocation is the ratio of the projected
population to projected employment growth.
Paramedics:
[16] Paramedics respond to emergencies. Paramedics do not withhold service based
on residential or employment status nor do they withhold emergency services until
those in need identify themselves as either residents or employees. Like Transhelp, the
Region attributes all the increased need for these services to the growth in the
residential category.
[17] The Region’s justification for attributing all the increased need for these services
to growth in the residential category is that this is a policy that has been in place for
many years. If the Region’s policy preference is not to attribute any increases to the
non-residential category, that is the Region’s business. Any shortfall that results from
that policy cannot then be made up by placing all the development charges for
Page 174
6 DC150017
paramedics on the residential category.
[18] The Tribunal finds that attributing all increases in the need for paramedic
services to the residential category constitutes a subsidy from residential to non-
residential that is contrary to the Act. The Tribunal further finds that the appropriate
attribution should be based on the ratio of the projected population to employment
growth.
Police:
[19] The Region’s police force serves Mississauga and Brampton. At the time of this
hearing, Caledon was served separately by arrangement with the Ontario Provincial
Police.
[20] The attribution for police is based on a weighted taxable assessment of real
property. In summary, this approach uses the value of residential and non-residential
real property, weighted to account for different tax rates and other assessment
adjustments. The resulting data is exactly as its name implies: a ratio of the weighted
residential taxable assessment to the weighted non -residential taxable assessment. The
result is not the ratio of the projected growth in residential population to the projected
growth in employment.
[21] The differences in the value of inputs to determine the weighted taxable
assessment of residential real property versus the weighted taxable assessment of non-
residential real property results in an oversized figure for the residential component by
comparison to that of the non-residential.
[22] The Region’s witness testified that this approach and resulting attribution was
appropriate, based on his professional opinion that police services dealt overwhelmingly
with residents. He acknowledged that the police deal with a broad range of matters from
criminal to educational, responding to calls that may originate and/or arise from the
needs of residents or business, but presented no data to support the suggestion that the
Page 175
7 DC150017
police services and calls were primarily for residents. Like paramedics and other first
responders, police do not fail to answer a call or withhold service until they are satisfied
that the police service in question is being provided solely to residents.
[23] The Region suggested the weighted taxable assessment approach simply
provided a proxy to the attribution of services to the residential sector versus the
employment sector. If it is a proxy, and the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is, then it is
a particularly faulty proxy. With no identifiable equivalence to projected residential and
employment growth, the weighted taxable assessment approach results in a subsidy
from residential to non-residential that is contrary to the Act.
[24] The Tribunal finds that the appropriate methodology for determining the
attribution between residential and non-residential is the ratio of the projected residential
growth to the projected employment growth and not a weighted taxable assessment
basis.
Water and Wastewater:
[25] Amacon is not challenging the total capital costs inclusive of both water and
wastewater projects, excluding reserves and encumbrances. Amacon is also no t
challenging the assumptions used or the Region’s flow, demand and design crit eria. In
this service as well, Amacon is challenging the allocation of costs between the
residential and the non-residential sectors.
[26] The Region uses historic billings as the basis to project need into the future. It
has done so as a policy matter for many years. This is the basis for the Region’s
attribution between the residential and the non -residential categories for development
charges.
[27] The Region acknowledges that not all treated water is metred. Non-metred, and
therefore non-revenue, treated water may be lost through various combinations of
leaks, fighting fires, flushing water mains, and so on. The Region did not use historic
Page 176
8 DC150017
billings as the data basis to support the analysis of need for the capital plan in the Water
and Wastewater Master Plan analysis. Here, the Region used historic flow data, not
historic billings, to support the capital plan and applied an analysis of population and
employment growth.
[28] The Tribunal is not persuaded that historic billings are able to identify needs
arising from growth. Without that analysis, the Tribunal finds that the use of historic
billings to set the attribution between residential and non-residential is contrary to the
Act. The Tribunal is persuaded that historic flow data to which is applied the projected
population and employment growth is an appropriate and reasonable basis to set
development charges for water and wastewater.
Cash Flow and the Reserve Fund:
[29] For the analysis of this matter, the Tribunal will focus on two principal
components of the reserve fund: residential and non-residential. These separate
components respond to the requirements of the Act that each type of development pays
only for the increase in needs generated by that type of development. The Act requires
that the development charge that is calculated for each type of development must be
exact in order to result in a zero balance for each type of development at the end of the
period. Calculating the development charge to achieve a zero balance at the end of the
period is one element to ensure that the development charges are attributed to the
correct development type.
