Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-07-2022 Agenda
Clar*wn F1 R I I) � ■ ■ 111!1 !■ � :'�. ' � 1`,, '�' ' � ' ► ■❑ • ■geli-I aiiiiiiiiiinini7ol 71P H❑ 1111TI❑[MP ❑ . 1" !�.■ WO -MUNRO .NIER I ATM GU . II I. - III 111 - K'. 11 Illll . III�C■ -!. 11'll 1111 1- U11 . 11 Ilf■ - ■ 1►, Y - -e. wrl 11- I�. -rl . 1,■e ■ �.c. ; -a ►r VAIJ ■ K . : -�- - 1'. : -y- le r1. � Y 1`41■■111■■111■■■11; 1`Ii1n■■ - I: - . �nl ��,. ,r1. a o� .■ �■.Ilt r v�'Ti�. ,11 - � . 1`4 1 1111 -� �� . Ir•OII, ll �Ill�lnl�ln��'Ti�. ', p-� � . 1``i��:. 1; -ll. ►T�;-�1���'1� 11 : -�- �D ■. "� IJIII 1`lil■■111■■111■■■1; 1`4111■■■■ a M -ON a- �■r nl ■ .0 1;� r: 11) .■ �01� ul■,ul a -ulrl�lr I� a -\I - �I;� Il (i] - 111- ■ '- - 1'. I; UA 111 ■ - 1. . 111 [IC 1: . 1"11.C� I,�;. ■ U, 1"!1. Y 171Yi ■ Il• - ��- ■ G� •�• 1' • b� Ild 111LS.I1 41, \I, - It ■ ■ - 1110C►' (I)- . 1 V, - iD ■ a 1: 1. ■.\I r ■ .11 r. n. 1; o> .■ �r1.c�A .c ■e. (1�; -■ nc 1:. ■A 14 Y(�l (��. -r1 - cul■�I�11111 1 ;1 i II►rrlIiI aINul \► d - P - 11) Cli �.[II-■.111 ! 1: - -! .■ - U� ■ a RS 15f7.7F L L l�DYDLD-=(DI LJVI ICS Z Z FFVJI1 K)J Uf0.Q-a kW NH *Late Item added or a change to an existing item after the Agenda was published. � � 1111111■■■en Fill 3 BIFIO H -MV 3DUW ❑711 3 E(FI-0 H -W - RUD-3 LRSRVHG LDW Cf RI -6 EGYMF400QGII RCO ❑ ❑ QZ ❑ P HCP HCW / RPd\&aU❑❑ DOM DR: UIYM❑& R LWH SS( FDC M R LWHA RC MN P RQ7 PDP -CF❑❑ ❑ R*M U; SHLWV 0 DC CJ PP HQACFEJ 3 RW ELC R CII \► 1 11111111■■■1! ■ vl ■ A1C - IR- C 'QAC ■111111■ 3 . 11■■111■11111 D3113 DLNL LMCi LD VS II)� 16 EGMMRQDQG HLF HGFi Z HM VOQGFuiB LDJ I: Il. M CII W D j HEU W 11111111■■■11: RCW HCI -M Rd -LW C DM3 11)■NN DQGFi HYHUSP HQM -+- ' 1', 1- H -W ■ C►• . ►- K; • 111■■111■ • ■11111 LUVO II)C.1R F6 C -C3 U'SRVMRULLI ■■ -7 C - : CWDALLEE17 U W5 RDG-& - 1' 3DJHT 0 DLF SMT❑❑❑ 3 COM DM- HYHUSP HCVA RP P NMI] J HCS ❑❑ 3 UM IQU5UL H®U DBU/ LLL H®U DZE£ -5 RCS- M*,H IT5 FU D- QJ 15 HT HM:IU FFHV\/AR5 ISI ❑❑ 5 RDG-3 URSHlYM ■■ .- r:. - -ce c No, .,c�,,,K, c.1�. 1,.�, ■ c r Ir•c 00 ■■ • 11, li. ►� '` III�CFi11 111 • • . 111■■111■11111 RM ■ iW ■ ' HMO 11 ►KUK'. RAL t ■ - UWH !. 99 u '11111 milli,,, it 40] [I1) gill 11, o�lltl c ul(lc■ I...- ■ X. -r - I , ►�A ■ ! Ir,• N• . - 1v6 .111■■111■ . 111■■111■11111 Cu II 1"! r N, HP - 111 111 '(I: ll . P EROR I' WME FWMP HOM ■ • LQJ I: ' HBIF HGII Z HIM li !. • DD! 4: l '. !111 K DILM DIP RW LCH7 ! " HON SS(FDMQII LILILLILMLIL]aRU Illi II DC : ' JFH ■11.111 -� �D�l1 ►' III 1"!!1!!111■1111i+ F; 11k, 11,' - � ll !11 ''�' 1 � 11111111■■■11� ' ■ V ■ Ilfi] �A' ! 1'D■ lu!! ! 111!!■ 1:'s' ■ 1`.: '�- - 1', 1; UA ■ M lull■ ' HQGP HcM) DFMUN WH 6 HYHLDCFHFR1n ■■ • SOV) DLP -1 Z HIM DAVF-1-6 WM . WM . 111■■111■nn1 c�; c ■ ►�11 11ei �c m� . �]n■ni■■■■ ■■ 1 3 . 111111IFFF117P ll.■ II D 1"! I'Ul '! ! ■ LOZ EJ - HMD HQMR) 11 II D, ■■ VVHA LHMCR IDE1 HZ it -M- r.' CHr6 UJ I: ■ HLF HGE Z HIM In ►„u■■■ ■111■ .111■■111■11111 1:'s - ! 11 � 1I'! 111■■■■ !� �fi, . - ■■■ 3DJH I t ; 11111111■■■ ■nl . ■1■■■1■mir:. o� .■ '�rl.: - ,- �� '.: a- ■ ', II•�. o�rl. ■■ ■rr: e■ ', ■■■ ■■m■■Ir: - MW ■ ', CMQGl CFU K, DLN6 -■3E Orl ■■■ ■■■1 - -■1■■■ IE]EIT SMWEQGrl H ►, MVITO CLFLSDCR -r - ■NQ ■■ m■■<; FUHILSHLU HDU ■ - r rl - -■ u■. ■ ►' -nn� 02 - - I ■ll111 - �D■� [��"ll.11llll■1111+ D K'. �� i/f1 Iu r ■ l ! \� \1 ■ 11111111■■■ ' 0 1Y m low - ��- '��■ 11)■� IF IIS! Ia- ■ -•- - 1', ; 1l� ■■m■ ■ ■ nur� ■a, �1�>t cls] ■■■ ■■111■ • ; �U: !t ;��- ■ NO - ■ ! 1■�■ -� • 1 ■ II �D■ll L' : I'•9.1 ■1■IIIC� \ M� Illl] [�1) ■ l tll \r ■ IIII■■■11: 'vVi 0 Illi] - �R' ■ '��■ 11)■! 111■Q■ I:'s- ■ -�- - �'1. l�� ■ 3 Q1 HEU Clarbgton Notice of Public Meeting A land use change has been proposed, have your say! The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application for a proposed Plan of Subdivision and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment. I'M••• Courtice Construction Team Inc. and Dover Property Management Inc. have submitted applications for draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a plan of subdivision with a total of 9 units consisting of 4 semi-detached dwellings and 1 single -detached dwelling. The subdivision would extend and connect Dale Park Drive. The applications have been deemed complete. 14 Dale Park Drive, Part 2 of 40R-31041 and Part Block 73 of Plan 10M766 Lands between the existing north and south parts of Dale Park Drive, east of Varcoe Road and west of Cherry Blossom Crescent. • I Single -detached CILSemi-detached Site Boundary k 1 1 111: I �3ZBA2021-0025 How to be Informed For additional information on the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment, the background studies are available for review on our website at clarington.net/developmentproposals Questions? Please contact Toni Rubino 905-623-3379, extension 2431, or by email at trubino(a)_clarington.net How to Provide Comments Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place electronically. This meeting is live -streamed for public viewing at www.clarington.net/calendar Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 Time: 6:30 pm Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone 3 If you wish to speak at the public meeting, please pre -register and you will be provided with further instructions. You can pre -register by completing the online form at www.clarington.net/delegations or contact \NH-LOW-LHSDA9 F 7❑a623-3379 extension 2109 or clerks(a�clarington.net by Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:30 pm. 1!Q1 —p—o" �^T: �� ►r,f1v 71i n c nor : (il» do our utmost to accommodate you. : H RXLDLHA�'XIIRA/X-PWf/ XFT7t'llA Q -FRP P HQJOII 1 R=RP P LMHVLFROvig-i D\B�QW-To n i Rubino at trubino(Dclarington.net or by mail or drop box to 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 prior to the date of the public meeting. File Number: S -C-2021-0008 and ZBA2021-0025 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the LGI_NV HSDAR HQMWLI - 623-3379, extension 2102. Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379, extension 2131. Appeal Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed: a) you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal; and b) you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Ryan Windle, MCIP, RPP, AICP Director of Planning and Development Services https:Hclaringtonnet.sharepoint.com/sites/DevReview/Subdiv/S-C-2021-0008 - 14 Dale Park Drive/S-C-2021-0008 ZBA2021-0025 Public Meeting Notice - COVID.docx Iff Applications By: Courtice Construction Team Inc. & Dover Property Management Inc. Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a plan of subdivision with a total of 9 units consisting of 4 semi- detached dwellings and 1 single detached dwelling. Public Meeting: OF 7, 2022 The purpose of this Public Meeting is to hear what the public has to say about the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. No decision will be made regarding these applications. 3 Fifl r ■tea 'ti t9jI— . 1 1 I tMir Y• y� - .1* V �m Alt 1 - �- L 7LL r'.l. 10, a uF b :n .3 72 _ >r woo M AlJt I t J � �. MA 0 Single-detached Semi-detached Site Boundary ■. Comments and Questions • Timing of the proposed development, should it be approved; • Impact of the subdivision on future development to the north; • Traffic and Safety; • Construction and Noise Pollution; • Impact on local Wildlife; and 3 ®❑ • Decreased Property Values. _ >r woo M AlJt I t J � �. MA 0 Single-detached Semi-detached Site Boundary ■. From: Libby Racansky To: Chambers, Michelle; Foster, Adrian; Janice Jones; Neal, Joe; Hooper, Ron; Traill. Corinna; Zwart. Margaret Subject: Dale Park sub and Trulls Comments and 2 requests Date: March 7, 2022 4:58:36 PM EXTERNAL !. Request # 1: I have a request to the Planning and Clerks Department that from now one, all residents living between Townline in Courtice to Green Road in Bowmanville would be notified on upcoming development applications and that they would be allowed to comment on these, please? Why? We all live on a common unconfined aquifer that is located on glacial Lake Iroquois Shoreline recharge area for local Creeks. Each development is affecting us in many ways (diverting the groundwater flow from the original point of discharge, flooding and runoff during precipitation or drying wells, our wetlands. forests during the hot season, etc.). We do not have a privilege of Zoning of our properties within the urban Boundary. Therefore we have to use the information available to us. 2. Both sites are identified to be within a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer zone in accordance with the Source Water Protection Plan policies Durham Region). Did the proposed development address the issues as they relate to this zone?. To address resident's comments, all tree removals should occur outside the sensitive breeding bird window (April 15 through August) to comply with the Migratory Bird Convention Act (MBCA). 3. Our neighbourhoods should be walkable. This doesn't mean that walking on or along the polluted roads is recommended. We need treed trails within our Parks or along sensitive areas. If all the proposed housing will be allowed, there is no chance to compensate for this loss. Also, all animals living at or close to development will be landlocked by these housing units and or they will all be killed, in time, by trying to cross the roads, This is already happening in my neighbourhood. 4. Did the stormwater Management information provide its support of the application that did not sufficiently demonstrate how proposed stormwater runoff will meet pre - development flows or was the site test location testing completed at the location at the proposed LIDs to determine the soil infiltration rate? Could the innovative method using meandering vegetated or treed bioswale be used for the SWM? This could enhance peoples' psyche. 3 -FF1 The Report noted that the existing sewer drains north-east Farewell Creek. Is it possible because on the existing mapping, it appears the sewer outlets at Harmony Creek and not Farewell? Was the calculation provided for the quality treatment that is required for the enhanced level criteria? Please, try to avoid runoff that is dangerous to peoples' health and safety. It also ruins our roads by freezing any drop of precipitation, creating cracks and it is also very expensive for our Works Department to resurface the eoads. 5. Request # 2: None of the development small or large should proceed prior to the upgrade of Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant. This Plant is conventional only, class 4 that doesn't even have tertiary treatment and the odor equipment is not up to date. I am not sure if our Council is aware of the fact that not only sewage from Courtice with its EFW and Future AD will be accepted there. All development from sprawling City of Oshawa and Whitby will be diverted to CWPCPlant. All other plants in Newcastle, Bowmanville, Duffin in Pickering and Ajax, even Scugog are being updated, but Courtice one. Why? Maybe you have heard how many problems Duffin Plant experienced by adding York sewage to the system. There was even an explosion at the odor equipment part. Do you want similar things happening here as well? The odor coming from the Courtice plant in many days caused us to return home, instead of using the Waterfront trail. Please, request Region to upgrade this plant, so that it is sufficient for all by the Region approved development. All Municipalities Plants also measure Lake Ontario, our Municipal water supply, but Courtice Plant. Please, Council, do this for the sake of all Wards because the water in the Lake doesn't stay just in Courtice. The underwater currents turn counter -clock- wise and the surface ones clockwise. This fact could also support Councillor Trails' proposal for the EA for AD. This Plant would divert its outfall from the contaminated mixed-use to Courtice Water Pollution 3 TF1 Control Plant. Please, consider all my comments and 2 requests for creating a better community. All my points are documented by the attachments. Just in case I am not able to join the meeting since I have a tree service on my property and I have another meeting tonight, READ MY SUBMISSION. Thank you, Libby Racansky ONEWE � � ,.� � _ �.�:{_ :• - �*. - _. 'a� , . {+,. ' irk"�"� .��:. �•. •- �. Y r.. 4.ti � •x• F r. ;.r - - W-m- zi ' Z�w N p ir gy r" Fri 00 -Em 3 ka I A b OAF Ao lip r4LAP 0- JA I jr Z ' ' L I I L'Rj - ..�..r � Y• + r y1 h ' �� � JYF-L'� A � •�� 4 L � _ jvh FILTREXX BIOS# LES Fittrexx Filtroxx Bio les, Re mi Sediment and Fi Iter Storrnvwate r Ru noff I mages may be s u bj ect to ea pyri ght. Lea rn More �77 VISIt Protected Greenlands System 4.18 The current Greenlands System comprises approximately 40 per cent of the reg ion's land base - weaving through Loth the Urban and Rural Systems. It ccntains areas with the highest concentrations of sensitive and/or sIgnificarnt natural features and functions, agricultural and rural lands. Examples of proposed policy directions that vwou Iii support a protected Greenlands System include: a. Recognizing Traditional Ecological Knowledge in understanding sites and ecological features and in assessing oumulafive impacts; b. Establishing a water resources system that includes ground and surface water featiu res and a reas, the Lake S i m coe watershed bou n da ry a n d f rrn e r Lake Iroquois Shoreline; C. Ensuring conservation authorities, area muni1cipalities and ether stakeholders oohs ler climate ch a n9e a nd th a effects of seve re Breather everts and cry s - watershed Impacts while preparing and updating watershed plans; d, Seeking to reduce stormwa.ter runoff volurne and pollutant loadings within Designated Urban ,areas in the Lake Simcoe watershed, in a coo rdan ce with the Lake Simcce Protection Plan, and e. Requiring new leve meat and red eve meat W incorporate nature and d rough t tolerant vegetartio r. 3 11] I AN 1-Z ..l. ..l. ..l. ..l. ..l. The Central Lake Ontario Comservation Authaft FIGURE 3 Lake lriquDF9 Beach - Weal Clam Pian EaDkm,* a I h/ 5 Ig r3 In emg QKkmdmmmw Redrdym Aresa Loomw 0 Tawn {H2wnL-1} fthw&y 407 1 TPR) Uwe r Tief W ri 1-- 0 NVY Lalte I Fa fFu bi� 9 ea th Greftiba L 63 u bd;V y Eb&k4i--* &PWithrlI Gtow &Km Lv R*dh a vg& Am& Cm Merl LJ tbw H bu rrda ty Future u f ba r) Bou A do ry 10 CbAM@L —mmgbhr o Lvi BmLnmo M m ..bLom1 ZrCL MWM &W%Wi* M MIM mS u9ne ray The Courti WPCP is located in the M u n ic i pa I ity of Cladngton (Go u I i ce) and is owned and operated by the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region). The plant is operated according to the terms and conditions of the ECAs. The Coo rtice WPCP tre ats wa stewater f ro m th e 0 shawa a n d C ou rtioe se rvi oe a real i n t he Reg ie n. The Courtice 1 P Cly receives the majority of its flew from the Harmony reek catchment area via the Harmony Creek Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station ( P ), servicing approximately 140,168 residents or 78A% of the total catchment population. The Coo rtioe WPCP i a d esig Trod to treat wastewa to r a t a n a vera g e dai ly flow ra to of 68,2 o 0 0u h ie meters per day (m:3/d) with a peak flew rete of 180,000 M3 The plant is an MOECC Class Fear conventional activated sludge treatment plant that utilizes th a following processes to treat wastewater: * raw influent pumping, * preliminary treatment, * primary treatment, * secondary treatment, * phosphorus removal } * disinfection (ehlerinationldeehlorinatiog), a9d solids treatment. A x 75� rte:-+' w s; pr 1FA r f r Metm 41% ................... ................... .................. m ..................... ........................................... .......................................................................................................................... .................................................................................... ... ..................... Bv:.... Courti. : : ....................................... ....................................... ........................................ .................................... c 3 rlflFl ........... ............ Inc. 0 o ...... Rick >< i � • �'�+ s . , :; ¢xa ��:. Mei r �A -:. L,;A.y � Fa A MA9:aroRUA: MU0I04A= �� '� � � � i� �!� � "s� 1 e!'��7 � Syr `�� "" � �r �'. :, • � , ��1F �1 �i ��S S� ivlf �4 y h ' l n � � '• `{f �! �� � •' 1 r.. - yyY eS. r h �. e T r. .+i'S�•,ff '1 i YS` - .+n Fi,� �e i 1 P"'CY.e.�', �' �a, fe mul 71 .44 !i , .� �� rte, /.-� - r, �� •T. , IW 4;1 lkp OTICE A 13 N RW r qlq IPA �A Tf 41 3 zil ot , p 10, * ik Blocked Access to Park Blocked Driveways wrw"%Aa- "I AW IV qr Blocked Mailbox L41 7 ppr7j*., I 11% Clarbgton Notice of Public Meetin The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application for a proposed Plan of Subdivision. Weston Consulting has submitted an application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit 10 residential townhouse units broken up into two blocks (6 units on one block, and 4 units on the other). The units would have individual vehicle access off of Sandringham Drive and are proposed to be 2 storeys. 2591 Trulls Road, Courtice, northeast corner of Trulls Road and Sandringham Drive. 124 DU. IR2 0� 12 14 ]k...LU 17 42. 1 202t 58 s'L_=E7 .30 SANDRINGHAM DDR - 23 7) R o `' N 25 59 273 Z 2752. 53 51 2659 49 - 54 30_ PZ9 P. 3.1 __ 4$. 32 BROWNSTONE g3 49 34 0 44 36 Q 35 37 42 38 R _ a9 40 c5 .36 42 11 f. J s'L_=E7 .30 2806 I , ' a — $ 2600 m dad? na p 2592 ROAD ° N SAN 10 DR `� r7 6> j0 '9 7a3/ HILLHURST53� T� 51 r p 49 J¢,1 Q m 47 45 2$, CRESCENT 43 ', + 2486 P 2474 fi� INGLIS CT 7.438 Fires to tlor1 Number 4 2611 SANDRINGHAM DDR - 7) o `' N 51 _ 20 ss N N N ,—zsai 53 51 2659 49 - q7 . 2651 AT 26a0 BROWNSTONE 2632 2806 I , ' a — $ 2600 m dad? na p 2592 ROAD ° N SAN 10 DR `� r7 6> j0 '9 7a3/ HILLHURST53� T� 51 r p 49 J¢,1 Q m 47 45 2$, CRESCENT 43 ', + 2486 P 2474 fi� INGLIS CT 7.438 Fires to tlor1 Number 4 2611 For additional information on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision please visit our website at clarington.net/developmentproposals Questions? Please contact Nicole Zambri 905-623-3379, extension 2422. or by email at nzambriaclarinaton.net Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place electronically. This meeting is live -streamed for public viewing at www.clarington.net/calendar Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 Time: 6:30 pm Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone If you wish to speak at the public meeting, you must pre -register. Further instructions will be provided once registered. You can pre -register by completing the online form at www.clarington.net/delegations or contact \NHH7( H-NV-FHSDrtment at 905-623-3379 ext. 2109 or clerks clarington.net by Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:30 p.m. SANDRINGHAM DDR - 7) o `' N m 3 Cv N N N BROWNSTONE ay. ]d_ _9a go 15 r4 r, ;7 i'1 ^per, r~r~rti+3rpeflao o 22 a HEARTHSTONE10 ", V]132 11 -34 $ry J ,.12 179 " a -AF For additional information on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision please visit our website at clarington.net/developmentproposals Questions? Please contact Nicole Zambri 905-623-3379, extension 2422. or by email at nzambriaclarinaton.net Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place electronically. This meeting is live -streamed for public viewing at www.clarington.net/calendar Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 Time: 6:30 pm Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone If you wish to speak at the public meeting, you must pre -register. Further instructions will be provided once registered. You can pre -register by completing the online form at www.clarington.net/delegations or contact \NHH7( H-NV-FHSDrtment at 905-623-3379 ext. 2109 or clerks clarington.net by Friday, March 4, 2022 at 3:30 p.m. If you are unable to participate electronically, please FRCM®FW +E1181MHSDAR HCVCQ3ZHLZLZ do our utmost to accommodate you. : H+CFRXEDE-IERXM/XEPLWRXF7EMIO FRP P HD1 M:C EURP P IMHVCFRCMC3-V_DAZQWZNicole Zambri at nzambri(aD-clarington.net or by mail or drop box to 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 Drior to the date of the public meetina. File Number: S -C-2021-0009 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the ®I_NV HSDAR HCVDAI-1 623-3379, extension 2102. Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Appeal Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed: a) you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal; and b) you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Ryan Windle, MCIP, RPP, AICP Director of Planning and Development Services /nl 3 TF1 Application By: Weston Consulting, on behalf of 2734796 Ontario Ltd. A subdivision application to permit 10 freehold townhouse units Location: 2591 Tru IIs Road, Cou rtice Public Meeting: March 7, 2022 S -C-2021-0009 The purpose of this Public Meeting and presentation is to hear what the public have to say about this application. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. 3 Jy� y S -C-2021-0009 2591 Trulls Road t' all M N w • Proposal PART t REGI—RE7 "— "0R - 18206 w ss.am ars �cNueExs rJ.;wm I.. n: IYSS,OY o � E BN tEO.N xB.Om lIF STORAGE LFMNBERS 7w •Jwc .S ]AE S]Am 9N,NE AT S.OIi UOnOY A [wY®1 F]E,e. .SpI r n. i L— ------- ------ -- Y I a a �� ' • � • ] 1a • � a a }� 1 � a �� � W I R I GO N I N I N .: 1 �] v � ✓� 3-118-LOCK ss 1ti ,RH rsl�ji BLOCK A� R71- RD :a Ig I „Ia 1 ■ N► ,at,eo eaLeo �� a I Ix wlo�N�iNs vIu NI► 11 'IT .I}4 ♦9r 1 U]IT 2 ] a u 7- a -1 -0-0-0444 ul d III, 1 „x 3 z E.aI ;a it d1I r ;ait t!1 JD Vis] u a F I-_--�litLL _ _ 5 : som SANDRINGHAMnDRIVE �o gll ` T c edLIT *'per � pWx ir.n 5 4 5 21 0 9 10 11 CORNER BMG OMT FRONT ELEVATION YONI. 2 a YODEL I M. Al. YonBL zL.n [GRT G VNIT 0 UNIT ¢ I,NIT k ESN 1R11T BNO UNIT FNOAM ElE4ATION Notice of Public Meeting 0 Comments C One comment received about a technical matter 111 ■ li TIP S -C-2021-0009 4kr•2591 Tru lls Road A ■ ■ -W, A TL u We% �� �� � �. Jig Al t OL At .4w, 6 4, 0*,g Ar a S T A T U T 0 R Y Fps,,_ P U B M E E T L I C I N G 2591 Trulls Road Town of Clarington March 7t", 2022 V. IV1,- -41 CL .... 5 PF V". Ne A -Arm X4. 