[30] Rather than keep each component separate, achieving a zero balance within
each, the Region blends the closing balances for all types of development and achieves
a zero closing balance overall. Doing so for administrative convenience is not the
problem as long as the individual components reach a zero balance for purposes of the
development charges. The problem arises in the fact that those individ ual components
are not tracked separately. In fact, the Region’s witness suggested that blending the
balances in the categories to achieve an overall zero balance reflected the fact that
Page 177
9 DC150017
capital works may have to be undertaken prior to the actual development occurrin g.
With a higher balance in the residential component, blending the balances would act as
an internal loan from the residential stream to the non -residential stream. That is what
creates the problem.
[31] The Act makes no mention of one type of development lending its reserve fund
monies to the reserve fund component of another type of development. In doing so, the
development charges collected from, in this case residential, development effectively
subsidizes the development charge of the non-residential development. That is
contrary to the Act.
[32] Here, again, if the Region’s policy is to accord a beneficial rate to one type of
development, it may do so but not by overcharging another type of development.
Shortfalls cannot be made up in that fashion.
[33] The Tribunal finds that the manner in which the calculations are done as a
consequence of the blending of the funds has resulted in overcharging the residential
component for the service needs created by growth in the residential sector.
Proper Exclusions
[34] The Act requires two key exclusions to ensure that only the costs for increased
need required by growth within the period are charged. Benefits to existing development
(“BTE”) and post-period benefits (“PPB”) must both be deducted. The analysis of both of
these benefits, and their appropriate deduction, must be made in the background study
that supports the particular By-law.
[35] Amacon takes the position that the requisite analysis and consequent deductions
were not made for two elements of transportation services:
1. Road construction projects, including stand-alone intersections
Page 178
10 DC150017
2. Road and rail grade separations
Road Construction Projects:
[36] For road construction projects, the primary matter in dispute is the question of
whether some elements of the road construction benef it existing development or
whether all elements of road construction provide some level of BTE.
[37] A number of elements go into road construction projects. Some elements clearly
occur in all road construction projects and include things like background studies and
design work. Other elements may only occur in certain road projects, depending on the
area and the particular needs or prevailing transportation policy preferences that are
being applied. These might include matters from utilities, bridges, culverts and traffic
signals to bicycle or multi-use paths, sidewalks and street lighting. Whether the project
is a stripped down rural road segment or a fully dressed urban segment, there is always
some resulting BTE.
[38] The Region tends to take a flat percentage and attribute that to BTE. Amacon
does not take much issue with the flat percentage approach. The Tribunal accepts that
a flat percentage approach reflects a common standard and is reasonable.
[39] The Tribunal is not persuaded that cherry-picking the elements against which the
flat percentage is to be applied is either reasonable or reflects the actual BTE. For
example, if a road construction project takes a rural segment and brings it to what would
be recognized as more of an urban segment, both urban and rural residents who use
the road benefit from all the elements of the road improvements. It is insufficient to say,
as the Region does, that perhaps not all residents adjacent to the road want all the
additional improvements.
[40] The Region, by its policies, has determined that certain elements should be
included in a particular road project. If it is included in the road project, then it is
appropriate to allocate a portion of the overall cost to BTE. The Tribunal is persuaded
Page 179
11 DC150017
that applying a BTE to construction only, and not to the total cost, does not comply with
s. 5(1)6 of the Act.
Road and Rail Grade Separations:
[41] The Region has proposed two grade separations in the vicinity of King Street and
Coleraine Drive. In both cases the Region has attributed the costs of these grade
separations to the residential sector.
[42] The Region contends that the need for the grade separations results from
increases in both vehicular and train traffic that leads to delays at the at-grade
crossings. These delays hold up goods movement as well as creating potential delays
for emergency services and first responders.
[43] To understand the issue, it is first necessary to understand the suggested cause
of the need for the grade separations.
[44] The Region’s transportation planner was clear that one of the elements of
vehicular traffic was the growth in truck traffic, particularly goods movement that may be
entering the Region from elsewhere. A second element of vehicular traffic increase was
attributed to residential growth.
[45] There are no capacity improvements proposed for the roadway. This raises the
very real question in the Tribunal’s mind whether growth, expressed as an increase in
the number of vehicles, is identified properly as an underlying need for the proposed
grade separations.
[46] Train traffic on the rail line is expected to increase, particularly for commuter
services. With an increase in train traffic, there may be some increases in the number of
incidents where there is a delay at a level crossing. The delay was acknowledged as
being minor where the train is a fast moving commuter train. Where the train is a slower
moving freight train, that condition exists now. In reference to first responders, the
Page 180
12 DC150017
Region acknowledges that there are delays occasioned now if the crossing is necessary
and it occurs at the time that a slow moving freight train is using the rail line.
[47] It is clear to the Tribunal that two elements are problematic here. The first is that
the grade separations are allocated entirely to growth with no allocation to BTE, when
clearly and unequivocally existing development would benefit from such grade
separations.
[48] The second problem is the fact that the Region has made no allocation for any
post-period benefit.
[49] Section 5(1)4 of the Act is clear. The estimate of costs attributable to anticipated
development:
…must not include an increase in the need for service that relates to a
time after the 10-year period immediately following the preparation of the
background study unless the service is set out in subsection (5).
[50] The Tribunal finds that the Region has failed to make appropriate deductions
when determining the development charge payable for grade separations.
CONCLUSION
[51] Having considered all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that there are necessary
reductions to the residential development charge resulting from alloca tions that do not
comply with the Act and from the lack of appropriate deductions for benefits to existing
development and for post-period benefits.
ORDER
[52] The Tribunal Orders that the appeal by Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp.
is allowed and that:
1. By-law No. 46-2015 is amended to delete and replace Schedules “A” and
Page 181
13 DC150017
“B” with those tables set out in the witness statement of Rowan Faludi and
in the replacement tables at Exhibit 3, Tab 1, Attachment 12.
2. Residential development charges paid under the current version of By-law
No. 46-2015 are to be refunded in accordance with the Act.
“Susan de Avellar Schiller”
SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER
VICE-CHAIR
If there is an attachment referred to in this document,
please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
Page 182
DRAFT Minutes
Prepared by: Paul Tobia
Meeting Date: December 7, 2020
Meeting Purpose: Municipality of Clarington DC By-law
Meeting Location: MS Teams
File: 7929-00
Attendees:
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting
Paul Tobia, Weston Consulting
Trevor Pinn, Finance, Municipality of Clarington
Hal Beck, Schaeffers
Ryan Guetter began the conversation and introduced Hal Beck and Paul Tobia to Trevor Pinn.
Trevor Pinn went on to provide an update regarding the Municipality of Clarington DC By-law.
Ryan indicated that Weston is involved with the Soper Hills and Soper Springs Secondary Plans
and the Subwatershed Study (SWS) for that area. He noted that these privately funded initiatives
should not be included in the DC charge.
Trevor indicated that the DC By-law is usually done every 5 years but is putting forth a
recommendation to do DC study again once the Secondary Plans are approved ie. within two
years’ time. This was done in Whitby but was not a recommendation of Watson (the consultant
who did the study). Hal Beck indicated that the study is lacking in detail on some DC roads and
needs to include for the Group’s oversized internal collectors. Trevor indicated that it was a
recommendation from Watson to not include collector roads until the locations are finalized. Hal
noted that reasonable estimates of confirmed needs of study horizon growth should be included.
Hal indicated that if DC studies are updated in two year intervals, it may trigger requests for
transition rates which can burden post period growth. Ryan asked Trevor if the funding of the
Secondary Plans and SWS was captured in the DC By-law as he was concerned regarding
possible double counting. Trevor indicated that he needed to review and provide an answer at a
later date.
Hal proceeded to ask Trevor a series of technical questions regarding DC roads projects he
prepared for the meeting, however the majority of them were engineering-based and Trevor found
it more helpful if questions were provided in writing as they would be passed on to the Municipality’s
engineer for review and response.
Action items of note were for Hal to prepare a list of questions and for Weston to submit them to
Trevor for his review and response from technical staff.
Page 183
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
January 7, 2021
Weston Consulting
201 Millway Avenue, Suite 19
Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8
Attention: Ryan Guetter, Senior Vice President
Dear Ryan:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge
Background Study, received on December 22, 2020.
Your questions regarding the secondary plan area are being reviewed by the
Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the
intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for
Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality
is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the
various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider
amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in
the underlying funding for these growth-related needs.
In response to your questions pertaining to the municipal-wide by-law, please find
attached a memorandum from Watson & Associates Economists, as well as a letter
from CIMA regarding the benefit to existing deductions for Services Related to a
Highway.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary
Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA
Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
Attachment 8(a) to
FND-004-21
Page 184
Memorandum
Address Contact Information Filepath
Plaza Three
101-2000 Argentia Rd.