401- SUBJECT PROPERTY Aerial Photo of the Subject Site OF .O ao Northeast corner of Sandringham Drive and Trulls Road • Site Area: 2,922 m2 • Road Widening: 242 m2 (along Trulls Road) WESTONStatutory Public Meeting 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 2 CONSULTING M 3 TFI MM O PLANNING FRAMEWORK N OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE II -111111 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCHEDULE 'A' - MAP 'A5' j REGIONAL STRUCTURE ' LEGEND URBAN SYSTEM �•�• URBANAREABOUNDARY alf URBAN GROWTH CENTRE URBAN AREA BOUNDARY UERRED b REGIONALCENTRE LIVING AREAS - REGIONAL CORRIDOR AREAS DEVELOPABLE ON I FUUJPARTIAL MUNICIPAL EMPLOYMENTAREAS SERVICES AREAS DEVELOPABLE ON AREAS DEVELOPABLE ON WATER SYSTEMS gpRIVA EL WASTE DISPOSAL PRIVATE WELLS B MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEMS BUILT BOUNDARY SYSTEMS AREAS OEVELOPABLEON I I )III WAVAT SE PRIVATE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS S MUNICIPALSERVICE RURAL SYSTEM PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS RURAL 8ETTLEMENT3: • HAMLET O COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (SEE TABLE E2 FOR DESCRIPTION) ORURAL EMPLOYMENT AREA (SEE TABLE FOR DESCRIPTION) SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL AREGIONAL NODE (SEE SECTION SC FOR DESCRIPTION) OAGGREGATE RESOURCE EXTRACTION AREA (SEE TABLE EI FOR DESCRIPTION) GREENLANDS SYSTEM _MAJOROPEN SPACE AREAS OAK RIDGES MORAINEAREAS 1 WATERFRONT AREAS CAK RIDGE... -6661111" GREENBELT BOUNDARY BOUNDARY TOURISTACTIVNY/ A RECREATIONAL NODE A WAERFRONT PLACE . . . OPEN SPACE LINKAGE • WAERFRONTUNKS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SEE SCHEDULE C FOR DESIGNATIONS THE FOLLOWING IS SHOWN SELECTIVELY, FOR EASE OF INTERPRETATION OF OTHER DESIGNATIONS ONLY. EXISTING FUTURE ARTERIAL ROAD FREEWAY INERCHANGE GORAIL Q GO STATION - - - - SPECIAL AREAS I j I SPECIAL STUDY AREA I A SPECIFICPOLICYAREA D2 DEFERRED BY MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS APPEALEDTOO.M.B. OLANDB APPEALEDTOOMB, REFER TO POLICY 10.13.7 Region of Durham Official Plan Schedule A: Map A5 Regional Structure 5HJLRQRI'XUKDP2FLD030DQ Designated: Regional Centre • Located within the Built Boundary • Proximity to Living Areas WESTONStatutory Public Meeting 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 4 CONSULTING M 3 TFI PLANNING FRAMEWORK Town of Clarington Official Plan Map A2 Land Use WESTON CONSULTING REGIONAL CORRIDOR URBAN RESIDENTIAL - URBAN CENTRE ONEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE -PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT AREA DLIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA BUSINESS PARK UTILITY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA - GREEN SPACE -WATERFRONT GREENWAY - COMMUNITY PARK - MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK rSECONDARY SCHOOL GO ? TRANSPORTATION HUB URBAN BOUNDARY mmmmmmm■ SPECIAL POLICY AREA 0000000000 SPECIAL STUDY AREA D4 -DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM L A107_, APPEALED TO THE OMB Statutory Public Meeting 3 TFI 7RZQR1&ODULQJWRQ2FLD030DQ Designated: Urban Centre RULDLURDU3D Designated: Medium Density Residential 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 5 PLANNING FRAMEWORK �1 ,.nRINGI le ` NEP Residential Industrial Mixed Use Q commercial EP — — — ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE'A' Institutional E—&] Agricultural ------ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE'B' V / / -47 Town of Clarington Official Zoning By-law 84-63 Schedule 4 (Courtice) Town of Clarington Zoning By-law 84-63 Zoned: R3 — Urban Residential Type 3 • Townhouse dwellings permitted • 50% maximum lot coverage WESTONStatutory Public Meeting 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 6 CONSULTING M 3 TF1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - SITE PLAN SW HP 133.05 16.0. SWALE I m I I 16.24 I 13 15.56 14.68 I 133.29 2.3% \ 14.5. SWALE AT 2.0% (BOTTOM OF CHAMBER ELEV. i130.80) 23.Om SWALE AT 2.0R SW HP SW 19.5m SWALE AT 2.OR RLCB E • 132.94 Ex 13212 • • Ex • • 132.68132.44 Ex Ex -of," • 132.65 132 0 • 132.95 90.53 N69'47'30'E 132.86 132.63 132.54 0 d RLCB Z y ® 132.29 132.8] 132.941 132.94 132.88 -132.74 - 1- - 132.60 132.67 132.70 132_60 -1- - 13- 1- - 132 Ir_---- pi f I I I I I I I I I 132.90 132.90 n132.94 132.85 I 132.90 132.80 133.12 133.12 g 132.75 v 132.90 1 *'2 *M - - "m^' - 1.68 6R 6R SR 5R 6R 6R n nm 11 VR 8R 132.90 - Ex 132.64 132.60 7R SR 132.80 7.01 6.08 1.84 6.08 6.08 1.84 8.08 7.10 3.00 f 7.10 6.08 1.84 6.08 7.10 n FFF 134.00 ro FFF 134.00 FFF 134.25 K FFF 134.25 FFF 1134.00 �^! Z O TW 133.65 TW 133.65 TW 133.65 TW 133.90 TW 133.90 F5131.33 FS 131.33 FS 131.58 FS 131.56 Q Ln USF 13FS 1.0 USF 131.10 USF 131.10 USF 131.35 USF 131.35 N d 1R BLOCK A BLOCK B 2.7R 0�--� "---� 13335 "---" �2R 133.80 13348 133.80 W 4Ri �i 13333 2R11R♦� �♦lR!!2R 3RD -43R Q 133.44 1 R 133.48 � 133.48 133.50 ♦ ♦ 133.50 133.80 A X 133.80 LO I I I I I I I I 3RI. 43R 1 1.50 1.50 3RD �3R I 1R up 1 4 1R 1R U IT 1 2 1R �,4� 1 4 U IT 12 U I ♦ R R Z `� ♦ ♦ 1 ♦ 133.85 133.851 R ♦ 1 133.85 133.85 133.50 ♦ e am 1 R 134.10 134.10 1 R n 3R 3R 3R 3R 133.85 n ♦ 133.65 3R 3R 133.65 ♦ Ex 3 133 33 3 35 33 85 133.09 133.33 133.33 2 n 134.10 134.10 Site Plan Site Statistics • Building Type: Street Townhouses • Number of Units: 10 units in total • 6 units (Block A) • 4 units (Block B) • Building Height • 2 Storeys • 8.72 m - 9.66 m • Density: 34 units per gross hectare • GFA: 170.4 - 198.38 m2 (1834.17 - 2135.34 ft2) • Lot Coverage: 24.51 % - 47.75% • Minimum Lot Area: • Interior units: 225.84 m2 • Exterior unit: 488.00 m2 WESTONStatutory Public Meeting 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 7 CONSULTING M 3 TFI Will- 1.50RIM-MI lir �rI fi�i� �I Site Plan Site Statistics • Building Type: Street Townhouses • Number of Units: 10 units in total • 6 units (Block A) • 4 units (Block B) • Building Height • 2 Storeys • 8.72 m - 9.66 m • Density: 34 units per gross hectare • GFA: 170.4 - 198.38 m2 (1834.17 - 2135.34 ft2) • Lot Coverage: 24.51 % - 47.75% • Minimum Lot Area: • Interior units: 225.84 m2 • Exterior unit: 488.00 m2 WESTONStatutory Public Meeting 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 7 CONSULTING M 3 TFI LANDSCAPE PLAN O ry J J ry SANDRINGHAM DRIVE Landscape Plan LEGEND: 1 DETAIL # QUANTITY D-0 SHEET # SPECIES - - PROPERTY LINE OEXISTING STREET TREES TO REMAIN DECIDUOUS STREET TREES PROPOSED DECIDUOUS TREES PROPOSED CONIFEROUS TREES PROPOSED SHRUBS & PERENNIALS PROPOSED SOD ® PROPOSED UNIT PAVER DCONCRETE PAVING OBEACHSTONE - - - - - PROPOSED 1.8m HIGH WOOD PRIVACY FENCE ® PROPOSED 600 X 600mm PATIO SLABS WESTONStatutory Public Meeting 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 8 CONSULTING M 3 TFI I®I - - •►• 1' �I 111111 1■111 IIIIIIII IIIl01l ::� ••; ; -••; ; "1 EN 11.. I....i i' i B �'.:1 111111 1■111 111111 11101 1::::1 111111 �-� ME no '-'-' 1:::: 11 1::::1 1....1 1�..1 1111■■ ...M. 1....1 1....1 .... .... 1....1 11 1 1 1 - IF -- = n = = n ==1 1- = = -■ ■ = - Ii���� MESSINESS 111 n ■ ■ ` __ ������� ������� ` - "' - III 111 ■■ ■ 1 1111 ■ F.11� '1■ ■111111■ 111 �� _0�� ■111111■ ■111111■ � \� Qi�_ ilii Ste' �•iiliri'_ iii' ii iiiih '- qi iiili i'n__ii��'i Iilllll'ii'il� MODEL 1830 MODEL 1970 MODEL 1970 MODEL 1860 MODEL 1860 MODEL 2140 . .UNrr ` UNIT 5 UNIT 4 UNrr 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 :. END UNIT Elevation .:._��■ ■�� _ --�w1.a99 MMS Emm_; SUPPORTING STUDIES 'UDIW30DQR16XEGLYLVLRQSSOLFDWLRQ • Urban Design Brief • Noise Study • Phase 1 ESA • Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment and Report • Subdivision Plan, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Cross Sections • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report • Drainage Plan • Storm and Sanitary Drainage Plan • Grading and Servicing Plan • Erosion Sediment Control Plan • Geotechnical Investigation • Landscape Plan and Details • Survey WESTONStatutory Public Meeting 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 10 CONSULTING M 3 TFI WESTON CONSULTING Thank You Comments & Questions? Mallory Nievas Weston Consulting 905-738-8080 ext. 275 mnievas@westonconsulting.com Statutory Public Meeting 3 TFI 2591 Trulls Road, Town of Clarington March 7, 2022 11 Clarftwn Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: March 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS -010-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: SC -2021-0009 Resolution#: Report Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Proposal for 10 townhouse units at 2591 Trulls Road, Courtice Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and Council. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS -010-22 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public and Council with respect to the subdivision application; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS -010-22 and any delegations be DGALHOII L& R_1 ❑ 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -010-22 Report Overview Page 2 The Municipality is seeking public input on a subdivision application to permit 10 street townhouse units at 2591 Trulls Road in Courtice. The units are proposed to front onto Sandringham Drive and would have direct vehicle access onto a public road. The subject property currently contains a single detached dwelling and accessory structures. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: Weston Consulting, on behalf of the owner 2734796 Ontario Ltd. 1.2 Proposal: To permit a total of 10 freehold townhouse units 1.3 Area: 0.72 acres (0.29 ha) 1.4 Location: 2591 Trulls Road, Courtice. Northeast corner of Trulls Road and Sandringham Drive. (Roll #1817-010-050-22300) 1.5 Within Built Boundary: Yes 2. Background 2.1 On December 17, 2021, Weston Consulting applied for a subdivision on the lands 2591 Trulls Road in Courtice. The proposal would facilitate two blocks of street related townhouse units consisting of a total of 10 units. The application was deemed complete on January 14, 2022 and circulated to outside agencies and internal departments for review and comment. 2.2 The applicant has submitted the following supporting documents which have been circulated to other departments and agencies for review and will be summarized in a future report. • Urban Design & Sustainability Brief • Noise Report • Geotechnical Report • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report • Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 & 2 • Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 2.3 The purpose of this report is to give an overview of the application, summarize initial comments and to obtain feedback from the public. Full municipal services are available to service the proposed development. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS -010-22 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Context 3.1 The subject property is located at 2591 Trulls Road in Courtice, just south of the Courtice Town Centre on Highway 2. The site contains an existing single detached dwelling and accessory buildings on a relatively large lot. It is situated within a low density neighbourhood with a mix of single detached dwellings and some medium density townhouse developments to the north and south. Figure 1 []Subject Lands 3 EL❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -010-22 3.2 The surrounding land uses are as follows: Page 4 North Adjacent to the site is the Clarington Fire Station No.4. Further to the north is the Courtice Town Centre, which is under construction and will be a main focal point of commercial and residential activity in Courtice. East To the east are vacant lands subject to development (draft approved plan of subdivision). South To the south is low density residential uses, consisting of single detached dwellings, semi detached dwellings, and townhouses. West To the west is low density residential uses, consisting of single detached dwellings, semi detached dwellings, and townhouses. 4. Provincial Policy Provincial Policy Statement 4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) policies direct growth to settlement areas and promote compact development forms. Planning authorities are to facilitate a variety of housing forms and promote residential intensification to achieve efficient development patterns, especially along public transit and active transportation routes. The definition of L-ANFFLLLFCIBZ--L-FOIC3-i❑ NH13-M-WSP HCt of underutilized lots within previously developed areas and infill development among other things. The PPS policies state that planning authorities shall also consider market demands when evaluating proposals. 4.2 The subject lands are located within a settlement area, known as Courtice, which is to be a focus of growth and development. It is also adjacent to a public transit route and bike and pedestrian route. Development proposals are to appropriately use infrastructure and public services while also respecting the surrounding context. Provincial Growth Plan 4.3 The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) is a long-term planning framework that manages growth, mainly within the urban areas of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It provides policies to encourage complete communities, which includes a diverse mix of land uses, a mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open spaces, and convenient access to local stores and services. New transit -supportive and pedestrian -friendly developments will be concentrated along existing and future transit routes. The objective is to protect the natural environment, make use of existing public infrastructure, and encourage compact development within the already built up areas of the Municipality. 4.4 The subject lands are within a settlement area and the defined Built Boundary of Courtice. Growth is to be accommodated by directing development to the existing built up areas of Courtice through intensification. A minimum of 40 percent of all residential development 3 TF1 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -010-22 Page 5 occurring annually within each upper tier municipality will be within the built-up area. After the Regional Comprehensive Official Plan review is completed, the minimum target will increase to 50 percent. 5. Official Plans Durham Region Official Plan 5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the sLEPbiF\ASUZSHT_ DT5 HJ P,1DCXH0MELL Regional Centres shall support an overall long-term density target of at least 75 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.5. The built form should be an appropriate mix of high-rise and mid -rise development. The surrounding context also needs to be taken into consideration when looking at the density requirements. 5.2 The proposal would contribute to the allocation of units for intensification. Clarington Official Plan 5.3 The Clarington Official Plan designates \NH SL SHY" LIEDEIL&WMEIDDGIis located within the Built -Up Area of the Municipality. The proposal for ten townhouse units would FRSWAWDLG-:-I[0 ❑AFLSDWI[15HrLC3-I EkN11FULFD\&'R07DILJRAhnd utilize existing public services and infrastructure. Intensification within the Built-up Areas is encouraged and is to be given priority. 5.4 Trulls Road is designated as Type B arterial road in the Clarington Official Plan. It includes pedestrian and cycle connections. The transportation policies state that new development must provide adequate off-street parking and safe egress. A 5 metre road widening on Trulls Road and a sight triangle at the northeast corner of Sandringham Drive and Trulls Road are required. The vehicle access to the townhouse units will be off Sandringham Drive. 5.5 The Official Plan provides the Urban Structure Typologies for specific areas of the Municipality. Urban Centres are to be developed with one of the highest densities in the overall Urban Structure of the Clarington Official Plan. The subject lands are required to meet a minimum net density of 120 units per net hectare. The built form shall be between 4 to 12 storeys and consist of high and mid -rise buildings. The proposal is for two storey townhouse units with an approximate density of 35 units per hectare. Although the proposed density is lower than what is permitted in the Official Plan, the zoning on the lands predate the current Official Plan policies and the Courtice Mainstreet Secondary Plan provides more specific direction for this area. 5.6 Any intensification or infill development, such as the one being proposed, must also consider and respect the surrounding context. Consideration will be given to: • Pattern of lots • Size and configuration of lots • Building types of nearby properties 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -010-22 • Height and scale of buildings • Setback of buildings from the street • Rear and side yard setbacks Page 6 5.7 The subject lands are at the edge of the Urban Centre boundary and act as a transition from the commercial/mixed use Town Centre area to the low density neighbourhood to the south and west. 6. Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan 6.1 The Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan provides guidance for the long range vision to create a dense mixed use environment within an area that is already developed with relatively low densities. The goal is to gradually transition the area and minimize impacts on the existing lower density development in the abutting neighbourhoods. Buildings are to be designed with high design standards to contribute to the image of the Courtice Main Street area. 6.2 The site is designated Medium Density Residential in the Secondary Plan. The maximum height of any building shall be 4 storeys. Permitted uses include townhouses. Flexible space designs are encouraged, such as live/work units. 6.3 I n UP �I �D❑�I❑6J ❑❑1�AJ-I❑ ❑EI'b'Fl�❑G❑DllW2 L1P4❑�QFi RZ I]:& H❑IAIH 3 Wfl I� EHE are to have walkable street blocks. The uses shall complement the functions of the Centre and provide connections. Prominent landscaping will be necessary to encourage walking to the Town Centre Commercial area and create a strong visual pedestrian connection. 6.4 New development shall not negatively impact existing stable neighbourhoods. The Urban Design Guidelines in the Secondary Plan provide further direction on building articulation for medium density buildings, such as facade articulation, landscaping along the street frontage, ground floor at grade, high quality materials. Garages shall be recessed or in line with front wall of the dwelling. Utilities shall be well integrated with the dwelling. 7. Zoning By-law 7.1 7 KH FEMFMURSHWtL1JREHGA I ED❑15 Hd41❑109 ❑SH17 KIHH❑r) 11M117 KIFKLSHIP BAL townhouses. The minimum lot area is 170 m2 for interior lots and 280 m2 for exterior lots. The minimum lot frontage is 6 metres (interior) and 10 metres (exterior). However, Council has provided direction that street townhouse developments shall have a minimum frontage of 7.0 metres to accommodate on -street parking. A rezoning is not required for the proposed development. 3 F❑❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -010-22 8. Public Notice and Submissions Page 7 8.1 Public notice was mailed to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject lands on February 14, 2022. A sign was posted on the property on February 15, 2022, advising of the complete application received by the Municipality and details of the public meeting. 8.2 At the time of writing this report, Staff have received no inquiries with respect to the application. 8.3 Comments received from the public at this Public Meeting will also be considered and included in the forthcoming recommendation report. 9. Outside Agency Comments Regional Municipality of Durham 9.1 Comments from the Durham Region Planning and Economic Department and the Works Department have not been received at the time of writing this report but will be included in a subsequent report. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 9.2 Comments from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority have not been received at the time of finalizing this report, they will be included in a subsequent report. Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board 9.3 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board have no objection to the proposed application. They anticipate that the proposed development will yield three students who would attend the local schools in the area. Currently, these schools have residual capacity to accept the students. Standard conditions are requested to be added to the Subdivision Agreement, if approved. Canada Post 9.4 Canada Post will provide mail delivery service to this development through community mailboxes. One site would be required for this development and the location would be determined by Canada Post, Planning and the Applicant. Enbridge Gas 9.5 Enbridge Gas does not object to the proposed application. Hydro One 9.6 Hydro One does not object to the proposed application. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS -010-22 10. Internal Department Comments Clarington Public Works 10.1 Public Works have reviewed the application and have no objection in principle to the proposed development. They have identified a few items that need to be further addressed with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report. 10.2 There are two large utility cabinets located on the north side of Sandringham Drive immediately in front of the proposed site. The two utility cabinets will need to be relocated Dffl9HDSS(FDdW1FR-VK1DFMMSbtM-Q DEIDFFHLW-Q D i''FlD V)R V91-15DEIn1W] will require a sightline analysis to be completed to confirm no conflicts will occur. 10.3 Due to the sanitary sewer main along Sandringham Drive being 5.0 m deep, the applicant would be required to excavate and replace the entire section of Sandringham Drive fronting the subject property in support of installing the services. Emergency and Fire Services 10.4 Emergency and Fire Services Department does not object to the proposed application. Building Division 10.5 The Building Division does not object to the proposed application. 11. Discussion 11.1 The applicant has applied for a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the severance of 10 street related townhouse units. A total of two blocks (A & B) are being proposed. Block A contains 6 units and Block B contains 4 units. The townhouses are proposed to be freehold units created through a future Part Lot Control application process. The units front onto Sandringham Drive and have direct vehicle access onto a public road. MODEL 1830 MODEL 1090 MODEL A 0 MODEL 1060 MODEL 18"0 MODEL 2140 UNIT 8 UNIT " UNIT 4 UNIT 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 CORNER END UNIT FRONT ELEVATION Figure 2 ❑ Proposed Elevation for Block A 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -010-22 Page 9 MODEL 2140 YODEL 1970 YODEL 1970 MODEL 2144 UNIT 4 UNIT 9 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 END UNIT END UNIT Figure 3 ❑ Proposed Elevation for Block B 11.2 In general, the proposal, if approved, would contribute to the Courtice intensification targets and utilize existing public infrastructure, including support for public transportation. 11.3 A rezoning is not required, as the subject property is zoned Urban Residential Type Three (R3) which permits townhouse units. The applicant is not seeking relief for any of the R3 Zone provisions. 11.4 The proposal shows two parking spaces, one in the garage and one on the driveway, for each of the townhouse dwelling units, except for the exterior side unit adjacent to Trulls Road. This unit has four parking spaces, two in the garage and two on the driveway. The building units are split at the back to provide direct access to the rear yards from the garages. 11.5 The Clarington Official Plan and the Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan contains urban design policies that would need to be considered when reviewing the application. Careful attention and consideration of these policies will contribute to the overall success of the project and assist in creating a development that cohesively ties in with the surrounding context. The design of the site itself should also consider the broader context and conceptually show how it would integrate with the Draft approved subdivision to the east (Bonnydon Lands). 11.6 The application was circulated to several internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. Technicla design details can, if necessary, be addressed through the conditions of Draft Plan approval. Staff will continue to review the application and work with the applicant to address all technical matters. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -010-22 Page 10 PART 1 ' S,�T p-�+•a REGISIERE� FLAN I 40R - 18206 I 3c.am as wr�`0�au wercro p�r+.s r a � Iwm n � yilw wonar a .m za.om or slow,ce awns an Swc rx xqx eer. ml ,nw xm sam'a1} ,aim • • ,sso u: xwomE � ns ss.s• LA �„ L I _1 ___ _ I _____ +I_ _ ____ _I ssn __9 I ____y _ I 11 i _ ____ I'_ ___ I•Se ____ II ____"iI _ S<LF �e I �I �A gl �w �� v. a •1 s 1 a1� iI 6 ►9 f Z igI: T� S1 a 1g 1, m I •x�, I w l I I I 1 � - I, m I _m I I • . w 1s& , �•z , m , w I. 1 • �� aR w 1 - • v - , wn MI,x�AO � !A!� 1Lm M �b nliSum�eI di]MdH •� f - �I1�]! � � �I•y N N 21 a • I :u e w; ,. I BLOCK BDj ; I n o pQ $$ BLOCK A� I 1 asw w I T �• ��". }9 k► a �a p n "' r d WIDENING ! w xe a IT ,la.q 4w I xn u 'IT IT 4 a► Ilx�,1a2 •x _ Y � I • � '� I m ,xm 1 I ,ssee � IY- 7� m . � - r�,• u _ .vex• ssa e S a (!^�sl m l H !I•' 9�w I p l 1 3 1 x, I' f u•� I 4,vm I� rvx O 1 I L11 F ` e © SANDRINGHAM DRIVE 0";'e,<„I •�ppp � ir-x �a.� 9 a S 2 , 0 ! t0 t5 Figure 4 ❑ Proposed Site Plan 12. Concurrence Not Applicable. 13. Conclusion 13.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information and obtain comments on the proposal for ten street -related townhouse units at the Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue to review and process the application, including consideration of department, agency and public feedback, including any comments received at this Public Meeting. Staff Contact: Nicole Zambri, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2422 or nzambri(a)_clarington.net . Interested Parties - List of Interested Parties available from Department. 3 TF1 Thursday February 24, 2022 Mayor Foster and Members of Council, We are the owners of a 50 -acre parcel of land in the Municipality of Clarington; CON 3 Pt Lot 22, Roll number 010 OSO 03700 OOOO. The acreage is located approximately 600 feet off Rundle Road, South of Taunton Road and North of Nash road. Access to the property is through an unmaintained road allowance from and to the east of Rundle Road. Please see zoomed out map image attached, for location. We have been exploring opportunities over the past few years to build on this property, and contacted CLOCA regarding whether we would be permitted to build on the land, based on environmental factors. CLOCA indicated that there are in fact areas on the property that we would be able to build a home. We have investigated options for acquiring a driveway to our property from Rundle Road, We approached several of our neighbors, whose properties share our westerly boundary. We wanted to explore with them the idea of purchasing a small parcel of their land to use as a driveway, which would allow for a possible boundary adjustment and provide us with frontage on Rundle Road. We also explored boundary adjustments that would allow for frontage and a building site on Rundle Road. These inquiries were not fruitful. We have also consulted with Municipal Staff in the Planning Department and have requested and paid for a consultation. We have investigated the possibility of gaining access to the property through the unmaintained road allowance. Initial communication with staff has not been favorable for moving options forward with respect to purchasing, upgrading or leasing the road allowance, which leads to our request today. Our goal is to be able to build a home on the north portion of the property_ The northern portion is an eleven -acre field, bailed every year, adjacent to the road allowance, and is not within any flood plain. CLOCA has indicated that we may be able to build there. The attached zoomed in map shows the 11 -acre area, which is the proposed building site, as well as the existing unmaintained road allowance. We would like to ask that the municipality approve one of the following options, to allow for a residence on the property: 1. Improve the road allowance to a rural municipal standard, and classify it as a maintained road_ 2. Lease us the road allowance, which we will use as our driveway and improve at our cost. The land can revert to the municipality when it is necessary to develop a maintained road in that space. 