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 1V9
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
www.watsonecon.ca
H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\Weston
Response.docx
To Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality
of Clarington
From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date January 5, 2021
Re:
Municipal Development Charges By-law
Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) and Bowmanville North (Soper
Springs) Secondary Plan Areas
Municipality of Clarington
December 22, 2020
Fax Courier Mail Email
The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from Weston Consulting
(Weston) on behalf of the Bowmanville East Developers Group dated December 22,
2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background
Study.
The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded
through with stakeholders and Council are follows:
February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session,
including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix
substantiating the preliminary calculations
April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council
October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s
website
November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study
November 30, 2020 – Public Meeting of Council
The December 22, 2020 Weston letter contains various questions related to
Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) and Bowmanville North (Soper Springs) Secondary Plan
Areas as well as two specific questions pertaining the municipal development charges
by-law. The Municipality will be corresponding regarding their proposed approach to
address questions pertaining to the secondary plan areas. This memorandum has been
prepared to address the municipal development charge by-law questions related to the
Rail Grade Separation, the Allocation of Capital Costs in Recreation, Parks, and Library
Services, and funding of growth-related studies
Page 185
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Weston Response
1.Rail Grade Separation
Services Related to a Highway project #5 (Lams Rd. Grade S eparation) has been
included as 100% benefit to growth over the 2020 to 2031 period. This project was also
identified in the Municipality’s 2015 D.C. Background Study as 100% benefit to growth
over the period to 2031. The growth forecast contained within the 2020 D.C.
Background Study has been prepared on the same basis as that for the 2015 D.C.
Background Study). Furthermore, the Municipality’s 2016 Transportation Master Plan
identifies that a grade separation on Port Darlington Rd. and the CNR crossing is
warranted based on growth in Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) to 2031. It is
proposed that this need will be met through the Lambs Rd. Grade Separation south of
the 401 Highway.
The Municipality’s approach for benefit to existing development for Services Related to
a Highway projects has been summarized in the attached letter from CIMA+.
Consistent with the approach used for culvert and bridge structure projects, no benefit
to existing has been applied for the project as it is not required to support the road
network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
2.Allocation of Capital Costs in Recreation, Parks, and Library Services
Growth related capital costs have been allocated 100% to residential development
within Parks and Recreation and Library Services. While some municipalities may
allocate a nominal share of growth-related costs to non-residential development (e.g.
5%) for Parks and Recreation Services and Library Services, the approach used in the
Municipality’s 2020 D.C. Background Study to allocate 100% of the growth-related costs
to residential development is consistent with the Municipality’s policy used in their 2015
D.C. Background Study as well as many other D.C. background studies across the
Province.
3.Funding of Growth-Related Studies
The future Subwatershed Studies and Municipal Secondary Plans that have been
included within the Administration Studies Service do not include the privately funded
Subwatershed Studies and Municipal Secondary Plans that have already been
undertaken. As such, no D.C. credits would be available for those works. To the extent
that development provides up-front financing for D.C. eligible studies or other D.C.
eligible works, the Municipality would enter into D.C. credit agreements in this regard.
Page 186
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443
cima.ca
December 18, 2020
Municipality of Clarington
Public Works Department
[via email]
Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure
RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Bagshaw:
The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the
Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of
Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program.
1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS
1.1 DEFERRED COSTS
For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of
an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020
dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to
the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the
Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle
activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road
conditions.
This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be
sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the
case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement
management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard
appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going
resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc.
This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads.
Page 187
December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca
1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE
For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic
growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial
highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth
population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to
growth.
1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING
For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that
are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established.
2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS
The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and
widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three
components making-up the project cost:
• BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year
in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and
77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth.
• Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances
where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects.
• Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably
to growth with no BTE.
For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established
based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year.
3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS
3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY
Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility
(i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility
with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth.
3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING
For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth
related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE).
Page 188
December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca
4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS
Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new
structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required
to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS
For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based
on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and
26% is allocated to growth.
6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS
Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they
are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road
corridors due to growth.
Sincerely,
CIMA Canada Inc.
Dan Campbell
Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure
dan.campbell@cima.ca
Page 189
www.urbanMetrics.ca | 67 Yonge Street, Suite 804, Toronto, ON, M5E 1J8 | 416-351-8585 (1-800-505-8755) | info@urbanMetrics.ca
January 8, 2021
Bowmanville East Developers Group
c/o Weston Consulting
201 Millway Avenue, Suite 19
Vaughan, ON
L4K 5K8
Dear Mr. Guetter:
RE: Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study
urbanMetrics inc. is pleased to present this letter that summarizes our concerns and questions with
the 2020 Development Charges Background Study, Municipality of Clarington, October 15, 2020 (the
“DCBS”) prepared by Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. (“Watson”).
1.Allocation of Capital Costs for Grade Separations to BTE and PPB
Project Number 5 in the Services Related to a Highway capital program is a rail grade
separation on Lambs Road with a cost of approximately $15 million, to be constructed in 2030.
The entirety of the capital costs for this grade separation are allocated to in-period growth
between 2020 and 2031, despite this grade separation being constructed at the end of the
period. The DCBS does not allocate any of the costs to Benefit to Existing (“BTE”) to reflect the
benefit of the grade separation to existing residents/employees or to Post Period Benefit
(“PPB”) to reflect the benefit to new residents/employees post-2031.
The lack of an allocation of capital costs to BTE and PPB for the grade separation at Lambs
Road is inconsistent with the recent Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) decision in Case
No. DC150017 in Peel Region.
Attachment 9 to
FND-004-21
Page 190
Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 2
2. Allocation of Capital Costs for Recreation, Parks and Library
The DCBS allocates 100% of capital costs for Parks and Recreation Services and Library Services
to the Residential Sector. The DCBS states that this is done to be “consistent with the
Municipality’s current D.C. policy”.
Although the allocation of 100% of costs to the residential sector is consistent with the DC
policy in Clarington, it is not necessarily consistent with who uses these services (i.e. residents
or people employed in Clarington). There are many municipalities that allocate 5% of capital
costs for recreation and library services to the non-residential sector to reflect the use of these
facilities by non-residents.
3. Recreation Capital Program Exceeds Maximum Funding Envelope
The capital program for Parks and Recreation Services has a total Development Charge (DC)
recoverable capital cost of $77,619,427. Based on our review of the Historical Level of Service
Calculations in Appendix B of the DCBS, the 10-year maximum funding envelope for Parks and
Recreation Services should only be $74,611,353, as shown below. Therefore, the capital
program for Parks and Recreation Services should be reduced by approximately $3.0 million to
ensure it does not exceed the 10-year eligible amount identified in the DCBS. Exceeding the
10-year eligible amount violates Section 5(1)4 of the Development Charges Act (the “Act).
SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. based on Appendix B of the DCBS.
4. Uncommitted Excess Capacity in Parks and Recreation Services
It appears appropriate reductions have not been made to account for uncommitted excess
capacity in the existing inventory that is available to accommodate population and
employment growth. As shown below, by not making appropriate reductions for uncommitted
excess capacity in the existing inventory of Parks and Recreation Services, it results in the 2030
level of service ($2,551 per capita) exceeding the previous 10-year average ($2,477 per capita).
This increase in the level of service violates Section 5(1)4 of the Development Charges Act.
10-Year
Eligible
Amount
Parkland Development $4,811,478
Parkland Trails $1,119,102
Recreation Vehicles and Equipment $741,549
Parkland Amenities $9,193,575
Operations Facilities $983,810
Indoor Recreation Facilities $57,761,839
Total $74,611,353
Page 191
Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 3
SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. based on DCBS.
5. Benefit to Existing (BTE) on Roads Projects
The capital program for Services Related to a Highway includes 115 projects that do not
allocate any capital costs to BTE. These projects have DC recoverable costs of approximately
$96.3 million. Many of the categories that do not allocate capital costs to BTE include:
• Bridge and structure works
• Culvert works
• Sidewalk and cycling facilities works
• Street lighting works
In the decision for LPAT Case No. DC150017, Ms. de Avellar Schiller state that “whether the
project is a stripped down rural road segment or a fully dressed urban segment, there is
always some resulting BTE”. The LPAT decision identifies that there should always be a BTE
component associated with a roads project. Appropriate BTE allocations should be made for all
projects included in the Services Related to a Highway capital program.
6. Inclusion of Capital Projects Benefiting the Soper Springs and Soper Hills Secondary Plans
Within the DCBS
An analysis completed by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers on behalf of the Bowmanville East
Developers Group has identified projects that will benefit new residents and jobs located
within these Secondary Plan Area that are not included in the DCBS. It is our understanding
that the population and employment forecasts to 2030 and 2031, which are included in the
DCBS, include new residents and jobs that will be in these two secondary plan areas.