3. Determine the road allowance surplus and sell us the road allowance, adjusting our property boundaries to include the roadway. 4. Provide us with an easement, without a request for additional services. 3 EE1❑ Again, we are kindly requesting that Clarington Council approve one of the options presented above, or any other solution you deem appropriate, which would allow us access to our property in order to build a home. We will follow up with Mayor Foster and the Ward Councilors individually, and will request a delegation at the Planning and Development Committee. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, .i Mr. & Mrs. Ron Diskey 952 Red Deer Avenue, Oshawa, On L1 K OC4 rfdiske mail.com 3 HE❑ i and Tr;;r� •if !t °ad �a�nton R 1 } XV Googlc Map (zoomed out) -i� 40 ,lk., .A,: . .. s� D Id ScugOg ch Fist Licht DipieA1 . { • 4' K9 Cewrti Plt,i Rosort, ,_ luallnlf, and st;o . Map (Zoomed In) X, the I,_ l►5 d at oi V\afth e�,d the PrvPee' � veld like to build . Planning & Development Committee Delegation for Mr. &Mrs. Ron Dickey Re: Access to our 50 Acre Property Concession 3, Part Lot 22 IM UA I "ON, ve 9 `. Food Tack Aliey Map (Zoomed Out) 1 Market tabes 0-. , ' 0XQ' el Old Scugog Christ 0Vt'O 3 t �-. Light Drive A OtA S � . f • `� � �� kir" `~ ,.a � �. �, I #. _„ � 4 +� '�- �+ •'r it 0. QD K9 Central Pet Resort, Google Training and Spa Maple Grove IME 3Hildinn Site El • GoN3pt�o,�22i nis is ine 11- acre field at north end of the property, where vire would like to r��Mr •f�Y � yYFF s Y build. Suggested Solutions . Improve the road allowance to a municipal standard, and classify it as a maintained road. Lease us the road allowance, which we will use as our driveway and improve at our cost. The land can revert to the municipality when it is necessary to develop a maintained road in that space. Determine the road allowance surplus and sell us the road allowance, adjusting our property boundaries to include the roadway. 4. Provide us with an easement, without a request for additional Services (plowing/salting). Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Questions? Mr. & Mrs. Ron Diskey Concession 3, Part Lot 22 Clarington, Ontario Clarftwn MEMO If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee From: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Date: March 7, 2022 Memo #: Memo -011-22 Re: Access to Rundle Road Property This memo is to provide additional background information with the respect to the Delegation that is scheduled for the March 7, 2022 Planning and Development Committee regarding the above noted matter. The property location is shaded in blue in Figure 1 below. Unopened flight -ca way �� am COa.r r+ �CO Figure 1: Subject Property In December 2021, the Municipality received a request for pre -consultation on this property to build a dwelling. The following options were outlined by the owner: • Option 1 a ❑ Purchase right-of-way (ROW) from Municipality to provide access to the property The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 T❑ Page 2 Option 1 b - Purchase property from adjacent property to the south or ROW (3879 Rundle Road) in the form of a boundary adjustment to provide access. Option 2 ❑ Explore a boundary adjustment at the south end of the property by purchasing property that could be deeded to the property giving frontage on an opened and maintained right-of-way. From preliminary review of the location, there were issues. First and foremost, the property does not have access to an open and maintained ROW. On January 5, 2022, the property owner was informed that the Public Works Department would not support the purchase of the unopened ROW (option 1 a). There is not enough information to determine whether or not the ROW is surplus now or in the future. In addition, the Municipality has a policy discouraging the sale of surplus ROWs. In regard to purchasing adjacent properties to provide access (option 1 b and 2), the property owner was informed they would be responsible for pursuing that option and the lot line adjustment (through land division). Typically, the Municipality would become involved when a conditional agreement with one of the neighbouring property owners had been negotiated. At that time, the request for a pre -consultation could be more fully evaluated. On January 12, 2022, the property owner suggested that they take responsibility for bringing the road allowance up to municipal standards at their expense in order to provide access, or the property owner be allowed to purchase the ROW with a condition that allows the Municipality to reassume the ROW when and if the Municipality had a purpose for the ROW. The property owner stated that he had been in contact with CLOCA and was told there was a good chance a building site could be approved in the field at the north end of the property, adjacent to the unopened road allowance. The property owner also asked about the minimum width required for a driveway if option 1 b or 2 was pursued. On January 18, 2022, the property owner was told that the Municipality would not accept the option of building the road to Municipal standards or an agreement that temporarily transfers ownership. The Municipality occasionally receives requests to extend roads/ROWs, however they are typically not in the best interest of the Municipality due to the future expectations for maintenance responsibility and the added costs to support one dwelling. Also, the proposed agreement would not satisfy the condition for a building permit that states the property must have permanent frontage on an open ROW. The property owner was also given the information for the minimum driveway width (6m for two-way traffic) and was told to locate the driveway adjacent to the unopened ROW to mitigate property requirements to the adjacent property if Option 1 b or 2 was pursued. The above summarizes the communication to date between Staff and the property owner regarding this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@ciarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 ®❑ Page 3 Stephen Brake Director Public Works /KR/FL cc: Karen Richardson, Manager, Development Engineering, Public Works Ryan Windle, Director, Planning and Development Services Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects, Planning and Development Services The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 ®❑ Clarftwn Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: March 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS -011-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: File Number: COPA2021-0002 By-law Number: Report Subject: Official Plan Amendment to facilitate the severance of a surplus farm dwelling at 40 Station Street Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS -011-22 and any related communication items, be received; 2. That the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report PDS -011-22, Attachment 1, be approved; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS -011-22 and any delegations be D❑EE/HaRI T R❑ -FMR❑❑ 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -011-22 Report Overview Page 2 On July 5, 2021, Council adopted Amendment Number 128 to the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. This application was considered non-exempt from Regional approval (at the time). The Clarington Official Plan Amendment would permit a farm parcel less than 40 hectares and a residential parcel slightly larger than 0.6 hectares to facilitate a non -abutting farm severance. The associated Zoning By-law Amendment prohibited future residential development on the retained parcel, prohibited the housing of livestock in the existing farm buildings as required by the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae and reduced the interior side yard setback from the proposed property line to two existing farm buildings. The Zoning By-law Amendment will come into effect once the Official Plan Amendment has been approved. Official Plan Amendment No. 184 (ROPA 184) to the Regional Official Plan was approved by the Region on October 27, 2021. The amendment permits the severance of a dwelling rendered surplus to a farming operation as a result of the consolidation of non -abutting farm parcels on the subject lands. R2 3 ❑ T❑❑EEDD +MM_A d1H _5 HJ LRL V_LMV+M X_ _ [A LP DUOI ID0_1IA HT 8I❑J \R_2 I I LFLDQB I Amendment application is now exempt from Regional Approval. As such, the Region has advised that COPA2021-0002 is now exempt from Regional Approval and a new notice of adoption is required. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: 172596 Ontario Ltd. 1.2 Agent: Clark Consulting Services 1.3 Proposal: General To facilitate the severance of a surplus farm dwelling at 40 Station Street in Orono. The retained farm parcel would consolidate with non -abutting farmlands owned by 172596 Ontario Ltd. and Algoma Orchards Ltd. Official Plan Amendment To permit a farm parcel less than 40 hectares and a residential parcel larger than 0.6 hectares. The retained farm parcel would be 35.18 hectares and the severed residential parcel would be 0.62 hectares. 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -011-22 Page 3 Official Plan Amendment To permit a farm parcel less than 40 hectares and a residential parcel larger than 0.6 hectares. The retained farm parcel would be 35.18 hectares and the severed residential parcel would be 0.62 hectares. 1.4 Area: 35.8 ha 1.5 Location: 40 Station Street, Orono (See Figure 1) 1.6 Roll Number: 181703005012401 1.7 Within the Built Boundary: No Figure 1: Proposed Severed and Retained Parcels 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -011-22 2. Background Page 4 2.1 On February 11, 2021, 172596 Ontario Ltd. submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the severance of a surplus farm dwelling at 40 Station Street in Orono. An application for the associated Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 2021-001) was also submitted to the Region of Durham. 2.2 As part of a surplus farm dwelling severance, the Clarington Official Plan requires the retained farm parcel maintain a minimum of 40 hectares and the severed residential parcel a maximum of 0.6 hectares. An Official Plan Amendment was submitted to permit the retained farm parcel with an area of 35.18 hectares and the severed residential parcel with an area of 0.62 hectares. The retained parcel would consolidate with non - abutting farmlands owned by 172596 Ontario Ltd. and Algoma Orchards Ltd. 2.3 A Zoning By-law Amendment was also required to prohibit future residential development on the retained parcel, prohibit the housing of livestock in the existing farm buildings as required by the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae and reduce the interior side yard setback from the proposed property line to two existing farm buildings. 2.4 On July 5, 2021, Council endorsed the recommendations contained in PDS -037-21 (Resolution #C-243-21) approving applications COPA2021-002 and ZBA2021-0003 as follows: 1. That Report PDS -037-21 be received; 2. That the Municipality of Clarington has no objections to the approval of ROPA 2021-001; 3. That Amendment No.128 to the Clarington Official Plan as contained in Attachment 1 of Report PDS -037-21 be adopted; 4. That the By-law to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 attached to Report PDS -037-21, as Attachment 2, be approved; 5. That with regard to Heritage Designation of 40 Station Street, Orono: the draft updated Designation By-law (Attachment 3) be endorsed; the enactment of the updated Designation By-law be required as a condition of approval of any future Land Division application on the subject lands; and iii. the Clerk be authorized to issue the required Notice under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to initiate the process to amend the designation on the subject lands. 3 TF1 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS -011-22 6. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS -037-21 and any delegations be D❑dyH❑[RI L[E R❑❑F0" FMR❑❑ 2.5 The By-law to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 per Section 24(2) of the Planning Act will come into effect once the Official Plan Amendment comes into effect. 2.6 Official Plan Amendment No. 184 (ROPA 184) to the Regional Official Plan was approved by the Region on October 27, 2021. The amendment permits the severance of a dwelling rendered surplus to a farming operation as a result of the consolidation of non -abutting farm parcels on the subject lands. 2.7 R2 3 ❑T❑❑❑LD\/[D +KA)H ANH_5 HJ LR❑V[LAN+M/)ILANH[P DMIEDE❑-[H (EDJ.❑JUR-2 IILFLDQ Plan Amendment application is now exempt from Regional Approval. As such, the Region has advised that COPA -2021-0002 is now exempt from Regional Approval and a new notice of adoption is required. 2.8 On December 20, 2021, 172596 Ontario Ltd. submitted a Consent to Sever application to the Region of Durham. The application has not yet been scheduled for public meeting. 3. Discussion 3.1 A new notice of adoption for Amendment Number 128 is required as the Region has approved the associated Regional Official Plan Amendment and the Clarington Official Plan Amendment is now exempt from Regional approval. 3.2 In accordance with the Planning Act, the Notice of Adoption is to be completed within 15 0DEVRI [[[ R-1r-FLQi/Dr-RS\R❑1RI [UDP Hr --]P HEM L -FHM Hr5 HJ LR❑DM r-r-LFLSDWFRI ❑ Durham has advised that this amendment is exempt from Durham Regional approval, this Notice of Adoption shall contain the mandatory statement advising the public that the amendment is exempt and that the decision of Council is final should no appeals be received. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable. 5. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the amendment to the Clarington Official Plan (see Attachment 1). 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -011-22 Page 6 Staff Contact: Toni Rubino, Planner, (905) 623-3379 ext. 2431 or trubino@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 []Official Plan Amendment Interested Parties: 172596 Ontario Ltd. Bob Clark, Clark Consulting 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Amendment Number 128 Attachment 1 to Report PDS -011-22 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Purpose: To permit the severance of a non -abutting surplus farm dwelling of 0.62 hectares with a retained farm parcel of 35.18 hectares. The Official Plan Amendment will permit the severed parcel to be greater than 0.60 hectares and the retained parcel to be less than 40 hectares. Basis: This amendment is based on an application submitted by 172596 Ontario Ltd. to permit the severance of a surplus farm dwelling as a result of the consolidation of non -abutting farm parcels. This application was supported by a Planning Justification Report and Minimum Distance Separation Review and has been reviewed by public agencies and municipal staff. Consideration has also been given to Provincial Policy and the current Durham Regional Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: In Section 23.19.4. iii), Table 23 -❑[surplus Farm Dwelling Lot ExceptionsF�FE[adding the following exception: Table 23-1 Surplus Farm Dwelling Lot Exceptions Exception Assessment No. Legal Description Area of Area of No. Surplus Remainder Dwelling of Land Lot (ha) (ha) d0 030-050-12401 Part Lot 27, 0.62 35.18 L-1 (2021) Conc. 5 former Twp. of Clarke Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. 3 T❑ Clarftwn Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: March 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS -012-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: File Number: Resolution#: Report Subject: Building Activity Update January 1 to December 31, 2021 Recommendation: 1. That Report PDS -012-12 be received for information. 3 TF1 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -012-22 Report Overview Page 2 In 2021 we experienced an increase in construction value across all sectors with the exception of the residential sector. In the residential sector, Clarington experienced a reduction in the number of residential building permits, new units created and construction value. However, it is anticipated that the residential sector will make a significant rebound in 2022 as there are several large residential projects which were applied for in 2021 and early 2022 that once approved would combine to produce approximately 700 new residential units. 1. Introduction 1.1 The Building Permit Activity Report presents market activity statistics that are intended to provide a clear picture of development activity within Clarington during the period analyzed. The period of analysis for this current report is January 1 to December 31, 2021 and will be analyzed against the same period in 2020. A comparison of the current statistics against a five-year average is also being provided to give an indication of the status of the current building market. 2. Concepts & Definitions 2.1 SRP S(BtiPoI11YcFLMLJ 3 HY Y$ SS(FDfiZ_T is a building permit application that meets the requirements of the Ontario Building Code which include, plans, specifications, documentation and fees, which are in compliance with all applicable law. 2.2 [3 HY IML is formal permission to begin the construction, demolition, addition, or renovation. As part of the building permit process, Municipality of Clarington staff must review the plans and documents submitted to ensure they comply with the Ontario Building Code, local Zoning By-laws, and all other Applicable Law. 2.3 IF5 HVU-I -ODO-T refers to construction and permit activity resulting from the creation of all new residential dwelling units as well as accessory structures (detached garages, sheds, etc.), and additions (decks, new additions to a home, etc.). 2.4 d R11 -NA H refers to construction and permit activity that is related to non- residential development such as site servicing, industrial, commercial, institutional, and agricultural. 2.5 17R1 R—\WF\fR J D01HT refers to the total dollar value of construction activity within a defined period because it is a measure of economic activity as a whole. 2.6 [7R R \AWF0Z:1[g D01H-5 HVU-1 -21DOC] provides a specific measure of the dollar value of construction within the residential sector. The number of new residential units provide an indication of population growth and need for additional commercial services. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -012-22 Page 3 2.7 17RW&R—\/IU-F\fR 9 DO1HF1 R11-U+/La+lE\ IDCU provides a specific measure of the dollar value of construction within the non-residential sector and is an indicator of business development within Clarington. 3. Total Construction Value & Activity 3.1 The following is a table showing the number of permits issued and the value of construction in each of the building categories for the period, January 1 to December 31 in 2021 and the year prior. Building Category Number of Permits 2021 Value of Construction 2021 Number of Permits 2020 Value of Construction 2020 % Change of Value 2021-2020 Residential 912 $208,293,803 1,171 $305,738,563 -31.9% Industrial 13 $4,888,178 23 $33,847,815 85.6% Government 21 $69,420,680 9 $43,699,000 58.9% Commercial 81 $13,932,692 65 $11,781,534 18.3% Institutional 19 $7,559,140 11 $2,741,213 175.8% Agricultural 27 $4,866,935 14 $1,630,900 198.4% Demolition 30 $0 59 $0 N/A Total 1,103 $308,961,428 1,352 $399,439,025 -22.7% 3.2 The following graph illustrates the January 1 to December 31 building permit comparison for the last five years. Five Year Total Construction Value Comparison 2017-2021 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 $100,000,000 $0 1 2 3 4 5 Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Value $379,537,195 $422,636,361 $130,323,054 $398,366,432 $308,961,428 3 TF1 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS -012-22 4. Total Construction Value & Activity Residential 4.1 The following pie chart showing the types of dwelling units issued between January 1 and December 31, 2021 as well as the types of dwelling units issued in the year to date 2020. Dwelling Unit Type 2021 Single Detached 252 43% Apartment J4 60 10% Semi - Detached 20 3% Dwelling Unit Type 2020 Semi- Townhouse Detached 417 10 41% 1% Single---- Detached ingle Detached Townhouse 385 259 38% 44% Single Detached 252 Semi -Detached 20 Townhouse 259 ■ Apartment 60 3 TF1 Apartment IF 210 20% Single Detached 385 Semi -Detached 10 Townhouse 417 ■ Apartment 210 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS -012-22 4.2 The following is a table showing the number of new residential units issued in each area of Clarington for January 1 to December 31, 2021. We have compared those totals to the year-end totals for each of the past eight years. Year: Area 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 Bowmanville 410 792 183 723 589 520 461 419 216 Courtice 88 32 12 14 112 292 290 153 97 Newcastle 54 168 67 42 227 149 154 51 92 Wilmot Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 Orono 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Darlington 14 10 10 11 12 6 1 8 9 12 Clarke 7 6 6 6 11 14 11 12 6 Burketon 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Enfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enniskillen 0 1 4 4 15 3 0 1 2 Hampton 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 Haydon 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Kendal 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Kirby 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Leskard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maple Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mitchell Corners 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 Newtonville 10 3 3 5 0 3 3 3 7 Solina 1 1 0 2 2 3 0 0 1 Tyrone 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 591 1023 288 809 972 991 931 656 439 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -012-22 5. Total Construction Value & Activity Page 6 5.1 A measure of economic activity within Clarington may be found in part by looking at the non-residential space, such as industrial, commercial, and institutional as well as large multi -unit residential developments such as apartment buildings or condominiums. In this regard we find it helpful to provide information about permits that fit this criterion and exceed a construction value of $1,000,000. The details about such activity in 2021 are provided as follows: Owner Location Description Value ($) Type Regional 2188 Bloor Street, DRPS Regional $36,800,000 Governmental Municipality of Darlington Support Centre Durham Regional 2192 Bloor Street, Centre of $17,600,000 Governmental Municipality of Darlington Investigative Durham Excellence (DRPS) Regional 2188 Bloor Street, Site Servicing $13,400,000 Governmental Municipality of Darlington Durham 1728589 1635 Highway 2, Multi -Use $3,231,760 Commercial Ontario Inc. Courtice Building (Retail/Office) Kawartha 49 Liberty Street Replacement of $1,700,000 Institutional Pine Ridge North, Bowmanville Ductwork and District School Ceiling Board Kawartha 1642 Nash Road, Interior and $1,678,000 Institutional Pine Ridge Courtice Exterior District School Renovations Board Sunspace 260 Toronto Street, Warehouse $1,449,228 Industrial Newcastle Addition 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -012-22 Page 7 Owner Location Description Value ($) Type Kawartha 3425 Highway Replacement of $1,250,000 Institutional Pine Ridge 35/115, Clarke Ductwork, District School Ceiling, and 2 Board Air Handler 2824538 6 Spicer Square, Commercial $1,242,000 Commercial Ontario Inc. Bowmanville Building (Shell) Rekker 3104 Concession Greenhouse $1,229,250 Agricultural Gardens Inc. Road 4, Darlington Kawartha 3421 Highway Interior $1,200,000 Institutional Pine Ridge 35/115, Clarke Alterations District School Board Clearwater 505 Lake Road, Site Servicing $1,140,000 Industrial Structures Bowmanville Inc. The Canada 2320 Highway 2, Sound $1,100,000 Commercial Life Insurance Bowmanville Screening Company (Walmart) Municipality of 156 Church Street, Interior $1,000,000 Governmental Clarington Bowmanville Renovations & Barrier Free Access Gibson Farms 3671 Pollard Road, Migrant Worker $1,000,000 Residential Inc. Clarke Housing 6. Durham Region Comparisons 6.1 The Durham Region comparisons are not available at this time. The Growth Trends Review typically issued in June will provide a comparison across the lower tiers. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -012-22 7. Inspection Activity Page 8 7.1 The following is a table showing how many inspections were attended from January 1 to December 31, 2021 as well the same time period in 2020. Type of Inspection Completed 2021 2020 Building Inspections 9,576 8,455 Plumbing and Heating Inspections 8,814 8,301 Pool Enclosure Inspections 203 137 Total 18,593 16,893 8. Mandated Response Timeframes 8.1 The Ontario Building Code mandates that complete building permit applications shall be issued or the applicant shall be notified that the permit is being refused and provided with the reasons why it is refused within a prescribed time period based on the type of building. From January 1 to December 31, 1,114 applications were received and 898, or 81 %, of them were complete applications. This is an increase of 14% over 2020, For the complete application, the following table reports on the median number of days it took for the Building Division to either issue the permit or notify the applicant why the application was being refused. Permit Type Mandated Timeframe Median Number of Days 2021 Median Number of Days 2020 Median Number of Days 2019 Residential 10 14 9 10 Small Buildings 15 10.5 11.5 12 Large Buildings 20 16 13 19 Complex Buildings 30 0 8 0 9. Insights and Outlook 9.1 The newly released Stats Canada report outlining municipal growth over five years indicates that Clarington is the fastest growing municipality in Durham Region. The population has grown by 10.2 per cent from 92,013 in 2016 to 101,427 in 2021 and the population is continuing to grow. 9.2 It is anticipated the residential sector numbers will increase in 2022 and continue to show the growth Clarington has been experiencing. We have several large residential projects which have been applied for and are under review which are expected to result 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -012-22 Page 9 in approximately 700 new residential units. This does not include future applications that are expected over the balance of 2022. 9.3 The Large Municipality Chief Building Officials (LMCBO) construction values are used by the Building Division to determine the value of each building permit. However, these values have not been updated since 2017. The LMCBO cost schedule is not intended to reflect the actual construction cost of any individual building. They are representative construction values for typical buildings, provided for more consistent construction values reported by Building Departments across Ontario. In 2021, the LMCBO undertook to update the construction values based on the Atlas Canadian Cost Guide which provides construction cost ranges for public and private sector buildings across Canada. The values have not been updated in the last five years and the new list provides a much more detailed list of building types. As a result, there will be an increase in the reported value of construction in 2022 within Clarington and across Ontario. 9.4 In some circumstances Staff use the declared value the applicant has provided when the building is very specialized, for example OPG projects. 10. Concurrence Not Applicable. 11. Conclusion Clarington has had a strong year in 2021 for building activity. The year ahead appears that it will also be very strong with high demand for building permits, considering the permit applications and planning applications that have been submitted and/or are expected to be submitted in the coming months. Staff Contact: Brent Rice, Chief Building Official, 905-623-3379 extension 2303 or brice@clarington.net. Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. 3 TFI Clarftwn Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: March 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS -013-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: File Number: ZBA 2021-0010 Cross Ref: LD2021-00039 By-law Number: Report Subject: An application for Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the creation of a new lot for one single detached dwelling at 3301 Trulls Road in Courtice Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS -013-22 and any related communication items, be received; 2. That the By-law attached to Report PDS -013-22, as Attachment 1, be approved; 3. That the Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS -004-22 DQGTR❑CFLO/-G+MFZGEDQG 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS -013-22 and any delegations be DGYll GRI T R_CFLO/_G+M Q 3 TF1 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -013-22 Report Overview Page 2 This is a recommendation report relating to the application for a Zoning By-law Amendment by Ken Hoy of Stonefield Homes Inc. to facilitate the creation of a new lot for a single detached dwelling. The property is located at 3301 Trulls Road in Courtice and is currently Zoned TJ L1FC C 7IDQG[1I( CAURCIP HOM L 13 El- The subject lands are proposed to be rezoned to an Urban Residential Zone. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner: IVi",LC7C_ 1.2 Applicant/Agent: Ken Hoy of Stonefield Homes Inc. 1.3 Proposal: Amend Zoning By-law 84-1111ARAfli_RCHM.W TJLFEGMDOTal DQG( QY1LRT FOM LWEV!RC - 3 LEDCf5 MAGHOMO Exception (R1 -❑❑❑❑RC H -L\ tJDFMUNViH-FLHDA" RI CDrG�-E C(RW for one single detached dwelling at 3301 Trulls Road in Courtice. 1.4 Area: 1.5 Location: 1.6 Roll Number: 1.7 Within Built Boundary: 2. Background 2,630.55 square metres (0.65 acres) 3301 Trulls Road, east of Trulls Road, north of George Reynolds Drive in Courtice (see Figure 1) 18-17-010-090-24400 Yes 2.1 Stonefield Homes Inc. submitted a land division application to the Region of Durham on October 14, 2021. The application was tabled until the appropriate items required by the Region and CLOCA were completed and provided that a Zoning By-law Amendment application was submitted and approved in order to permit the new lot. 2.2 The zoning by-law amendment application was submitted for the subject lands and deemed complete on September 23, 2021. A Statutory Public Meeting was held on November 15, 2021 to provide background information regarding the application and to obtain public comments. To date, no public inquiries have been received regarding the application. 2.3 Reports submitted in support of the application include: • Scoped Environmental Impact Study • Noise Impact Study 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS -013-22 2.4 These reports are summarized in Section 7 of this report. 2.5 Since the Public Meeting the applicant has worked towards resolving staff and agency comments. The latest draft land division plan includes: • A 5.0 m road widening along Trulls Road • The location of the silt fence to be erected during construction in order to protect the environmental features 2.6 There are a number of items recommended in the Noise Study and EIS that will be implemented through the conditions of approval of the land severance application. a ZBA2O2 Figure 1 ❑ Lands subject to the rezoning application 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject property consists of one single detached dwelling that was built in 2004, a swimming pool in the rear yard and an accessory structure in the north-east corner of the proposed parcel. The subject property is a relatively large lot within the built-up area of Courtice. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS -013-22 North -1 Single detached dwellings. The lands immediately adjacent to the subject lands were subject to an approved land division application in 2012, which created 2 additional lots. South Single detached dwellings with 15 metre lot frontages. The lots immediately south of the subject lands were the former Courtice Fire Station, when the station was moved to Trulls Road, they were declared surplus and sold. East El Municipally owned open space and environmental protection areas, including the Provincially Significant Harmony -Farwell Iroquois Beach Wetland Complex. West Single detached dwellings. 4. Provincial Policy Provincial Policy Statement 4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement states that planning authorities shall permit and facilitate all forms of housing and all forms of residential intensification. The definition of A1LFD5U CC,FO 3-VVQHXat1-I8SP HCVI NDFDC RI L1,PQLQ previously developed areas and infill development among other things. The proposal to create one additional single detached building lot represents an opportunity for redevelopment and intensification within a settlement area utilizing existing services. 4.2 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The Provincial Growth Plan 4.3 The proposal is within the Built Boundary of the Growth Plan. The creation of one additional lot is considered intensification within the Urban Area of Courtice and contributes to the intensification targets within the existing Built-up Areas. The proposal will make use of existing municipal services. The proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. 5. Official Plans Durham Region Official Plan 5.1 The subject property is designated Living Areas in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The policies of the Plan generally promote infill and intensification. The proposed rezoning to facilitate the severance of one additional single detached dwelling lot supports the intensification goals and is compatible for the existing neighbourhood. The proposal conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan. Clarington Official Plan 5.2 The subject property is designated Urban Residential in the Clarington Official Plan. The predominant use of lands designated Urban Residential shall be used for housing purposes. The rezoning, if approved, would facilitate one additional single detached 3 TF1 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -013-22 Page 5 dwe l l i ng l of a n d FRQAEEk AW_ DLOV KH10 ❑QFLSD H`\AGHC=QAMLFDM7 DJ HW It would also utilize existing public services and infrastructure. Intensification within the Built-up Areas is encouraged and is to be given priority. 5.3 The property has frontage on Trulls Road, which is identified as a Type B Arterial Road. It includes pedestrian and cycle connections. The transportation policies indicate that new development must provide adequate off-street parking and safe egress. A 5 metre road widening on Trulls Road is required and shown on the draft R -Plan. The vehicle access to the proposed lot will utilize the existing access off Trulls Road. 5.4 Any intensification or infill development, such as the one being proposed, must also consider and respect the surrounding context. Consideration will be given to: • Pattern of lots; • Size and configuration of lots; • Building types of nearby properties; • Height and scale of buildings; • Setback of buildings from the street; and • Rear and side yard setbacks 5.5 The subject lands are adjacent to a designated Environmental Protection Area owned by the Municipality. A scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was completed in support of the application. It defines the limits of the features and recommends mitigation measures to further protect the features and functions. 5.6 The rezoning to facilitate one additional single detached dwelling lot supports the intensification goals, is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, and does not present a further impact to the adjacent natural heritage features. The proposal conforms to the Clarington Official Plan. 6. Zoning By-law 6.1 7 KHV-EP69F1f19ZSRW&CF❑IIWi @LLRGHGMJ LIF MDC1( QAIJ�CP HQM l Z q 3 TCQTRM %9 law 84-63. Under the Agricultural Zone, the minimum lot area and frontage requirements are much greater than a typical Urban Residential Zone, therefore limiting the ability to sever the subject property. The Agricultural Zone is used in urban areas to function as a Holding Zone until the property can be further evaluated and zoned appropriately. The Environmental Protection Zone at the rear of the subject lands is a remnant of old mapping data. 6.2 An amendment to the Zoning By-law is required in order to facilitate the severance of one additional single detached dwelling lot, as the Agriculture and Environmental Protection Zone are not consistent with the Urban Residential land use designation. 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS -013-22 7. Summary of Background Studies Scoped Environmental Impact Study, GHD Limited, May 2021 7.1 A scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was prepared to confirm the extent of the wetland and other natural heritage features adjacent to the subject lands. It also evaluated the presence of any Species at Risk. The results indicated that the proposed severance would not have any significant impacts on the natural heritage features or functions. The subject property is over 30 metres from the wetland and the proposed dwelling is over 15 metres from any natural heritage features. Recommendations have been included in the EIS to mitigate impacts during construction as well as propose further enhancements to protect the features. Noise Impact Study, YCA Engineering Ltd., March 2021 7.2 A Noise Assessment was completed for the subject lands to determine noise levels from vehicle traffic on Trulls Road and George Reynolds Drive. Based on the analysis, a provision for an air conditioner is required for the proposed residential unit. Appropriate warning clauses are also to be included in the purchase and sale agreement. 8. Public Submissions 8.1 Signage was posted on the property and notification was provided to all property owners within 120 metres of the site, prior to the Statutory Public Meeting, which was held on November 15, 2021. At the time of drafting this report, no public concerns were presented at the Public Meeting, nor has the Municipality received any inquiries or public comments regarding the subject application. 9. Agency Comments Regional Municipality of Durham 9.1 The Region of Durham has reviewed the Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS), prepared by GHD, and will rely on the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) to review the EIS and confirm its conclusions for the site. The Region also reviewed the Noise Impact Study, prepared by YCA Engineering Limited and requires the applicant to implement the mitigation measures in a development agreement with the Municipality of Clarington, to the satisfaction of the Region. 9.2 A Regional Site Screening Questionnaire (SSQ) that was submitted and completed with the necessary signatures. 9.3 Regarding servicing, the Region will require frontage charges and others related to the installation of sanitary sewer service connections at the time of the related Land Division application and Building Permit issuance. 9.4 The Region of Durham has no objection to the rezoning application, pending the implementation of the mitigation measures stated in the Noise Study and the EIS, which will be implemented through the conditions of the severance. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS -013-22 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) 9.5 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) has reviewed the application and supporting Environmental Impact Study for the proposed development. ❑/ 2 ❑❑V❑ Environmental Engineering staff is concerned with the proposed building and driveway potentially impacting the water quality of runoff and increasing imperviousness on the property. Staff require additional detailed drawings and updates regarding the Low Impact Development (LID) measures such as pervious pavers, bioswales or rain gardens. CLOCA has indicated that these measures can be addressed through the severance process. Erosion and sediment control measures were included on the revised plans at the request by CLOCA. 9.6 CLOCA has no objection to the rezoning application. Further comments from CLOCA will be addressed through the land severance process. 10. Departmental Comments Public Works Department 10.1 The Clarington Public Works Department has reviewed the application and have no objection to the proposed rezoning of the subject property. Preliminary comments were provided for the Land Division Application. Emergency and Fire Services Department 10.2 The Clarington Emergency and Fire Services Department has reviewed the application and found no fire safety concerns on the submitted drawings. Building Division of Planning and Development Services Department 10.3 The Building Division of the Planning and Development Services Department has reviewed the application and has no comments. 11. Discussion 11.1 The subject lands are situated in the Built-up Area of Courtice. The proposal for a rezoning to facilitate the creation of an additional building lot for a single detached dwelling is considered infill development that would make use of existing infrastructure. The proposed zoning by-law amendment would bring the property in conformity with the policies of the Clarington Official Plan. 11.2 The existing dwelling and southern driveway on the subject property would remain. The existing northern driveway is proposed to be partially reused to provide access to the proposed dwelling. The current site plan drawings show that all accessory structures including the rear yard deck abutting the existing dwelling, the rear yard pool, and the frame shed in the northeast corner of the property, would remain. No trees on the property are proposed to be removed. The northern portion of the property would comprise of the new single detached dwelling lot. 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS -013-22 Adjacent Environmental Lands 11.3 The EIS identified a Provincially Significant Wetland, a significant valley and a tributary of Farewell Creek on the adjacent lands owned by the Municipality. The wetland is part of the Harmony -Farwell Iroquois Beach Wetland complex. There is also a significant woodlot located on the Municipal lands but was not appropriately identified through the EIS. Staff have asked the consultant to revise the EIS to include the adjacent woodlot as well, since it is greater than 1 ha. Significant woodlots in the Urban Area are woodlots greater than 1 ha. r.o - 1 :y ' I � irate` &"�'�• T'—tir 'Nxk>r I MANICVREV LAWN PROPO5F6 SFVFRANOF I ` 'A I r A e, It^ �, woa�laNa CECIL 6. FOUND PARHET7E - t i Z ELC 1'l�ES-13r P�F,C.tIYAiOX CkTATlGNS RfVIS1G48'NO'k Y.SiORY X`_N -�': P-.5-1 Fx i�fY<22F ZI F. La�SE. Con3Gewv �:va° t �s.n .,.-....,-w... ....: y..�.... ..1. a'. .. — NAT II RAL FEATIIHES, VEGEiATIO N CO MMNNITIESd CONSTRAINTS FIGURE j Figure 2 ❑ Subject lands in relation to natural heritage features 11.4 The Clarington Official Plan policies provide minimum setbacks to natural heritage features. Within Urban Areas, the minimum vegetation protection area for a wetland is 30 metres and 15 metres to valleylands, watercourses, and significant woodlands. The EIS demonstrates that the subject lands are 40 metres from the boundary of the wetland. However, the subject lands are within the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ) of the woodlot. 11.5 Section 3.4.17 of the Clarington Official Plan states that notwithstanding the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ), infill lots proposed within the Urban Area can reduce the MVPZ when given consideration to the surrounding development and setbacks. Any modification to the MVPZ must be supported by the EIS and there must be no net loss to the MVPZ. 3 T❑ Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS -013-22 11.6 The EIS and CLOCA support the proposed rezoning and severance, given that the development is confined to an existing area of disturbance (i.e. existing house, accessory structures, pool, and manicured lawn) and would not result in any direct loss of habitat (i.e. woodland). Also, the surrounding properties encroach further into the MPVZ than the subject lands. There would be no physical net loss to the MVPZ as the lands are already disturbed. 11.7 It also appears from the aerial photos that trees were inadvertently removed somewhere between 2008-2010 on the Municipally owned lands. Section 3.4.11 of the Clarington Official Plan states that compensation and/or restoration of any part of the natural heritage system is required, which has been removed without prior Municipal approval. 11.8 Staff have, and will continue, to consult with CLOCA, the applicant and the owner to come up with a restoration plan for part of the woodlot that was removed and to protect and further enhance the natural heritage system. Mitigation would include the installation of a chain link fence, with no gate, at the rear property line to ensure there is no further encroachment into the feature. A planting plan would include native seed mixture and native trees and shrubs to increase the biodiversity of plants. The result should provide a net environmental gain for the system and the owner would be responsible for 100% of the cost. Restoration and mitigation measures would be implemented through the conditions of approval of the land severance application. Proposed Zoning for The Subject Lands 11.9 The Municipality can include the Minimum Vegetation Protection area as part of the Environmental Protection Zone. This area acts as a buffer to the natural heritage features by keeping development away from the feature. The main intent is to reduce adverse impacts on the features. In this case, the buffer to the woodlot has already been disturbed and there is existing development within it. Since development already exists within the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone, it is unrealistic to place it in the Environmental Protection Zone. 11.10 ❑QDSSU8 SU1 M T IC V0VSR P LUOI DALQJ ®I[G I KHG Q HMO - IF8 LEDQ 5 HVtGHQQfM Exception (R1 -L❑❑ J1FUi 7KH❑5 _:�-❑❑E1 EFHS\5;aI-IIRCHTFZ4ZQJD0WIAIDPHILSUM14R ❑ as the paLFQN5 F -T FZC- TZLW-VM:HEFHS\NZQAP W -IP LCIP EP AHZEFN 1 3 RC --W 0 metres. The land directly north of the subject property is also zoned R1-85, therefore it would be a continuation of the zone. 11.11 Currently the Municipally owned lands to the east of the subject site is zoned Agricultural. Through the next comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, these lands would most likely be rezoned to Environmental Protection to reflect the policies of the Official Plan and to protect the natural heritage features. Therefore, in order to ensure the development limits remain for the subject property, and since it has already been evaluated through a review process, a setback of 0 m to the EP Zone would be appropriate, as opposed to the 3 m setback. There are already zoning provisions that would be maintained, such as the rear yard setback to the dwelling (7.5 m). The 0 m setback would have the effect of allowing a shed, for instance, to be the standard 0.6 m to the property line, as opposed to 3 m. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS -013-22 K, .i' I .1 5 EP �' R� 1 EP A R iFl�r I Figure 3 ❑ Current Zoning of Subject Lands and Surrounding 11.12 The proposed lot frontage for the R1-85 zone is 15 metres for an interior lot to be used for a single detached dwelling, and a minimum lot area of 460 square metres. The proposed severed lot has a lot frontage of 16.77 metres, and an approximate lot area of 904 square metres (after 5 metre road widening is dedicated). The retained lot with the existing single detached dwelling would have a lot frontage of 27.95 metres and a lot area of 1,505 square metres. Both tKHLSL SR+iGDMIU-M%CHGMWRP S@IZL1,PQVOHE15 C- ❑❑7TRC H-WTALFP HQWRJWVWXDQGAffUM HT 11.13 The existing and proposed building and structures appear to be in compliance with the 15 a❑❑TIRCHI_FU /except for the garage projection shown on the proposed dwelling. Private garages and carports may extend a maximum of 3.0 metres in front of the dwelling unit. This provision applies to all lots registered after June 30, 2000. Staff will ensure that all future building permits will comply with the zone provisions. 12. Concurrence Not Applicable. 3 TFI Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -013-22 13. Conclusion Page 11 13.1 In consideration of all agency and staff comments, it is respectfully recommended that the application for the Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate an infill lot on Trulls Road, be approved. The proposed infill development would utilize existing municipal services and is generally consistent with Provincial, Regional, and Municipal land use policies. Staff Contact: Nicole Zambri, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2422 or nzambri _clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 -]Zoning By-law Amendment Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. 