Therefore, DC eligible capital projects within these two Secondary Plan Areas should be
included in the DCBS. There are examples of other municipalities that have included
Parks and
Recreation
A 2019 Population 99,025
B 2030 Population 129,157
C Replacement Value of 2019 Inventory $251,851,176
D 10-Year Average Level of Service (Per Capita)$2,477 Based on Appendix B of DCBS
E Proposed DC Eligible Capital Infrastructure $77,619,428
F Total Value of 2030 Inventory $329,470,604 =D + F
G 2030 Level of Service $2,551 = F / B
Page 192
Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 4
“placeholder” amounts in the DC capital program for capital works related to a secondary plan
area, despite the specific projects not being known at the time the background study was
completed. For example, the Town of Caledon 2014 Development Charges Background Study,
included a capital cost “placeholder” for the Bolton Residential Expansion, although the
location for this expansion was not known at the time the Town of Caledon 2014 Development
Charges Background Study was being prepared.
Therefore, the capital projects identified by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers should be
included in the DCBS.
7. Questions
Through our review of the DCBS, we have identified questions that require further clarification
from the Municipality of Clarington.
a. Part 3 – Exemptions of By-Law 2015-035 includes a number of non-statutory
exemptions. Can you please provide evidence that an off-setting deposit has been
made to the DC reserve funds for these non-statutory exemptions?
b. The DCBS identifies five Secondary Plan studies in the Administration Studies capital
program. Can you please confirm if these Secondary Plan studies include the Soper
Springs and Soper Hills Secondary Plans?
c. In Library Services, it appears land values associated with the library facilities have
increased significantly since the 2015 Development Charges Background Study. Can
you please provide the background information to support the increase in land prices
between 2015 and 2020?
d. Please provide details related to the South Bowmanville Library Expansion project
included in the Library Capital Budget.
e. It is our understanding that the South Bowmanville Recreation Facility will include
space for two ice surfaces, indoor walking track, gymnasium, multi-purpose community
space, library, office space, aquatic facility, pool and fitness facility. Can you please
provide a breakdown of the space allocated to each of these uses within the proposed
facility?
f. What interest rate and term have been assumed on future debt payments for the
South Bowmanville Recreation Facility?
g. Can you please confirm if the capital costs for the South Bowmanville Recreation
Centre excludes the costs associated with library space proposed in the facility?
Page 193
Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 5
h. Staff Report Number FND-031-20 states that 70% of the South Bowmanville Recreation
Facility will be funded through development charges. Therefore, the remaining 30%
will be funded through the tax base. However, in reviewing the Capital Budget in the
DCBS, it appears that the allocation to benefit to existing (BTE) is only 17%. Can you
please provide an explanation for the difference between the staff report and DC
capital program?
If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
urbanMetrics inc.
Craig Ferguson
Associate Partner
cferguson@urbanMetrics.ca
Page 194
Unfinished Business Item 15.1
Correspondence from Melodie Zarzeczny, Regarding Durham Hospice Clarington
Update
At the November 30, 2020 General Government Committee Meeting, Committee
referred Resolution #GG-429-20 to the January 18, 2021 Council meeting:
That the security deposit and development charges for Durham Hospice be
waived.
Page 195
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2021-006
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 2018-0029 to permit the development of a commercial property for a
variety of uses;
Now Therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 20.4. “Special Exceptions – Special Purposed Commercial (C5) Zone” is
hereby amended by introducing a new Sub-section 20.4.17 as follows:
“ 20.4.17. Special Purpose Commercial Exception (C5-17) Zone”
Notwithstanding Sections 19.1 b, 19.3.d., e. and f. and 3.12 c. those lands zoned
C5-17 on the Schedules to this By-law shall be used subject to the following zone
regulations:
a. Definitions
i) Department Store: Shall mean a retail/commercial establishment
organized into a number of individual departments and primarily
engaged in the sale to the public a wide variety of commodities,
including clothing, hardware, home furnishings and household
appliances.
b. Non-Residential Uses
i) Business, Professional or Administrative Offices;
ii) Building supply outlet;
iii) Beer, liquor or wine outlet;
iv) Eating establishment;
v) Eating establishment, take-out;
vi) Garden or nursery sales and supply establishment;
vii) Laundry;
viii) Retail/Commercial Establishment, excluding department stores,
supermarkets, and sales of furniture, major appliances and office
furniture;
ix) Service shop, personal;
x) Service shop, light;
xi) Veterinarian clinic;
Page 196
xii) No drive-through facility is permitted for an eating establishment;
and,
xiii) No outdoor storage and display are permitted;
c. Loading Spaces (minimum) 3 spaces, one at
7.5 metres x 3 metres,
all others
11 metres x 4 metres
d. Regulations for Non-Residential Uses
i) Front Yard and Exterior Yard (minimum) 3 metres
(maximum) 6 metres
ii) Interior Side Yard (minimum east side) 10 metres
iii) Interior Side Yard (minimum west side) 5 metres
2. Schedule ‘3’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone designation from:
Holding - Light Industrial ((H)M1) Zone” to “Special Purpose Commercial
Exception ((H)C5-17) Zone”;
“Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” to “Special Purpose Commercial Exception
((H)C5-17) Zone”; and
“Holding-Light Industrial ((H)M1) Zone” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone”
as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’.
3. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act.
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 197
006 18th January
Page 198
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2021-007
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 ZBA2019-0015;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Schedule ‘16’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding - Residential Hamlet
((H)RH) Zone" and “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” as illustrated on the
attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
2. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this 18th day of January, 2021
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 199
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2021-008
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 ZBA2020-0013;
Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as
follows:
1. Section 13.4 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone” is
amended by adding Special Exception Zone 13.4.89 as follows:
“13.4.89 Urban Residential Exception (R2-89) Zone”
Notwithstanding Sections 13.2 a., b., c. ii. iii, e., and h. those lands zoned R2-89
on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following regulations:
a. Lot Area (minimum) 350 square metres
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior Lot 11.3 metres
ii) Exterior Lot 14.4 metres
c. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Exterior Side Yard 6.0 metres to private garage
or carport and 4.3 metres
to dwelling
ii) Interior Side Yard With attached private garage of
carport 1.2 metres on one side
and 0.6 metres on the other side;
without an attached private garage
or carport 3.0 metres on one side
and 0.6 metres on the other side
iii) Setback from railway property line 30 metres
Page 200
d. Lot Coverage One and a Half -Storey and Two Storey Dwelling (maximum)
i) Dwelling 40 percent
ii) Total 45 percent
e. Lot Coverage Single-Storey Dwelling (maximum)
i) Dwelling 45 percent
ii) Total 50 percent
f. Garage Requirements
i) All garage doors shall be located no closer to the street line than
the dwelling’s front wall or exterior side wall or covered porch
projection;
ii) In no case shall the garage door be closer than 6.0 metres from
the front lot line or exterior side lot line; and
iii) The outside width of the garage shall be a maximum of 55% of
the width of the lot frontage.
2. Section 13.4 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone” is
amended by adding Special Exception Zone 13.4.90 as follows:
“13.4.90 Urban Residential Exception (R2-90) Zone”
Notwithstanding Sections 13.2 a., b., c. ii. iii, e., and h those lands zoned R2-90
on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following regulations:
a. Lot Area (minimum) 350 square metres
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior Lot 11.3 metres
ii) Exterior Lot 14.4 metres
c. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Exterior Side Yard 6.0 metres to private
garage or carport
and 4.3 metres to dwelling
ii) Interior Side Yard With attached private
garage of carport 1.2 metres
on one side and 0.6 metres
on the other side; without an
attached private garage or
carport 3.0 metres on one
side and 0.6 metres on the other side
Page 201
d. Lot Coverage (maximum)
i) Dwelling 45 percent
ii) Total 50 percent
e. Garage Requirements
i) All garage doors shall be located no closer to the street line than
the dwelling’s front wall or exterior side wall or covered porch
projection;
ii) In no case shall the garage door be closer than 6.0 metres from the
front lot line or exterior side lot line; and
iii) The outside width of the garage shall be a maximum of 55% of the
width of the lot frontage.
3. Schedule ‘5’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone designation from:
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-67)" to "Holding - Urban
Residential Exception ((H)R2-89) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-44)" to "Holding - Urban
Residential Exception ((H)R2-89) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-45)" to "Holding - Urban
Residential Exception ((H)R2-89) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-44)" to "Holding - Urban
Residential Exception ((H)R2-90) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-45)" to "Holding - Urban
Residential Exception ((H)R2-90) Zone"
as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
4. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to
the provisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act.