3 rn Attachment 1 to Report PDS -013-22 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 2022 - 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 ZBA2021-0010; Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: Schedule 14Cto By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Agricultural (A) Zone" D❑GIE( ❑❑URFIP EE01 LRVVFV9Z I❑ 13 ❑❑R❑❑[Ito "Urban Residential Exception (R1-85) Zone" as illustrated on the DOWF❑❑G6 F❑❑G❑ EAEhereto. 2. 6 F❑❑G❑ - 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 Section 34 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this day of 12022 Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2022- , passed this day of , 2022 A.D. A O 0 ' 0 Zoning Change From 'A' To 'R1-85' 0 Zoning Change From 'EP' To 'R1-85' N W _ E Courtice • ZBA 2021-0010 g I❑❑ Clarftwn Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: March 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS -014-22 Submitted By: Reviewed By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: File Number: PLN 7.17 Resolution#: Report Subject: Development Applications 112021 Annual Report Recommendation: 1. That Report PDS -014-22 and any related communications, be received for information. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS -014-22 Report Overview In 2021, the Planning and Development Services Department received 165 new development applications, not including applications for apartment -in-house (aka Accessory Dwelling Units) and sign permits. 10 Plans of Subdivision 31 Comments to Land Division Committee 47 Minor Variances Together, the applications are proposing a total of ■111■■ 25 Zoning By-law Amendments 12 Part Lot Control 6 Plans of Condominium 7 Official Plan Amendments 27 Site Plans ■■111■■ 111■■1 � 1 1�i '� 11■! 1..t■11■C■ In addition to receiving new applications, open applications from previous years continued to be processed by Planning and Development Services staff, with assistance of other Departments. The following highlights approvals granted in 2021: • 2 plans of subdivision were issued Draft Approval comprising 49 housing units. • 2 plans of subdivision were issued Final Approval comprising 189 housing units • 3 condominium applications draft approved and registered for 235 housing units. • 5 Part Lot Control approvals creating 76 housing units. • 4 Official Plan amendments approved. • 18 Zoning By-law amendments approved. Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Keport rub -u14 -ZZ • 30 Site Plan applications approved for 1481 housing units and 29,342 square metres (315,835 square feet) of industrial, institutional and commercial space. 0 10,036 square metres of industrial space 0 16,921 square metres of institutional space o 2,385 square metres of commercial space • 43 Minor Variance applications approved, 1 denied, 1 tabled (deferred), 2 withdrawn • 28 Land Division Committee decisions for approval to create 21 new urban residential lots, 5 new rural residential lots, 2 new industrial lots, In 2021, approvals resulted in the following: REVIEW 10111i'x■ U 111■ PDS Staff also coordinate the review and approval of any apartment -in-house (now known as Accessory Dwelling Units) applications and registrations, as well as issue Sign Permits for businesses within the Municipality. _jL�"FE LDSSaF, .RLV4K r' WULIFTIR❑VH❑ ❑❑EW SRLDLLIMJ V[ YVI]HG ❑ ®❑ZIGGLLIR❑D011❑LLVAR! LVLK3❑ ❑ L11113FLIP D❑H❑❑VW ❑VIEWLHG Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 1. Purpose 1.1. This report summarizes municipally initiated planning projects and development application activity within the Municipality of Clarington for 2021. Page 4 1.2. This report also compares 2021 development application DF1&U1VZ0[SLHdRdVi+DJ/[❑ activity to assist with identifying emerging issues and possible trends. Figure 1 provides a snapshot of the volume of planning applications received from 2011 to 2021. Year OPA1 ZBA ROPA Plan of Subdivision Plan of Condominium Site Plan Part Lot Control Totals 2011 4 24 0 2 2 36 14 82 2012 9 19 0 4 3 36 6 77 2013 5 27 0 4 2 38 9 85 2014 3 21 1 2 0 31 13 71 2015 5 18 0 3 0 22 6 54 2016 4 24 0 3 1 34 4 70 2017 12 38 1 11 1 49 2 114 2018 4 22 0 5 10 43 10 94 2019 2 11 2 4 3 37 9 68 2020 5 11 0 2 4 27 12 61 2021 7 25 2 10 6 34 3 87 Mean 1 5 1 22 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 35 1 8 1 78 Figure 1: Trends in Development Applications 2011-2021 2. Policy Planning and Implementation 2.1. The Planning and Development Services Department receives and processes a variety of development applications. In addition, the Department initiates, amends, and completes a wide variety of policy documents that include official plan amendments, secondary plans, design guidelines, and other studies. Official Plan Amendments 2.2. The Clarington long range land use policy document outlines goals, objectives and policies for the entire Municipality. An Official Plan Amendment may have the effect of changing a land use designation contained in the mapping, modifying the text or policy of the Official Plan, or both. Official Plan amendments can be privately initiated or Municipally -initiated. Public Consultation 2.3. Public consultation meetings provide the opportunity for community members to engage with the planning process and provide comment on future land use and development within their community. 2.4. In 2021, four Public Information Centres for the Bowmanville West Urban Centre, Soper Springs, Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood and North Village Secondary Plans occurred. In addition, one Statutory Public Meeting Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood and North Village Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS -014-22 Secondary Plan and one Public Meeting for the Farewell Heights Secondary Plan occurred. Municipally Initiated Policy Projects 2.5. The following is a summary of the major policy projects initiated, undertaken and/or implemented by the Department in 2021. The activity covers a wide variety of topics including: secondary plans, subwatershed studies, active transportation, economic development, special study/policy areas, accessory dwelling units, and Zone Clarington. Additionally, Staff completed multiple policy and document reviews related to Envision Durham (Durham Regions Municipal Comprehensive Review). Secondary Plans and Studies Mitchell Corners a Orono .o b 4 A - Pebblestorre Road 1 - g 1 e Courtice �i Bowmanville s- NasM-RoW .. Co - ion Rd 3 . Conusspn:ltd:3= Q Cencassien-Rd'4- -.P. 9bnal7{O" a v r Maple Grove a, Blne,Street I II Newcastle King Street 4 .. 1 R�illIIRF� joRal.-Fligb,raY_Z � 6 ns tong Avenue Secondary Plan Areas - - Courtice Vmartron! and Energy Park Courtice Transit Oriented Community khlll Update (Adapted 2021) - Farewell Heights (initiated in 2021) _ Soper Hills South East Courtice (Adopted 2020) - Sopar Spring. Lake OntarioSpring. ® South West Courtice (Adopted 2023) North Village BowmanvNe East Urban Centre Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood �. ■ _ Bowmanvdle West Major Transit Station Area Completed Secondary Plan Area Figure 2: Secondary Plan Areas in Clarington 3 TFIF] Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS -014-22 2.6. Secondary Plans detail policies, in conformity with the Official Plan, to guide growth and development in defined areas of the municipality where major changes are expected. 2.7. , ❑LLO❑❑❑L-7 F -H 0 F-F-LFLSDD R LEI G UOJ UUV-F RP P ❑E 3 ®❑ L J LD❑C� FR❑RP LF -I Development Division had eleven secondary plans underway. Nine of the twelve are for new secondary plan areas while the remaining are updates to existing secondary plans. Further, in 2021 Council provided staff direction to initiate the Farewell Heights Secondary Plan, which is still in the initial steps of the planning process. 2.8. The following list outlines all secondary plans underway in Clarington: Courtice 1. Courtice Transit Oriented Community (MTSA) 2. Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park 3. Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan (Clarington Council approved, 2021) 4. Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan (Clarington Council approved, 2020) 5. Farewell Heights Bowmanville 6. Soper Hills Secondary Plan 7. Soper Springs Secondary Plan 8. Bowmanville East Secondary Plan 9. Bowmanville West Major Transit Station Area Secondary Plan 10. Brookhill Secondary Plan Update (Clarington Council approved, 2021) Newcastle 11. North Village Secondary Plan 12. Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan 2.8 Council approved the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan in May 2021, it has been forwarded to the Region, as the approval authority. Once approved, the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan update area is expected to undergo significant growth and development with a planned population of approximately 3,063 residents and 1,112 residential units. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 l►A1!7 Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan On May 25, 2021, Council adopted the updated Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (BNSP). This Secondary Plan was integrated with the requirements for Phases 1 and 2 of the required Environmental Assessment for main internal roads to streamline the process. The BNSP covers 300 hectares and is expected to achieve minimum total planned population of approximately 7,400 residents and 2,700 units. The BNSP will guide the creation of sustainable neighbourhoods that include a diverse range of housing located within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, parks, trails, and amenities, with a variety of densities and mix of land uses. A linked system of multi -use paths, bike lanes, and sidewalks will support active transportation throughout the area. The BNSP is now with the Region for review and final approval. Farewell Heights Secondary Plan 2.10 This Secondary Plan is in north Courtice and will provide a more detailed direction for the specific area regarding land uses, transportation, infrastructure, natural heritage, phasing and urban design. On December 13th, 2021 a week after the Public Meeting was held, Council ratified the planning report to allow Staff to initiate the process to prepare the Farewell Heights Secondary Plan. The next steps in the process are to finalize the Terms of Reference (TOR) and hire the necessary Consultants. Page 7 Figure 3: Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan 3 TFIF] Plan Area NV - - �a�o 0 E.—...<�-�,". Schedule A M.�oiro,�,..o-._ LAND USE. TRANSPORTATION, 6iz0 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ®axu m..krfr... q.n .— aeeryyee S Mm.•arys�xd ...... o r. 9maWJ Nef]IEa�moot! 8ecmtlW Plen _ xdgbou�.00d.ws � wlba �+� � wn.me 1�1 woN..r. hr...ryb� p�pQy 3 TFIF] Plan Area Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 North Village Secondary Plan 2.11 In March 2021, the North Village Secondary Plan (NVSP) was restarted. The NVSP is integrated with the requirements for Phases 1 and 2 of the required Environmental Assessment for main internal roads and is being done concurrently with Phases 1 to 4 for the realigned Regional Road 17. The NVSP will be a neighbourhood known for its great parks, walkable streets, and connected active transportation routes. The neighbourhood will consist primarily of ground -related housing with a Neighbourhood Centre with a public square and amenities for U -M iE A"ay-to-day needs. A Public Information Centre was held in November 2021 with many more engagement opportunities to follow. A Statutory Public Meeting is expected in early 2023 with a recommendation to Council shortly thereafter. Soper Spings Secondary Plan Page 8 Figure 5: North Village Secondary Plan Area 2.12 In November 2021, the Soper Springs Secondary Pan (SSSP) was restarted. The SSSP is integrated with an Environmental Assessment for the Mearns Avenue Extension and other internal roads. The neighbourhood design will incorporate connections to natural features, parks and trails for both residents and the community to enjoy. The SSSP will focus on preserving the natural environment and incorporating sustainable design features that adapt to climate change. A Public Information Centre was held in December 2021 with many more engagement opportunities to follow. We expect to host a Statutory Public Meeting in early 2023 with a recommendation to Council shortly thereafter. Subwatershed Studies 2.13 Further, two subwatershed studies are underway. Subwatershed studies provide detailed technical information regarding watercourses and high watertable areas and inform appropriate land use development within those areas. The overall goal of a Subwatershed Study is to develop a management plan that allows sustainable urban growth, while ensuring maximum benefits to the natural and human environments. In total, there are three phases of a Subwatershed Study. Phase 1 prepares an existing conditions report that develops preliminary Constraints and Opportunities mapping to identify developable and non -developable land. Phases 2 and 3 identify any potential impacts to natural features and functions and recommend protective measures. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Page 9 Subwatershed studies include strategies to support the 0 ❑EIRSDON_Vil_2 IILFLDCBGEID❑GII identify the responsible management strategies with the primary focus of protecting natural ecosystem functions, flooding and erosion. The results of all three phases inform the development of Secondary Plans that are located within a study area. Active Transportation in South Courtice 2.14 In May 2021, the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan was adopted by Clarington Council with an amendment that requires a detailed Trail and Active Transportation Plan to be completed prior to development. This Plan is intended to include details on trails, bike lanes, and multiuse paths in South Courtice with the goal of connecting residents to the Courtice waterfront via an active transportation network. Active transportation refers to all human -powered forms of transportation, in particular walking and cycling. It includes the use of mobility aids such as wheelchairs and can also encompass other active transport variations such as in-line skating, skateboarding, and cross-country skiing. Active transportation can also be combined with other modes, such as public transit. The active transportation network is the foundation to creating a walkable community and an efficient public transit system. 1. ■\` fl 'ANI' No 111 ■IIL� ll �1� ■ 2.15 The Municipality has initiated the preparation of an Economic Development Strategy (EDS). MDBlnsight has been retained as the consultant to develop the EDS in consultation with the municipality. The project has been divided into four main components: service delivery, technical analysis, community/business engagement, and the development of the strategy itself. One of the projects to stem from the creation of an EDS is the development of a Nuclear Energy Cluster around the future Clarington Headquarters for OPG that will bring more than 2,000 new jobs to the community. A 3D rending of the headquarters is presented in Figure 6. We anticipate the Draft Strategy will be presented to Council in Spring of 2022 Figure 6: Aerial view of the proposed OPG Headquarters in Clarington 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Special Study Area 2 OPA 2.16 On the direction of Council, the Municipality initiated an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) to consider deleting policy 13.3.12 and Section 17.3 being B SF-FLD06 WG=IL D-L❑U Greenbelt ( ESD❑VIR IIP [Lil OLL J VUV-2 I I LFLDG Plan. These policies requested the Province to undertake a site-specific, science -based study before expanding the Greenbelt and that any expansion to the Greenbelt be for the protection of prime agricultural lands. The deletion did not change any current land use designations, or any other policies related to prime agricultural lands. Page 10 Tiunton Road a r cC SE N a F € f � E L Ha.h 0.oad ; Con[ltsron 0.n u9hw y, o c IF h 401 ' -•_ '" �6atrl.n. fload , •aY#A MA !F 4Q1C1 Nig � L.w rwlww e. dl.rr dthrt�,�ry�-• m....aw.a.. gpr+l 7i- 20211 A Statutory Public Meeting was held on April 26, 2021. The OPA was adopted May 25, Figure 7: Special Study Area 2 2021, and no appeals on the decision were received. There was significant public interest in this project. Special Policy Area F ❑ Jury Lands/Camp 30, OPA 121 2.17 The Municipality has been working with the property owners, Jury Lands Foundation and interested parties to determine the future development of the former Boys Training School campus and surrounding lands. In December 2021, Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 121 which outlines the development types, character and urban design guidelines for the area. In addition, the campus lands including the ring road were designated as municipal -wide park. This policy area is unique as it will include the transfer of the Jury Lands for the purposes of heritage preservation and the creation of a Municipal Wide Park. Public ownership of the lands will allow the Jury Lands Foundation to obtain their charitable status. Obtaining charitable status is critical to allow the Foundation to pursue funding Exhihit'A'tothe Municipality Of Cl.H.gbo Official Plan Amendment No. Illoca Master Plan Special Study Area L CAN (9DkN BLOCK MASTER PLAN ~Ck' SPECIAL POl1CY AREAF \ JFICURE 1 LEGEND r„ O .. ,. • 2.. 41 ' `,, /y - CESSILNITREET sasr / immediately to assist with the short-term EP RvNEDUiJ EI MH[H[11/M m HLLM HLEAMU VCD❑CP R.H11 Figure 8: Jury Lands Overview Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Page 11 importantly raise money for the adaptive re -use of the lands and the buildings as set out in the community vision. A Statutory Public Meeting was held on September 10, 2018. The OPA was adopted December 13, 2021, and no appeals on the decision were received. There was significant public interest in the project and the site. Additional Dwelling Units 2.18 ❑V-SDLM LL ®IJL,J \RiiVLLL I I RLEDE(H-L RLVLJ -7 RR 1W_ on December 13, 2021, Council approved Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendments to increase permissions for Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs). ADUs are also known as secondary suites, in- house apartments, or accessory apartments. Subject to zoning standards, within our Urban Areas, Hamlets, and Rural lands outside of the Greenbelt, two ADUs are permitted on a lot. Within the Greenbelt and parts of the Oak Ridges Moraine, one ADU is permitted on a lot. These expanded permissions are anticipated to be popular as many residents of Clarington have been consulting with Staff on prospective applications. PRIMARY UNIT AD40DITIDNAL PRIMARY UNIT DWEILNG UXIT PRIMARY UNIT ADDITIONAL PRIMARY AM TIONAL DWELLING UNIT DWELLING ADDRN)NAL UNIT UNIT DWELLING S�Cssanr �cL�ars� UNIT SRekRYE SIYC1lRf Figure 9: Various types of ADUs ,� ■ 11■ . l� 111: ■ ■, i! r ■ . 11: 111 :� �.■ 1 �� � 111 : ' ■ 111 � r � , 2.19 0/�R❑iriiR1111FK1W0SSRIM D1LHT❑H L9/dRZ P D❑A& Home Hardware, a 0 LIVALNN ERd_❑LJ 12 LG -LW 112 ❑2' DV1VVd- P,\A NUEAX _U 2423 Rundle Road. The Municipality subsequently received and is currently reviewing a Site Plan application for a 5,765 square metres (62,000 square feet) building supply outlet at this location. Zone Clarington 2.20 ❑2 1 ( L Q UL]J\R01Z 0EU❑J OHIO ❑F1FLSD5VVLT11Rd.❑J L%:�laws into conformity with the Official Plan while consolidating Zoning By-laws 84-63 and 2005-109 into one comprehensive document. In December 2020, Council directed Staff to resume work on the Rural Area Zoning Phase of the Zoning ZONE Clarington By-law review project, which had been placed on hold in October 2019. The second draft of the Zoning By-law was presented to Council in December 2021. The protection of the natural heritage system has been in question as the Municipality balances its legal obligation to follow Provincial regulation and the needs of rural residents who want to have the option to build and construct on their lands. Based on Council direction, Work on Draft zoning for the rural areas will continue. Additionally, the results of RV and Trailer Parking and Storage Study that was 3 ❑❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Page 12 completed in 2021, will be incorporated into the updated zoning regulations as will on- farm diversified uses, on-farm special event venues and other rural zoning matters. An extensive public consultation process, including open houses, communications and website updates and social media to engage landowners will continue throughout the process. Within 2021 ❑❑❑-SHRS(R-Z ZG3-C iL +SlRWVa1/, \J+Afv DlWW L/WL] written submissions were received, and staff responded to 47 inquires. Envision Durham 2.21 In 2018, to plan for the forecasted employment, population growth and future developments, the Region launched Envision Durham, the provincially mandated Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The objectives of the MCR are to assess the following: A01 • How and where the cities, towns and townships in Durham Region may grow; • ❑ RZ AREMDJGiSUUVFW EU -DP M/❑ • What housing types and job opportunities are needed for residents; and ENVISION • How people and goods will move across Durham DURHAM Region and beyond. The Durham Growth Management Study (GMS) was a key focus of the MCR in 2021 as it provided the technical analysis, studies, and reports to determine where and how the forecasted population and employment growth will be accommodated by 2051. Phase one of the GMS focused on preparing a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) which will D\&WJId= !3HtfkP LALJ VH[5 HJ R_VJLLEDE-FDU1DMDGT1HH3s to accommodate forecasted growth. The LNA was detailed in four Technical Reports: 1. The Region -Wide Growth Analysis; 2. The Housing Intensification Study; 3. The Employment Strategy and Employment Land Conversions; and 4. The Community Area Urban Land Needs Analysis Clarington Staff provided comments on 3 out of 4 of the technical reports. In addition, Staff also provided comments to the Region on: 1. The Delineation of the Regional Center Boundaries in Clarington; 2. Provincial Agricultural Systems Mapping Review; 3. MTSA Proposed Policy Directions Report; 4. Growth Management Study Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Submissions; 5. Employment Area Conversion Requests (PDS -009-21); and 6. The Proposed Policy Directions Report. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 3 Development Applications Page 13 The Planning and Development Services Department receives, processes, reviews and provides recommendations and approvals for a variety of development applications including: Plans of Subdivision, Condominium approvals, Part Lot Control By-laws, Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Site Plan approvals. As noted in Figure 1, the PDS Department received 87 new applications which represents the 3rd highest volume over the last ten years and indicates an upward trend as compared to the previous two years. Plans of Subdivision 3.1 Staff prepare reports to Committee and Council on applications to meet the requirements of the Planning Act for a Public Meeting when approval is recommended. Most subdivision applications take a number of months if not years to reach draft approval and progress to registration. Typically, there are revisions to drawings and supporting documents before a proposed plan is recommended for draft approval. The Director of Planning and Development Services is the delegated authority to approve S®LVRVL_EQC1Mf�_FDVHGRL_LR -IFLO/approval of the conditions. 3.2 In 2021, ten new subdivision applications were received proposing 1733 residential units. Courtice received the majority of applications with 7 of the 10 applications. Bowmanville received 2 and Newcastle received 1 application. 1000 800 co 600 a� 400 ry 200 New Subdivision Applications Received by Geographic Area 2017 2018 2019 2020 ^ Courtice — Bowmanville Newcastle 3.3 Courtice experienced a significant increase in proposed residential units and was the primary residential growth area with regard to number of applications. It is expected that as the abovementioned Secondary Plans currently underway are completed, the Urban Areas of the municipality will continue to see new applications for Plans of Subdivision in future years. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Page 14 The housing being applied for was relatively balanced, with 423 single detached units, 130 semi-detached units, 297 townhouse units and 883 apartment units. It is expected that apartment units will continue to represent a larger percentage of units applied for in the coming years due to the direction from Provincial Policy for a broader range of housing options to create complete communities within Settlement Areas. It is anticipated that higher -density built forms will also continue to increase into the foreseeable future due to the designation of and planning for two Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) at the planned GO Train Stations for Courtice and Bowmanville. The R-IIFLHD\MIILD6SQFGA'R-V IHI-SF-FW--.,ABJ D(DR-EHFEE-I[319-L FHV-LFFHEW focus on implementing tools for increasing the housing supply Draft Approval and Extensions to Draft Approved Subdivisions 3.4 In addition to new applications, two Plans of Subdivision were granted Draft Plan approval, in 2021. The number of Draft Approved plans remained consistent with 2020. Draft approval was issued for single -detached and townhouse units in Courtice. Once registered, it will contribute 49 residential units to the MC LFLSD N7 Final Approval 3.5 In 2021, there were two new plans of subdivisions registered in the Municipality, totaling 189 new residential units. The registered subdivisions were for single -detached and townhouse units in Courtice. Final Approved Residential Units in Courtice by Unit Type Townhouses IND 123 units 65% Singles 66 units 35% Singles Townhouses 3 CF] Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Part Lot Control Page 15 3.6 Exemption from Part Lot Control applications allow lots and/or blocks within a registered Plan of Subdivision to be further divided. Typically, exemption from Part Lot Control is used where semi-detached or townhouses are to be divided and individually sold. It is D@R- M-1WFl1FDWA'.UO/ LRZ ❑D SDLFH0l WG ®❑CE13 2 7/ VFL-f P P R-]+-KDP H -W condominiums. Applications are processed by Staff and an implementing by-law must be adopted by Council. The by-law is registered on title by the Legislative Services ' HSDLW H�AZ IF-1FIII IDM VM -3 2 7/ VRU0'.UOID/[b1 H'_FD\MB D -EH 3.7 In 2021, a total of three Part Lot Control applications were received and approved. A total of five approvals, two from prior years, created 69 townhouse units and 12 semi- detached units. Plans of Condominium 3.8 A condominium is the form of housing tenure which are most commonly used for townhouses and apartment buildings. 3.9 Six applications for plans of condominium were received in 2021. These plans included- 94 townhouse units and 259 apartment units, totalling 353 dwelling units. 144 apartment units were proposed in Bowmanville and 115 units were proposed in Newcastle. 77 Townhouse units were proposed in Bowmanville and 17 units were proposed in Courtice. 3.10 In 2021, three condominium applications Ir 1 --a received Draft Plan approval, including one application from 2020, contributing a total of 55 townhouse units and 180 apartment units \RA HZ_ FD\AMID❑ 'YcPZ P DJJMVIIIIRdVL❑J ❑ stock. Four applications remain open in Courtice and Bowmanville proposing 144 townhouse units and 39 apartment units. 3.11 Condominium applications increased in 2021, while Draft approvals remained the same as the year prior. It is expected that the municipality will continue to receive applications as condominium tenure is typically used for higher density built forms that contribute to density targets identified in the Official Plan and Secondary Plans. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Official Plan Amendments Page 16 3.12 In 2021, seven Official Plan Amendment (OPA) applications were received. Three applications were privately initiated and four were municipally initiated. 3.13 The four municipally initiated Official Plan amendments discussed in Section 2 above were approved in 2021 including: 1) amendments to implement the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan, 2) amendments to implement the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (both of which were adopted by Council and are currently under review by the Region of Durham), 3) new policies for 1 Additional Dwelling Units that were adopted to allow for increased permissions for secondary dwelling units, and 4) an amendment that implemented the Recommendation Report regarding Special Study Area 2 that resulted in the deletion of existing policies. A fifth municipality initiated OPA, for the Jury Lands was also approved; however applied for in 2018. Zoning By-law Amendments 3.14 A rezoning application is a request to change permitted uses or development regulations on a property. Often, applications are accompanied by another Planning Act application such as a Draft Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan. 3.15 Zoning by-law amendment applications also include By-laws for the Removal of a Holding provision, which is used to ensure that municipal requirements are implemented through development agreements e.g., Subdivision Agreements, Site Plan Agreements. 3.16 The Municipality experienced a significant increase in the number of applications received in 2021. In 2020, 11 zoning by-law amendment applications were received. Comparatively, in 2021, 25 applications were received. 3.17 In 2021, 18 zoning by-law amendments were approved, 9 of which were for Removal of Holds, 4 for commercial zoning, 4 for residential zoning and 1 for industrial zoning. Site Plans 3.18 The Clarington Site Plan Control By-law requires Site Plan approval for the majority of commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi -residential developments, as well as most development applications on the Oak Ridges Moraine. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Residential Activity Page 17 3.19 There were 12 new residential Site Plan applications received in 2021, which proposed 248 new residential units. The largest application was for a high-density apartment block proposing two twelve -storey mixed-use buildings, totalling 228 housing units in Bowmanville. A majority of the applications were for development in the Oak Ridges Moraine for single -detached dwellings or additions thereto, accessory structures or Residential Site Plan Activity farm buildings. Over the Years 3.20 In terms of Site Plan applications approved, 1481 residential units were added to ❑ OJLJ UU�-MPJ [ N--- AU d1LFDEW portion of the approved residential units were in the form of apartment and townhouse developments in Bowmanville, Courtice, and Newcastle, with the remaining being single - detached dwellings in the Oak Ridges Moraine. One notable project is on Clarington Boulevard in Bowmanville, adjacent to the proposed GO Transit Station location which had two apartment buildings, totalling 440 Site Plan approved units. Non-residential Activity 1600 1400 2 1200 � 1000 sou a� 600 a� 400 200 0 2019 2020 2021 ■ Received ■ Approved 3.21 As for non-residential applications, 22 new applications were received in 2021, proposing 50,625 square metres (544,923 square feet) of commercial and industrial floor space. 3.22 Applications for new industrial development largely took the form of expansions to existing facilities to accommodate increased production. Three applications for new facilities were received in Bowmanville, and one in Courtice. The expansion of the OPG Headquarters was the largest single industrial Site Plan application in 2021 with a proposed floor area of 22,760 square metres (244,987 square feet). 3.23 Seven new commercial applications were received in 2021, including the aforementioned 5,765 square metres (62,054 square feet) building supply outlet (Home Hardware). Applications totalled 7,515 square metres (80,891 square feet) of commercial space. 3.24 In addition to the new applications, a total, 29,342 square metres (315,835 square feet) of commercial, industrial and institutional floor space was Site Plan approved in 2021. Although the number of non-residential applications approved in 2021 declined compared to 2020, the approved floor space is a significant increase. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 4 Pre -Consultation Meetings Page 18 4.1 The Municipality adopted By-law 2007-192, which requires a pre -application consultation meeting prior to the submission of most development applications. 8 W DVdC ❑MH11SLP+FR❑V❑Gl9XRI❑EP HAJ 1 ❑HQ��/SH-KE11SVH:DSSlication process by ensuring the applicant is fully aware of the planning process and complete application requirements. Although the details of pre -consultation meetings are confidential, the number of pre -consultation applications provides a general indication of future proposals. 2021 saw the highest number of applications on record, with 77. 5 Minor Variances 5.1 The Committee of Adjustment is appointed by Council to make decisions on minor LDLIlDL1FHV0WM10 11dFISDWVZR1E11Rd.❑J C9idAaws. Staff assist the Committee in its decisions by accepting applications, preparing recommendation reports and responding to questions from members and residents during meetings. 5.2 Typically, a vast majority of minor variance applications are from residents looking for relief from zoning regulations to construct structures like decks, sheds, or garages. This year, there were 14 variance applications that were related to development applications. Variance requests pertained to height, lot coverage, garage width and setbacks for townhouse developments, apartment buildings, and single - detached dwellings. Minor Variance Applications Received by Type 0 10 20 30 40 50 ■Accessory Structuresand Uses ■ Related to Land Division application Related to Development application ■ Other (Neighbourhood Character Study area, Expansion of Legal non- comforming use, Non-compliance due to change of use) 5.3 Compared to 2020, 2021 saw a slight decrease in minor variance applications. Applications are predominately focused on home improvement projects within existing dwellings. In 2022 and beyond, applications likely will tend upward as general applications are expected to increase in the urban areas, including infill projects. Additionally, changes to the By-laws around Additional Dwelling Units likely will contribute to an expected increase as new units are contemplated. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 6 Land Division Applications Page 19 6.1 The Planning and Development Services Staff provide coordinated comments for all Clarington departments to the Durham Region Land Division Committee on consent (severance) applications. 6.2 In 2021, there was an increase in number of applications for severance, boundary adjustments and easements compared to the prior year. Of the thirty-one applications, twenty-seven were approved and two were tabled (deferred) and will be heard in 2022. Of these applications, the following lots were approved: • 13 new urban residential lots • 2 new rural residential lots • 2 new industrial lots • 1 new institutional lot as part of the MZO for a long-term care home on Boswell Drive in Bowmanville. 50 45 40 cn 35 c g 30 25 Q 20 Q 15 10 5 0 Comments to Land Division Committee by Type 2017 2018 2019 2020 New Lots Boundary Adjustments Easements 3 111]❑❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 7 Apartment-in-House/Additional Dwelling Units New Additional Dwelling Unit Applications Received by Geographic Area 70 60 Cn E 50 D 40 c a) 30 (D 20 10 0 Courtice Bowmanville 2017 2018 ■ 2019 ■ 2020 ■ 2021 Newcastle Page 20 7.1 The Planning and Development Services Department coordinates Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) applications to help ensure that they are designed and constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code, located in the appropriate zones, meet zoning regulations and have sufficient parking. 7.2 In 2021, amendments were made to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to increase permissions allowing more ADUs on properties thereby increasing the amount of properties that are permitted an ADU. This will help increase the inventory of available housing and rental housing within the Municipality. It is expected that these changes will greatly increase the number of ADU applications in future years 7.3 ADU permissions now allow for an additional unit within an already -constructed dwelling and potentially in an accessory structure. The construction and registration of ADUs contributes to the affordable housing stock within the municipality. In 2021, there were 79 new units applied for, while in 2020, 64 new units applied for. 7.4 There continues to be a trend of increases to annual ADU applications. With provincial and local policy advocating for more affordable housing, it is expected that ADU applications will continue to be more popular across the municipality to address the needs of changing demographics, such as the ability to age in place. 8 Sign Permits 13.1 Sign permits, which are required for most signs within the municipality, are divided into two categories: permanent and temporary. 13.2 Sign permit activity in 2021 increased compared to 2020. There continues to be great interest in temporary signs due to existing businesses requiring signage to notify 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Page 21 customers of operational changes during the COVID-19 pandemic; 33 temporary signs were issued this year. Permanent signs are often applied for when new businesses request updated artwork or are opening. In 2021, 64 permanent signs were issued, which is a significant increase from the year prior when 25 sign applications were received. 9 Concurrence Not applicable 10 Conclusion 10.1 Despite the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, planning application activity has remained strong in 2021 and continued growth is anticipated for the coming years. The processing of the eleven Secondary Plans and planned GO Stations continue to lead development interest. Once completed, a surge of applications in these Secondary Plan areas is anticipated. 10.2 The amendments that increased permissions for Additional Dwelling Units in the Municipality are expected to increase development applications received through ADU applications and Minor Variances. These amendments are contributing to housing and density targets while providing additional affordable rental housing options. 10.3 With 10 Plans of Subdivision applications received in 2021 and outstanding applications from previous years continuing to be processed, the number of new dwellings constructed in the coming years is expected to see large increases. New residential dwelling and mixed-use applications are expected to continue to trend towards higher density units. 10.4 The industrial areas in Bowmanville and Courtice continue to attract new businesses due to their proximity to major transportation networks and planned local improvements. In 2021, Site Plan activity for the industrial sector mainly saw expansions to existing buildings to accommodate increased production. The proposed expansion of the OPG Headquarters was the most significant Site Plan application in 2021. With the The Clarington Energy Park Secondary Plan well underway, it is expected to see continued expansion of industry in the coming years. 10.5 With strong policies directing development in Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle, the integrity of the natural and agricultural network in the Municipality is able to remain strong and well-connected. 10.6 Detailed charts for each application type, identifying applications received and approved can be obtained by contacting the Planning and Development Services Department. Staff Contact: Sean Jeffrey, Planner I, 905-623-3379 extension 2420 or sjeffrey@clarington. The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision - 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -014-22 Page 22 Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Durham Region Home Builders Association Clarington Board of Trade rn Clarftwn Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: March 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS -015-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: File Number: Resolution#: Report Subject: Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan, Annual Update to March, 2022 Recommendation: 1. That Report PDS -015-22 and any related communications be received for information. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 Report Overview Page 2 This report provides the first annual update on the implementation of the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan (CCCAP) since endorsement by Council in March 2021. This includes a summary of 2021 CCCAP accomplishments and priorities for 2022. This report DORCSUZ 1C /D SGMR-AWIP SOP Hd1U&IR❑IR CLUL:1U6t❑VM1❑❑❑T ERJI = L and Demand Management (ECDM) Plan. 1. Background Context 1.1 The , ❑ hU RdRYP HOM DEHCR IMCP DNlll] KD❑J H[g (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, lNiMkG lG[ L7[r[i ❑J E\AWLiLiLiAAUNVLmYLULff ELWD F -P D❑[LL]I OHE H DIIP HG -1 the atmosphere, ocean, and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, RFI-D❑EIFW MK"LDEGIER\/SKRHMX - -WFI' 17 KMMFFKD�:1 M/LDUHI DQ FDG❑❑ contributing to many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe, including the Great Lakes Region. The impacts of climate change are harming people and ecosystems, with a greater burden on vulnerable residents such as elderly and low- income individuals. 1.2 Climate science indicates that there is a narrow window to limit further warming to below 1.5°C above pre -industrial levels, a threshold that if exceeded would bring catastrophic and irreversible climate change. Maintaining temperatures below this threshold will require dramatic reduction in Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions across all sectors of society and coordinated action across all levels of government. In recognition of this fact, in 2021 the federal government committed Canada to cutting emissions by 40-45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and joined over 120 countries in committing to net - zero emissions by 2050. 1.3 Municipalities like Clarington play an important part in responding to climate change by decarbonizing corporate assets and operations and by instituting policies (e.g., land use), programs (e.g., fleet), and services to enable broader community wide GHG emissions reductions and resilience to extreme weather caused associated with climate change. Previous Decisions 1.4 Since 2016 Clarington has partnered with the Region of Durham, Durham Area Municipalities, and other stakeholders to develop the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan (DCCAP) and the Durham Community Energy Plan (DCEP). The DCCAP and DCEP contain actions to help the community prepare for climate change, reduce community GHG emissions and increase energy independence while promoting 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 Page 3 local economic development. Implementation of these plans is being led by the Region of Durham with support provided by the area municipalities, utilities, conservation authorities, and other community partners (Resolution: GG -551-19). 1.5 In early 2013, the Municipality established the Priority Green Clarington initiative, which resulted in a framework for sustainable residential developments (beyond code) and a household water and energy efficient demonstration project. (PSD -060-15) 1.6 In late 2019, the Municipality released the Clarington Energy Conservation and Demand Management Plan 2019-2024 (ECDM plan). The ECDM plan identifies actions that the Municipality will take to conserve energy, reduce GHG emissions and save money in Municipal buildings. Also, the Municipality tracks energy consumption and costs on an ongoing basis to identify ways to save. The Municipality has over the years implemented many energy saving improvements in our facilities and buildings. 1.7 In February 2020, Council passed a motion to prioritize the use of low emissions vehicles in the municipal fleet, reducing corporate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. (Resolution: C-066-20) 1.8 On March 2, 2020, the Municipality declared a climate emergency, highlighting its commitment to protect the community and ecosystems from climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are causing climate change (Resolution: GG -083-20) 1.9 In March 2021, Council endorsed the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan (PSD - 018 -21). The CCCAP contains 116 actions to respond to limited risks posed by climate change, and establishes corporate greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The CCCAP sets a target to reduce corporate greenhouse gas emissions to 35% below 2018 baseline levels by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. 2. Corporate GHG emissions 2.1 Currently the Municipality of Clarington reports annual energy consumption and GHG emissions to the Broader Public Service (BPS) under O. Reg. 507/18 (Broader Public Sector: Energy Reporting and Conservation and Demand Management Plans) 2.2 Reporting is limited to energy consumed by all municipal facilities and the data is not released until it is compiled and finalized by the BPS for comparison purposes. The most current GHG emissions available are from 2019 (2021 reporting period). 2.3 In 2018, energy consumption from municipal facilities was responsible for approximately 2798 tonnes of CO2e GHG emissions. In 2019 energy consumption from municipal facilities was responsible for 2998 tonnes of CO2e GHG emissions. Within the period, GHG emissions from municipal facilities increased by 7.14%. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 Page 4 2.4 As per action 1.12 of the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan, the Municipality is currently onboarding a software tool that will allow the Municipality to monitor energy and water consumption, waste production and GHG emissions from all municipal operations on a month-to-month basis. 2.5 Future climate action updates will include a detailed breakdown of municipal energy and water consumption, waste production and GHG emissions. This information will be used to inform ongoing municipal decision making related to energy, water, waste and GHG emissions. 3. CCCAP Implementation 3.1 The implementation of the CCCAP is guided by the Energy and Climate Change Response Coordinator and Interdepartmental Climate Change Work Group, which consists of staff representatives from each department. 3.2 To coordinate the implementation of climate actions across all departments over the next 5 years, staff have developed an iterative Climate Action Implementation Guide (Attachment 1). 3.3 The Climate Action Implementation Guide promotes the integration of actions into current municipal operations, streamlining processes and taking advantage of existing resources, and encourages the identification and use of a variety of implementation tools including communications, policy levers, and education/training. Using an integrated approach will help to maximize the success of implementing each action. 3.4 Action Specific Working Groups (ASWGs) have been formed to advance the implementation of department -specific climate actions and develop Action -Specific Plans (ASPs), which are tailored to the unique implementation pathway of each action. 3.5 The ASPs outline key steps to implement each action in the CCCAP in an easy-to-use format. They outline responsibilities, current practices, supporting tasks, timelines, financials, and indicators for each action, and act as key guidance documents for the implementation process. Please see Attachment 1 for an example ASP. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 3.6 The annual implementation cycle includes: Page 5 Figure 1 112022 CCCAP Action Implementation Cycle —F -F] Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 4. CCCAP Update 2021 CCCAP Update Page 6 4.1 Since the approval of the CCCAP by Council in March 2021, Staff have been diligently working to implement the actions contained in the Clarington Climate Action Plan (CCCAP). 