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
__________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
__________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 202
008 18th January
Page 203
MEMO
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
To: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
From: Cynthia Strike, Manager, Development Review Branch
Date: January 11, 2021
Re: By-law to Remove (H) Holding Symbol
Applicant: Akero Developments/Highcastle Homes
File No.: ZBA2017-0024
On April 3, 2018, Council endorsed the recommendations contained in PSD-028-18
(Resolution PD-031-18) approving the above noted Rezoning as follows:
1. That Report PSD-028-18 be received;
2. That the proposed amendment to draft approved plan of subdivision submitted by
Akero Developments Inc. to permit one additional residential lot be supported as
contained in Attachment 1 of Report PSD-028-18;
3. That the proposed application for Rezoning ZBA 2017 -0024 submitted by Akero
Developments Inc. be approved as contained in Attachment 2 of Report PSD-028-
18;
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 the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-
028-18 and Council’s decision; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-028-18 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Council endorsed the recommendation that a by-law to remove the (H) Holding symbol
be forwarded directly to Council once the conditions of the related applications and as
outlined in the Clarington Official Plan have been fulfilled. Staff are satisfied that all
conditions related to the consent have or will be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Municipality and holding may now be removed.
Page 204
Page 2
As such, please forward the attached Zoning By-law to remove the (H) Holding Symbol
to Council for approval.
Once approved, please forward the attached by-law to the Regional Municipality of
Durham and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).
Notice of Council’s decision should be provided to the following:
Domenic Tassone
Highcastle Homes
7600 Highway 7, Unit 1
Woodbridge, Ontario
L4H 0P8
Thank-you,
________________________
Cynthia Strike
Manager of Development Review
/nl
Attachments
I:\^Department\Application Files\ZBA-Zoning\2017\ZBA2017-0024 Northglen East\(H) Removal\2021\ZBA(H) 4 - Memo to Clerks Removing
Holding Symbol_11'01'21.docx
Page 205
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\9325823761\9325823761,,,2021-013.docx
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2021-013
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 to permit
one block with 54 townhouse dwellings on the subject lands ZBA 2017-0024
Now Therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Schedule “3” (Bowmanville)” to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended
by changing the zone designation from:
“Holding – Urban Residential ((H)R3-31) Zone” to “Urban Residential (R3-31) Zone”
as illustrated on the attached Schedule “A” hereto.
2. Schedule “A” attached hereto shall form part of the By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act.
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
____________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
____________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 206
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\9325823761\9325823761,,,2021-013.docx
013 18th January
Page 207
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: Cynthia Strike, Manager of Development Review
Date: January 13, 2021
Re: By-law to Remove Part Lot Control
Applicant: 1638393 Ontario Inc.
File No.: ZBA2020-0023
On June 26, 2000, Council endorsed the recommendations contained in PD -061-00
(Resolution #C-365-00) approving draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-8087.
On February 26, 1990, Council endorsed the recommendations contained in PD -73-90
(Resolution #C-158-90) approving draft Plan of Subdivision 18T -89021
Both subdivisions were merged and registered as one block being 40M- 2526 registered
on September 22, 2014.
Site Plan approval for 120 townhouse condominium units was issued in October 2014.
All obligations from the developer have been met. The units have been occupied since
2016.
By-law 2016-027 being a by-law to exempt By-law Control was adopted by Council on
February 29, 2016. The by-law expired after 2 years.
In 2016, Units 10 and 12 on Ken Bromley Lane were purchased in the same name. The
owners now wish to sell the individual units, but the 2 units have merged on title.
The attached by-law exempts Part of Block 2, Plan (40M-2526) more specifically Parts
109 and 110, 40R-29082 from Part Lot Control which will enable the transfer of the
individual units.
No new development is attributed to the adoption of the by-law.
Staff are recommending Council adopt the attached by-law.
Thank-you,
________________________
Cynthia Strike
Manager of Development Review
/nl
Attachments
cc: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Page 208
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2021-014
being a By-law to exempt certain portions of Registered Plan 40M-2526 from
Part Lot Control
1. Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to exempt from Part Lot Control for Block 2, Parts 109 to 110, 40R-29082
in Plan 40M-2526, registered at the Land Titles Division of Whitby (File #
ZBA2020-0023);
Now therefore the Council of the of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
2. That Subsection 5 of Section 50 of the Planning Act shall not apply to those lands
described in Paragraph 2 within the By-law.
3. That this By-law shall come into effect upon being approved by the Municipality of
Clarington and thereafter Subsection 5 of Section 50 shall cease to apply to Block
2, Plan 40M-2526 as Parts 109 to 110, 40R-29082.
4. Pursuant to Subsection 7.3 of Section 50 of the Planning Act, this By-law shall be
in force for a period of two (2) years ending on January 18, 2023
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
____________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
____________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 209