4.2 Actions that have been implemented in 2021 include: Action Ass. CCCAP Action Number Integration of climate change considerations into the 1.17 annual budget book Review of the M EELRSDQNV iE\f&P HI KCluDFI(38 9 -S 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, to protect staff and the public from extreme weather 2.16 Expand online safety training program to ensure safety 2.11 training is accessible to staff in the field Review best practices for a communications strategy that 2.18 clearly categorises levels of weather-related risk and communicates actions that should be taken by the public to stay safe Review anti -idling by-laws to prevent unnecessary GHG 1.19 emissions from vehicle idling Development of a work from home policy to help reduce 6.4 GHG emissions from commuting Update of council procedural by-law to allow for remote 6.6 meetings during extreme weather Encourage provincial and federal climate change funding 7.10 for municipalities on an ongoing basis Update emergency contact lists 2.9 Development of a municipal electric vehicle (EV) policy 1.30 and fees schedule Development of a 5 -year plan to transition the municipal 1.30 fleet to electric and provide public EV charging to the public Installation of 8 EV charging stations for public and fleet Reduce GHG charging at Garnet B. Rickard. emissions Table 1 - Completed 2021 Actions 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 2022 CCCAP Next Steps Page 7 4.3 Currently Staff are working on several initiatives that were started in 2021 and will be completed in 2022. Action Ass. CCCAP Action Number Implementation of corporate energy management software 1.1, 1.12 7.11 to enable the Municipality to track GHG emissions, waste and energy and water consumption Update of the M LFLSDQVLSLW U1P H-MRQ.FEARILFQC+i❑ 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, sustainable procurement 1.33, 1.34 Review the implementation of urban tree preservation by- 5.1 law Develop a plan to communicate municipal climate action to 1.23 council and the public Create an extreme weather policy to define the weather 6.7 conditions for municipal building closures Investigate the feasibility of incorporating district energy 1.24 into secondary plans Update the Municipal Green Development Framework to 1.25, 1.26, 1.27 integrate into municipal development application processes Research partnership with the University of Guelph Reduce GHG exploring how to integrate climate considerations into emissions ongoing local economic development initiatives in Clarington Coordination with the Region of Durham on creation of a Reduce GHG region -wide EV education program emissions Coordination with the Region of Durham on the creation of Reduce GHG a region -wide flood -risk communications strategy emissions Coordination with the region of Durham on the creation and Reduce GHG implementation of a region -wide home energy retrofit emissions program Install 10 EV charge stations on municipal properties as Reduce GHG guided by the Clarington EV Action Plan, approved in emissions February 2022 Table 2 ❑ 2021 Actions to be Completed in 2022 4.4 Staff will also initiate several climate adaptation and mitigation actions in 2022. Please see Attachment 2 for a detailed breakdown of CCCAP actions to be initiated in 2022. The listed actions will be the focus for Staff and the Interdepartmental Climate Change Work Group during 2022. 3 ❑❑ Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 5. ECDM Update 2021 ECDM Update Page 8 5.1 Facilities Staff have been working to implement the Energy Conservation and Demand Management (ECDM) Plan, which was endorsed by Council in June of 2019 through resolution GG -416-19. The ECDM Plan Contains 45 specific measures that can be implemented in municipal facilities to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. To date, the Municipality has implemented 18 of the proposed measures. Please see Attachment 3 for a detailed breakdown of ECDM measures completed to date. Site Measures Bowmanville Operations Depot LED Lighting Fire Station #1 HVAC System - Scheduling / Setback Fire Station #3 Programmable Thermostat Fire Station #3 Replace Electric Boiler Fire Station #3 Replace Electric Hot Water Heater Hampton Operations Depot Lunchroom Programmable Thermostats Hampton Operations Depot Programmable Thermostats Kendal Community Centre HVAC System - Scheduling / Setback Municipal Administrative Centre Domestic Heating Retrofit Municipal Administrative Centre Lighting Retrofit Orono Library HVAC System - Scheduling / Setback Orono Library Insulate hot Water / DHW Piping Orono Operations Depot Programmable Thermostat Orono Operations Depot Programmable Thermostat for Office Area Orono Operations Depot Furnace Upgrade Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre Programmable Thermostat Tourism Centre Programmable Thermostat Table 33 ❑ ECDM Actions Completed to Date 5.2 As noted in paragraph 2.4, the Municipality is currently onboarding an Energy Management Software tool that will allow the staff to monitor energy and water consumption, waste production and GHG emissions from all municipal operations on a month-to-month basis. With the EMS tool in place, staff will be able to provide a detailed breakdown of energy savings and GHG emissions reductions from completed and future measures outlined in the ECDM Plan for integration into future reporting. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 2022 and 2023 ECDM Next Steps Page 9 5.3 Three ECDM actions are scheduled for implementation in 2022, with an additional 11 targeted for completion in 2023. Please see Attachment 3 for a detailed breakdown of ECDM actions. Site Measures Year Fire Station #4 Programmable Thermostats 2022 Community Resource Centre HVAC System - Scheduling / Setback 2022 Fire Station #2 NG Pulse Meter 2022 Visual Arts Centre Lighting Upgrade 2023 Visual Arts Centre Window Upgrade 2023 Fire Station #2 HVAC System - Scheduling / Setback 2023 Hampton Hall Lighting Retrofit / Controls 2023 Hampton Operations Depot Motion Sensors 2023 Hampton Operations Depot Other Lighting Upgrades 2023 Fire Station #1 Lighting Retrofit 2023 Fire Station #2 Lighting Retrofit 2023 Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre Motion Sensor Lighting Controls 2023 Newcastle Branch Library LED Lighting Retrofit 2023 Newcastle Branch Library HVAC System - Scheduling / Setback 2023 Table 44 ❑ ECDM Actions Scheduled for Completion 2022/2023 5.4 Please note, limited facility use and cost saving measures implemented due to COVID- 19, resulted in 19 actions recommended in the EDCM Plan being deferred until 2023. 6. Concurrence 6.1 This report and the draft CCCAP have been reviewed by the Directors of all departments, who concur with the recommendations contained herein. 7. Conclusion 7.1 Climate change will increasingly impact Clarington residents, infrastructure, municipal operations, and the economy. The scale to which Clarington is impacted will depend on \NHDFIkR_V H9 LiAFLSDQV 116X\N_R_i uLj HHSL❑J LL L1P ANHD ❑E FLSDUATRP P LUQ' H -W to climate action, the Municipality must continue to identify and implement strategies to 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -015-22 Page 10 prepare for the impacts of guaranteed climate change and reduce GHG emissions that are causing the climate to change. By implementing V9HFO LJEIFLSDDVVLJIRLSRLEWFi Climate Action Plan and advancing new and creative measures to respond to climate change, the Municipality is doing its part to safeguard the wellbeing of residents and the environment in which we live. 7.2 It is respectfully recommended that Council receive this report for information. Staff Contact: Doran Hoge Energy and Climate Change Response Coordinator, 905-623-3379 ext. 2429 or dhoge@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 112022 Action Implementation Guide Attachment 2 ❑ CCCAP Actions Tracking Attachment 3 ❑ ECDM Actions Tracking Interested Parties: List of Interested parties available from the Department. 3 rn Attachment 1 to Report PDS -015-22 CCCAP Action Implementation Guide - 2022 Purpose of the Implementation Plan Municipalities fail to implement their planned climate action initiatives due to lack of resources and support at the implementation stage. Having a detailed implementation plans and access to a wide range of implementation approaches is essential to achieving success. Planning for implementation improves the likelihood of effective climate action, provides new opportunities for outreach and engagement, and fosters long-term sustainability of the action by integrating multiple streams of support. This document describes how the Municipality will implement the actions described in the CCCAP by 1) describing the annual cycle for action prioritization, planning, budgeting, implementation and reporting; 2) Providing a tentative five year timeline for the implementation of all 115 actions contained in the CCCAP and; 3) providing a template for creating Action Specific Implementation Plans which are unique to each action. Action Specific Implementation Plans will be developed for each action prior to the year that each action will be implemented. This Action Implementation Guide promotes the integration of actions into current municipal operations, streamlining processes and taking advantage of existing resources. This guide encourages the identification and use of a variety of different implementation tools including communications, policy levers, and education/training. Using an integrated approach will help to maximize the success of implementing each action. Annual Implementation Cycle Action Prioritization - September The Interdepartmental Climate Change Working Group (ICCWG) will review the 5 -Year Climate Action Implementation Plan and prioritize actions that will be integrated into next budget. Action Specific Plan Development ensuring they can be implemented by municipal staff under current conditions or with additional identified resources. While the development of ASPS will be guided by the Action Implementation Schedule in the CCCAP, actions may be adjusted to provide clarity to departments or align with existing practices or opportunities. The ASPS are intended to be living documents, which will allow the Municipality to accommodate unexpected challenges and capitalize on new opportunities. In all cases, the intention of each action will remain the same. Supporting tasks and additional considerations may be included in the ASPS that were not originally considered in the CCCAP. Furthermore, lead and supporting departments will be updated once the clarity and scope of actions are defined within each ASP. Budget Integration Action Prioritization September Implementation March -January Budget Integration August - February ASP Developement November Annual Reporting - November/December Action Specific Implementation Template (Example) 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Objectives Mainstreaming climate change considerations Action Description As municipal plans and policies are updated on a regular basis, the Municipality will work to integrate climate change considerations into existing plans and policies during review. Action Rationale Incorporating climate change into existing plans and policies helps to mainstream these considerations into municipal day-to-day activities. It will help towards ensuring community resilience in the face of climate change impacts. Supporting Actions from CCCAP CCCAP ### - Incorporate climate change into the Official Plan Potential Partnerships and resources Active Transportation Working Group, Emergency Management Working Group Associated Plans and Strategies As identified 2. MUNICIPAL LEADS Lead Department Engineering Frequency of Implementation Dependent on number of policies and plans that need to have climate change implemented 4. CURRENT STATUS/PRACTICE The CCCAP was Completed approved by Council in 2021 5. ACTION PLAN TASKS Tasks Suggested Start Estimated Estimated Responsible Department Date Initial Cost Ongoing Cost Engineering Begin Official Plan review and have climate change incorporated (to incorporate in other 20XX N/A N/A plans and policies). % of identified plans and CCCAP Action ID # policies with climate change No Engineering considerations included Attachment 2 to Report PDS -015-22 Action Action Budget Lead Status - Number Year Department(s) Underway / Complete 1.17 Include a line item in the annual budget to 2021 Financial Complete provide funding for studies and/or components Services of capital projects that support the implementation of the CCCAP. 1.19 Review and update municipal anti -idling by-law 2021 Legislative Complete and consider expanding idle -free zones. Services 1.3 Update the Municipal Green Fleet Strategy and 2021 Public Works Complete establish a five-year plan to electrify municipal fleet vehicles where practicable. 2.2 Ensure water and sunscreen are available to 2021 Community Complete staff during all municipal summer outdoor Services events. 2.5 Ensure staff have access to cool rest areas for 2021 Community Complete relief during extreme heat. Services 2.8 Create/update workplace policies to mandate 2021 Legislative Complete weather -appropriate clothing to protect staff Services against extreme weather conditions including heat, cold, windy and wet conditions. 2.9 Update municipal emergency contact lists 2021 Legislative Complete annually. Services 2.11 Expand online safety training program to ensure 2021 Legislative Complete safety training accessible to staff in the field. Services 2.16 Develop an extreme heat policy that establishes 2021 Emergency and Complete maximum outdoor working temperatures for Fire Services staff and enables staff to complete outdoor work during the cooler times of the day. 2.18 Create a communications strategy that clearly 2021 Office of the Complete categorises levels of weather-related risk and CAO communicates actions that should be taken to by the public and stay safe. 6.4 Develop a work -from -home policy that utilizes 2021 Financial Underway telecommuting technologies and provides staff Services with the tools to work from home to avoid weather-related service disruptions and reduce fuel consumption. 6.6 Update the Council Procedural Bylaw to allow 2021 Legislative Underway Council meetings to be conducted remotely Services during extreme weather. 7.1 Encourage the federal and provincial 2021 Office of the Underway governments to dedicate funding to help CAO municipalities adapt to and mitigate climate change. 3 TFIF] 2 Action Action Budget Lead Status - Number Year Department(s) Underway / Complete 1.1 Encourage waste and recycling service 2022 Financial Underway providers document GHG emissions on invoices Services submitted to the Municipality to help the Municipality track it's GHG emissions more easily. 1.2 Consider building envelope upgrades, building 2022 Community Underway automation and lighting upgrades as part of all Services building renewal projects. 1.3 Install/upgrade Building Automation Systems 2022 Community Underway (BAS) and Smart Thermostats in municipal Services buildings. 1.4 Continue to convert all lighting in municipal 2022 Community Underway buildings to energy efficient LEDs. Services 1.5 Expedite actions outlined in the 2019 Clarington 2022 Community Underway Energy Conservation Demand Management Services Plan. 1.6 Offset the use of petroleum-based natural gas 2022 Community with renewable natural gas in buildings through Services renewable natural gas purchasing agreements. 1.7 Establish a policy to replace all appliances with 2022 Community Underway Energy STAR rated appliances. Services 1.8 Install Smart Water Metering to major 2022 Community Underway equipment at facilities and parks (i.e. ice rinks, Services pools and splash pads) to better understand water consumption trends and ensure that equipment is operating at optimal efficiency. 1.9 Conduct utility consumption audits in municipal 2022 Community Underway facilities, beginning with buildings with the Services highest potential for savings. 1.11 Replace mechanical equipment (boilers, chillers, 2022 Community Underway air conditioning units) in remaining facilities Services with high efficiency according to building assessments. 1.12 Implement and energy management system 2022 Community Underway (EMS) to track utility bills to monitor energy Services consumption and GHG emissions, and inform building maintenance and recommissioning 1.14 Incentivize municipal staff to choose low carbon 2022 Legislative transportation options including: carpooling, Services cycling and adopting EVs. 1.16 Develop a Green Procurement Policy that aligns 2022 Financial Underway procurement and vendor selection with the Services climate resilience and mitigation goals outlined in the CCCAP. 3 [[E❑❑ Action Action Number 1.18 Establish a Green Revolving Fund (GRF) that is dedicated to funding energy efficiency, renewable energy, and/or sustainability projects that generate cost savings. 1.2 Create a Corporate Energy Commodity Policy that prioritizes energy savings, locally produced energy and low carbon energy options. 1.21 Create corporate protocols to incorporate climate change considerations into Council reports. 1.23 Develop a communications plan to share corporate progress on climate action with staff and the public on an ongoing basis. Budget Lead Year Department(s) 2022 Financial Services 2022 Office of the CAO 2022 Office of the CAO 2022 Office of the CAO x1.24 Investigate the feasibility for District Energy 2022 Planning & Systems in new and existing secondary plan Development areas. Services 3 Status - Underway / Complete Underway Underway 1.25 Update the Priority Green Clarington Green 2022 Planning & Underway Development Framework criteria checklists to Development include considerations for climate change Services mitigation and adaptation. 1.26 4 Action Action Budget Lead Status - Number Year Department(s) Underway / Complete 1.35 Integrate green infrastructure and Climate 2022 Financial Change into Clarington's Asset Management Services Plan. 2.1 Extend pool hours during extreme heat, taking 2022 Community into consideration staffing, infrastructure and Services maintenance needs 2.3 Allow outdoor activities to be held at indoor 2022 Community recreation facilities during extreme heat events Services where possible. 2.4 Design summer outdoor community 2022 Community programming to take into consideration Services extreme heat to ensure staff adequately prepared. 2.6 Update safety training for staff to incorporate 2022 Legislative Underway extreme weather risks associated with climate Services change including extreme heat. 2.7 Establish protocols for staff during extreme 2022 Legislative wind events. Identify "Shelter in Place" safe Services zones for staff. 2.1 Incorporate weather monitoring into staff 2022 Public Works Underway management processes to forecast staff needs and ensure there are enough staff available to respond to extreme weather such as snowstorms and ice storms. 2.12 Expand mutual aid agreements with other 2022 Emergency and Underway municipalities to avoid labour and equipment Fire Services shortfalls during weather-related emergences. 2.2 Increase signage near municipally owned and 2022 Public Works Deferred maintained bodies of water including beaches and stormwater management ponds, warning about the dangers of thin ice. 2.22 Incorporate textured, slip proof floor surfaces 2022 Public Works into the design of public spaces. 3.2 Update design standards for municipal buildings 2022 Community using climate projections to ensure municipal Services buildings are resilient to extreme weather. 3.3 Work with the Conservation Authorities to 2022 Planning & Underway update flood mapping based on the most up -to- Development date climate projections. Services 4.4 Update building design standards to 2022 Community incorporate green and reflective roofs into Services municipal building designs. 3 TFIF] 5 Action Action Budget Lead Status - Number Year Department(s) Underway / Complete 4.5 Revise asset management policy and equipment 2022 Financial repair and replacement schedules to reflect Services wear from increased use due to extreme weather. 4.6 Add surge protectors to all electronic 2022 Financial Underway equipment and backup batteries to all Services computers. 4.9 Review zoning regulations to promote ground 2022 Planning & Underway water permeability. Development Services 4.21 Review road weight restrictions to prohibit 2022 Public Works Deferred hauling on local roads. Prioritize hauling on higher -order Regional roads. 5.1 Review the implementation of an urban tree 2022 Public Works Underway preservation bylaw to prevent urban trees from being cut down without a permit. 5.2 Integrate urban heat island projections into the 2022 Planning & Clarington Urban Forest Strategy. Plant more Development trees in areas with the greatest potential for Services becoming urban heat islands. 5.3 Require winter maintenance staff become 2022 Public Works Deferred Smart About Salt certified. This program will provide training on the application of road salt to improve winter salting practices and decrease salt -related damage to ecosystems and infrastructure. 5.4 Consider alternatives to conventional road salt 2022 Public Works (NaCl) to reduce the negative impacts on the environment. 5.5 Expand municipal tree planting programs and 2022 Public Works partnerships to include urban and rural tree planting on public and private properties. 5.6 Integrate the Clarington Urban Forestry 2022 Public Works Underway Strategy and Clarington's development guidelines. 5.9 Investigate environmentally friendly road 2022 Public Works surface treatments to control dust. 6.1 Plan municipal events and programs with 2022 Community backup dates in the event of cancellations due Services to extreme weather. 6.2 Revise refund policy for municipal recreation 2022 Community programs to exclude refunds for cancellations Services due to extreme weather. Instead, provide credits on customer accounts for weather- related cancelations. 3 TFIF] Action Action Budget Lead Status - Number Year Department(s) Underway/ Complete 6.5 During elections, promote advanced voting, 2022 Legislative allow a longer time frame for voting during Services extreme weather and promote online voting options. 6.7 Create an extreme weather policy that 2022 Office of the Underway identifies the weather condition that will close CAO municipal facilities 7.1 Establish partnerships with organizations with 2022 Community facilities that could be used as cooling centres Services during summer heatwaves. 7.3 Stockpile sandbags and sand to prepare for 2022 Emergency and emergency flooding and store in a location that Fire Services is protected from UV light. 7.6 Consider the inclusion of incentives for 2022 Financial Underway sustainable development in the DC review, Services ensuring alignment with the Green Development Framework. 7.7 Review the Municipal Insurance Program to 2022 Financial ensure adequate coverage for staff and the Services public during extreme weather events. 2022 Office of the Underway 7.8 Create a strategy to communicate the risks associated with climate change. Educate the CAO public about the actions that they can take to prepare for extreme weather events. 7.9 Educate elected officials on how the 2022 Office of the municipality will be impacted by climate change CAO by creating climate risks briefing packages. 7.11 Undertake regular departmental risk audits that 2022 Office of the Underway include climate -related risks to the Municipality. CAO 1.13 Assess and retrofit buildings with insulation 2023 Community where possible to reduced energy consumption. Expand corporate waste reduction and 2023 Services Community 1.15 diversion initiatives to further reduce waste and Services promote recycling and composting. Undertake a feasibility study to identify 2023 Office of the 1.22 opportunities for the Municipality of to CAO generate and sell renewable energy. 1.31 Complete the conversion of outdoor lighting in 2023 Public Works Underway parks and streetlights to energy efficient LEDs 1.32 Implement a Municipal Automatic Vehicle 2023 Public Works Location Monitoring System (AVL) in fleet vehicles to track fuel consumption, evaluate idling and optimize routes for regular travel 11 3 CT1 7 Action Action Number Budget Lead Status - Year Department(s) Underway / Complete 2.17 Extend library hours to keep libraries open to 2023 the public during extreme heat and cold weather. 2.21 Identify roadways that are the least likely to be 2023 impacted by flooding and incorporate them into community emergency evacuation plans. 3.1 Utilize climate projections to assess which 2023 municipal buildings are at risk due to extreme weather. Prioritize building upgrades based on identified risk. 3.4 Update zoning bylaws to prohibit development 2023 in flood hazard areas. 3.5 Include natural hazards and climate projections 2023 as criteria in Clarington's Land Acquisition Strategy. 3.6 Assess the municipal trail system to determine 2023 areas that are most vulnerable to flooding based on climate projections. 3.7 Update trail design standards to take into 2023 account accurate climate projections. 3.8 Utilize climate projections to identify areas of 2023 roads that are vulnerable to flooding. Create a plan to upgrade road areas that are at high risk. 4.2 In new building designs and building retrofits, 2023 locate cooling condensers on the shady side of the building. Ensure proper ventilation and maintenance for efficient operation. 4.3 Increase backup power supply including 2023 generators and solar battery storage options at maintenance facilities. 4.7 Store electronic equipment in a location that is 2023 secure and not vulnerable to flooding or fire. 4.8 Ensure all evacuation centres are equipped with 2023 and emergency backup power supply. 4.11 Establish a strategy to control invasive plant 2023 species that have negative impacts on stormwater management ponds, sightlines, drainage ditches and water quality. 4.13 Assess and upgrade stormwater infrastructure 2023 using accurate climate projections. 4.15 Incorporate lighting into new field designs so 2023 they can be used in the evening when outdoor temperatures are cooler. 3 TFIF] Office of the CAO Public Works Community Services Planning & Development Services Planning & Development Services Public Works Public Works Public Works Community Services Community Services Community Services Emergency and Fire Services Public Works Public Works Public Works Underway Action Action Number 4.17 4.19 5.7 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.4 7.5 Assess bridges and embankments to determine areas that are most vulnerable to flooding based on climate projections. Expand preventative maintenance and repair program for roads, sidewalks and bridges to mitigate damage due to increased freeze and thaw cycles. Establish municipal tree canopy, biodiversity and green space targets for urban areas. Update parks maintenance programs to include vegetation and tree species that are resilient to extreme heat, extreme weather, and invasive species. Back up corporate data and store in a location that is not vulnerable to flooding or fire. Create guidelines for non-essential use of water during heatwaves to conserve water. Create a dedicated reserve fund for climate - related emergencies and adaptation and mitigation efforts. Evaluate the implementation of a stormwater fee (and credit) program to encourage residents and businesses to maintain permeable surfaces on their property and generate funds to upgrade and maintain stormwater management infrastructure. Budget Lead Status - Year Department(s) Underway/ Complete 2023 Public Works 2023 Public Works MM 2023 Public Works 202Public Works 2023 Community Services 2023 Community Services 2023 Financial Services 2023 Financial Services Underway 1.1 Conduct building re -commissioning to optimize 2024 Community building operations where applicable. Services 2.13 Ensure adequate resources are in place to 2024 Emergency and ensure adequate response to the increased Fire Services frequency of climate -related emergencies. 2.14 Update the Clarington Emergency Plan to 2024 Emergency and Underway incorporate a strategy for extreme weather Fire Services _based on climate projections. 2.15 Work with stakeholders to identify and promote 2024 Emergency and the location of evacuation centres to the public. Fire Services 2.19 Incorporate shade structures and trees in the 2024 Public Works designs of outdoor recreation areas for relief from extreme heat. 4.1 Assess the depth of wells that service corporate 2024 Community buildings to ensure water will be available Services during a drought and establish a mitigation plan for managing drought H. 3 Action Action Number Budget Lead Status - Year Department(s) Underway/ Complete 4.1 Utilize water catchment for irrigation in park 2024 Public Works designs where possible. 4.12 Update the municipal road maintenance plan by 2024 Public Works increasing the road maintenance cycle to accommodate less predictable freeze/thaw cycles. 4.14 Design new splash pads to clean and recirculate 2024 Public Works water to consume less water. 4.16 Expand the rural ditching maintenance program to reduce flooding and avoid infrastructure and property damage. 4.18 Upgrade storm water management infrastructure with on-site ponds, cisterns and landscaping decisions to minimize storm water run-off. r 4.2 Increase construction standards for higher order roads that are used for hauling to mitigate damage due to increased freeze and thaw cycles. 4.22 Design new parks and sports fields to accommodate flooding and function as stormwater management areas where reasonable to do so. 4.23 Upgrade existing parks and sports fields with permeable asphalt and other permeable materials to reduce overland flooding. 01 2024 Public Works 2024 Public Works 2024 Public Works 2024 Public Works 2024 Public Works Site Hampton Operations Depot Kendal Community Centre Municipal Administrative Centre Orono Operations Depot Orono Operations Depot Orono Operations Depot Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Centre Tourism Centre Fire Station #3 Fire Station #3 Municipal Administrative Centre Orono Library Orono Library Fire Station #3 Hampton Operations Depot Fire Station #1 Bowmanville Operations Depot Fire Station #4 Community Resource Centre Fire Station #2 Visual Arts Centre Visual Arts Centre Fire Station #2 Hampton Hall Hampton Operations Depot Hampton Operations Depot Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 Attachment 3 to Report PDS -015-22 Measures Estimated Year of Completeness 2018 Implementation 2019 Lunchroom Programmable 2018 Complete Thermostats Heater 2023 HVAC System - Scheduling 2018 Complete /Setback HVAC System - Scheduling 2021 Domestic Heating Retrofit 2018 Complete Programmable Thermostat 2018 Programmable Thermostat 2018 for Office Area 2019 Furnace Upgrade 2018 Programmable Thermostat 2018 Programmable Thermostat 2018 Programmable Thermostat 2019 Replace Electric Boiler 2019 Lighting Retrofit 2019 HVAC System - Scheduling 2019 /Setback Insulate hot Water/ DHW 2019 Piping Replace Electric Hot Water 2020 Heater 2023 Programmable 2020 Thermostats 2023 HVAC System - Scheduling 2021 /Setback 2023 LED Lighting 2021 Programmable 2022 Thermostats HVAC System - Scheduling 2022 /Setback NG Pulse Meter 2022 Lighting Upgrade 2023 Window Upgrade 2023 HVAC System - Scheduling 2023 /Setback Lighting Retrofit/ Controls 2023 Motion Sensors 2023 Other Lighting Upgrades 2023 Lighting Retrofit 2023 Lighting Retrofit 2023 3 TFIF] Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Ongoing Pending Pending Ongoing Ongoing Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Site Measures Estimated Year of Completeness Implementation Sarah Jane Williams Heritage Motion Sensor Lighting 2023 Pending Centre Controls Newcastle Branch Library LED Lighting Retrofit 2023 Pending Newcastle Branch Library HVAC System - Scheduling 2023 Pending /Setback Hampton Hall Solar (11kW) 2024 Pending Orono Operations Depot Solar (20kW) 2024 Pending Newcastle Branch Library Solar (9kW) 2024 Pending Animal Services Building Solar (11kW) 2024 Pending Bowmanville Operations HVAC System - Scheduling Omitted Depot /Setback Hampton Hall HVAC System - Scheduling Omitted /Setback Animal Services Building HVAC System - Scheduling Omitted /Setback Tourism Centre Programmable Thermostat Omitted for Electric Baseboard Heaters Tourism Centre Lighting Upgrade Omitted Newcastle storage (prev Solar (10kW) Omitted FS#2) Newcastle storage (prev HVAC System - Scheduling Omitted FS#2) /Setback Yard 42 Depot HVAC System - Scheduling Omitted /Setback 2 3 T�� Clarftwn Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: March 7, 2022 Report Number: FSD-013-22 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan L Single Source Courtice Waterfront Park Design Recommendations: 1. That Report FSD-013-22 and any related communication items, be received; 2. That Staff single -source the procurement of design services for the Courtice Waterfront Design Plan, as part of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan project; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-013-22 and any delegations be DQ LHG[R n R_i❑ 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-013-22 Report Overview Page 2 The Courtice Waterfront Park has been identified by the Municipality as a priority area for development. The Courtice Waterfront Park Design Plan is an integral part of the ongoing Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan. Council approved funding for the Waterfront Design Plan in 2022, and Staff are recommending single -sourcing procurement of the consulting services in order to complete the work efficiently and effectively. 1. Background 2022 Budget Approval 1.1 During the 2022 Budget Deliberations, Council approved adding $120,000, funded by Cl-i_HOSP HEk/VEW i_ILW DFFFiOLDA oIWiITTI RELWHD C1AULR__WJ HJ_ _ 3 QEANHE13 DLKL 3 ®❑❑W-H❑DE(BMHFRP SftR❑[RI V1HC❑RCWHFI DN UlR-ftnd Energy Park Secondary Plan. At the budget discussions, both the Director of Planning and Development Services and the Director of Financial Services explained that the intent would be that the work be carried out as an extension to the scope of work of the current lead consultant for the Secondary Plan, namely Urban Strategies Inc. 1.2 The Park Plan is an eligible development charges project and funds are available in the related development charges reserve funds to procure the service. The offer by developers to front-end the plan is appreciated, but not necessary at this time. 1.3 The Municipality has identified the Courtice Waterfront as a priority in its 2018-2022 Strategic Plan. The work around the secondary plan and waterfront park design in ❑R❑LWHCIDR❑GIR❑❑FLOTAWNEF[SLIRities. Purchasing By-law Requirements 1.4 6 F Fit❑=❑AR1111❑CRI VH_0 ❑ARSDB" CLF ❑❑111IGlaw (2021-077) outline the purchasing procedures for consulting services, which would apply to this procurement. Section 65 requires that where consulting services will be more than $50,000, the Purchasing Manager shall issue a bid solicitation, in consultation with the Department Head and shall submit a report to Committee providing a recommendation for the award. 1.5 TheBy-(D SII L -H- DI:6 L❑IFOB 6 RFIILFH-3 LFF DEH-lDF-[IDIARE�competitive purchase where there are other suppliers of the product or service available; however, for reasons such as emergency, proprietary, matching existing equipment, health and safety concerns, time constraints, etc. the purchase is sourced to a specific vendor. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report FSD-013-22 2. Procuring Consultants for Courtice Waterfront Park Design 2.1 Staff of Financial Services and Planning and Development Services are recommending that the Park Plan be single sourced to the existing consultants completing the Secondary Plan work. As the Park Plan would form an integral part of the Secondary Plan it is efficient and cost effective to have the same consultants perform the work as this reduces the duplication of background work and would allow for improved completion timeframes. 2.2 The Municipality uses a roster to select planning consultants for the different secondary plans. The roster has been successful as it has significantly reduced the time to secure a consultant. Urban Strategies Inc. is part of this roster program. Council approved the resolution included in PSD -033-19 to award the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan to Urban Strategies Inc. with funding being provided by the major landowners of the waterfront lands. Currently, Urban Strategies is assisting the Municipality in preparing the Courtice Transit Oriented Community (GO Train Station Area) Secondary Plan. 2.3 It is reasonable for this additional work to be added to the scope of the project as the Park Plan is integral to the overall Secondary Plan in the area. 3. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Director of Planning and Development Services who concurs with the recommendations. 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Committee approves the single source award to Urban Strategies Inc. for the Courtice Waterfront Design Plan. Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2602 or tpinn@clarington.net. Attachments: Not Applicable Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from the Planning and Development Services Department. 3 rn Clarington MEMO If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee From: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Date: March 7, 2022 Memo #: Memo -010-22 File No.: PLN 33.2 Re: Update and Next Steps: Municipal Comments on the Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes per Year On February 14, 2022, Council approved Resolution #C-040-22 providing direction on the submission of comments from the Municipality on the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) throughput increase (from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) Environmental Screening Process MMR❑❑FLDIGIR&ROIDOR-DLEGIStaff to continue discussions with the Regions of Durham and York (Regions) for the purposes of potentially resolving concerns and to communicate the intention to continue discussions to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). The purpose of this memo is to update Council on the steps taken to date and next steps. The 60 -day review period for the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021) concluded on February 18, 2022. Prior to this deadline, and in accordance with the Provincial process prescribed for the Environmental Screening Process, the Regions and Clarington agreed to continue discussions for a mutually acceptable period beyond February 18. Letters were submitted to the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch, MECP, by the Municipality (Attachment 1) and the Regions (Attachment 2) providing notice of the additional time, with the intention to report back to Clarington Council on March 14, 2022. Discussions with the Regions were previously held on February 8 and February 11, as outlined in Memo PDS -009-22, dated February 14, 2022. At a third meeting held on February 24, 2022, Planning and Development Services staff and representatives of Dillon Consulting met with representatives of the Regions and their consultants (Golder Associates Ltd.) to review and discuss potential U-❑SR❑mELLU;P AQ❑15 ❑JLR❑EAR1K1110 ARSDOAdm comments. Based on these discussions, the Region is compiling a formal written response UAL LL0 ❑dFISDW--l_FRP P ❑EWD❑ IU-T❑❑du"❑[Sl RlE[IR❑❑FLCY1FR❑ELG11lQW01DW the March 14, 2022 Council meeting. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 rn (Memo -010-22) Page 2 The delegations of February 7 and February 14, 2022 regarding Report PDS -008-22 have been provided to the Regions. The Regions have indicated that responses to the 0 ❑C1FLSDWF1F FRP P ❑EWD❑G1Q❑1G10JCW-FRP P -F-Wwill be prepared and documented in the final Consultation Summary Report for the project, submitted to the MECP. Attachments: Attachment 1 ❑ Notice of Extending Comment Period, Municipality of Clarington @ Attachment 2 ❑ Notice of Extending Comment Period, Region of Durham Interested Parties: ■ 7 K❑A:�113R❑ L❑J dLAANGSDI-TP= LQE❑=RU❑Q RI ® R❑JqCU:G❑FLLR❑❑ Gioseph Anello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham Andrew Evans, Project Manager, DYEC, Region of Durham Celeste Dugas, Manager, York Durham District Office, MECP Philip Dunn, Senior Environmental Officer, York Durham District Office, MECP Jeff Butchart, Issues Project Coordinator (Acting), York Durham District Office, MECP Wendy Bracken Linda Gasser Kerry Meydam Clarington Clear c/o Karrie Lynn Dymond The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 rn $ W W D F K P H Q clffftwn February 1 , 2022 Director, Environmental Assessment Branch Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 135 St. Clair Avenue W., 1 st floor Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 Sent via Email: EABDirector(@_ontario.ca Re: Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase (from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) - Notice of On -Going Discussions with Proponents The Municipality of Clarington is the host community of the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), jointly owned by the Regions of Durham and York (Regions). On December 20, 2021, the Municipality received a Notice of Completion from the Regions for their Environmental Screening Process under the Environmental Assessment Act to increase the processing capacity at the DYEC by 20,000 tonnes per year. A 60 -day review period was provided, ending on February 18, 2022. I write to respectfully provide notice that additional time is needed, extending beyond the 60 -day review period, for on-going discussions with the Regions. The Municipality and the Regions have agreed to work towards addressing the Municipality's questions and comments, with the outcomes of the discussions being brought to Clarington Council on March 14, 2022. The Regions D U H D Oep`dralte notiSe dd oRr Y L G L Q continued dialogue to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks The Municipality has conducted its review of the Regions Environmental Screening Report (ESR) as expeditiously as possible. At the Joint Committee meeting on February 7, 2022, Council considered Report PDS -008-22 providing Municipal comments on the ESR. Staff comments presented in Report PDS -008-22 were supplemented by comments prepared on behalf of the Municipality by Dillon Consulting Limited, retained to provided support and advice to the Municipality on the technical air quality components of the Environmental Screening Process. Report PDS -008-22, including recommendations provided by Dillon Consulting, are enclosed (Attachment 1). Subsequently, Clarington staff initiated discussions with the Regions. A preliminary meeting involving Clarington staff and members of the Region of Durham's Project Team on February 8, 2022. A follow-up meeting to discuss the comments outlined in Report PDS -008-22, including consultants for the Municipality and the Regions, was held on February 11, 2022. Key outcomes of this meeting included the agreement to continue discussions beyond the 60 -day review period with the provision that written responses regarding the Municipality's comments will be provided by the Regions. Clarington Council received an update from staff on February 14, 2022. In response to the information and updates provided by staff, and delegations that appeared before The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 TFIF] Page 2 Council on February 7 and 14, 2022 expressing concerns about the proposal, Council approved the following Resolution: Resolution # C-040-22 That Report PDS -008-22 be received; That Report PDS -008-22, including the consolidated list of requests recommended in Attachment 4 of PDS -008-22 and the February 7, 2022 presentation by Dillon Consulting, be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on the Durham York Energy Centre throughput increase (from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) Environmental Screening Process; That Recommendation #6 of Attachment 4 to Report PDS -008-22 be amended with the following changes: That "250,000 tonnes" be changed to "160,000 tonnes"; That the HHERA include the south Clarington airshed as a whole and include a toxicological assessment and a satisfactory opinion from the Medical Officer of Health for Durham Region; That the words `sul[ph]ur dioxide and benzo[a]pyrene" be inserted after the words "nitrogen dioxide" in Recommendation #7 of Attachment 4 to Report PDS -008-22; That Staff be directed to continue discussions with the Region of Durham and Region of York to address the Municipality's comments for the purpose of resolving concerns prior to March 14, 2022; That the Municipality's comments and notice of the agreement with the Region to continue the discussions be submitted to the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch; That Staff report back at the March 14, 2022 Council meeting; and That all interested parties listed in Report PDS -002-22 and any delegations be advised of this report. A consolidated list of the requests of the Municipality, currently under review by the Regions and subject to further discussion, is enclosed (Attachment 2). The Municipality appreciates the Regions on-going engagement with the Municipality to work through questions and concerns. We are also grateful for the MECPs understanding of the time required to comprehensively review the ESR and supporting documents, report to our Council, and discuss comments with the Regions. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 rn Page 3 Should you have any questions or require further information from us, please contact Amy Burke, Senior Planner — Special Projects Branch at 905-623-3379 Ext. 2423 or aburke clarington.net. Sincerely, Ryan Windle, MCIP, RPP, AICP Director, Planning and Development Services Cc: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Andrew Evans, Project Manager, DYEC, Region of Durham Gioseph Anello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham Celeste Dugas, Manager, York Durham District Office, MECP Philip Dunn, Senior Environmental Officer, York Durham District Office, MECP Enclosures The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 [[E❑❑ $VWDFKPHQW 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS -008-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number: File Number: PLN 33.22 Resolution#: Report Subject: Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes per Year F1 Municipal Comments Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS -008-22 be received; 2. That Report PDS -008-22, including the consolidated list of requests recommended in Attachment 4 of PDS -008-22, EHIDG S\HGDNiM�O FK[FLSDUV-RAOLQJAQV-FRP P HCW on the Durham York Energy Centre throughput Increase (from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) Environmental Screening Process; 3. That, prior to the February 14, 2022 Council meeting, the Region of Durham and Region of York (the Proponents) be requested to agree to a mutually acceptable time period to P I-I-IOTL1P 6011DOG'Q 110 EQFLSDW"RQVDWQNMRBGaKMVgHFcomments in Report PDS -008-22 for the purpose of resolving concerns; and 4. That Staff report back at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting on the status of the 0 C[FLSDWV _WT_1HWM V013 LRSRC HCW, and next steps. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Report Overview Page 2 The Regions of Durham and York are seeking environmental permissions to increase the processing capacity at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) to its current maximum design potential. The Environmental Compliance Approval for the DYEC allows the facility to thermally treat up to 140,000 tonnes of waste per year. The Regions are proposing to increase this amount by 20,000 tonnes per year. As constructed, the DYEC can process up to 160,000 tonnes of waste per year without any modifications or additions to the existing infrastructure or equipment. In accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, the Regions have undertaken an Environmental Screening Process to assess the potential environmental, social and economic effects of the proposal. The results are documented in the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021), released on December 20, 2021 for a 60 -day public review period. Following completion of the Environmental Screening Process, the Regions will make application to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for the necessary amendment to the DYEC Environmental Compliance Approval. The Environmental Screening Process identified air quality as having potential to be negatively affected by the proposal due to increased total air emissions from the facility. To assess the potential changes the waste capacity increase would have on air quality, the Regions completed an air quality impact assessment. The assessment concluded that the proposal will comply with the provincial regulated air quality standards and will not have a significant effect on local ambient air quality. Staff, with support provided by air quality experts retained by the Municipality, have reviewed the Environmental Screening Report and supporting documents. Report PDS -008-22 Screening Process. It includes comments the Regions as part of the Environmental Screening Process, are to be given the opportunity to respond to. As well, some requests are applicable to the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment process to follow. In order to meet the requirements set out in the Environmental Screening Process, it is prudent that the Municipality seek agreement from the Regions to work towards addressing \NH10 ❑QFI+SDWVS❑HMBWDQQIFRP P FQNLZ Q /KIDAP HLEP H11L ME KFKWGRARD before the conclusion of the public review period on February 18, 2022 at 4:30pm. 1. Introduction 1.1 In June 2019, the Regions of Durham and York (Regions) announced the initiation of an Environmental Screening Process (ESP) under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act to increase the amount of waste processed each year (throughput) at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) by 20,000 tonnes. Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Page 3 1.2 In accordance with the requirements for waste projects subject to an ESP, the Regions carried out consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), undertook a public and stakeholders consultation program, and assessed potential negative environmental, social and economic effects of the proposed throughput increase. 1.3 On December 20, 2021, the Municipality received Notice of Completion of the ESP (Attachment 1). The results of the review and consultation for the proposal are provided in the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021) (ESR) posted on the DYEC website (www.durham.ca/DYEC160K). The issuance of Notice of Completion by the Regions marked the start of a 60 -day public review period, concluding on February 18, 2022. 1.4 Planning and Development Services staff have been involved in the ESP for the proposed throughput increase at the DYEC since issuance of the Notice of Commencement. 1.5 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the proposal and results of the 5 HJI.RVI( 63, and to provide ClaringVRCNLgtaff comments and recommendations. 6 V I I_V_FRP P HC Ata HA/-SS®P HQA10E❑FRP P HQ10 U*ared on behalf of the Municipality by Dillon Consulting Limited, ❑KRC/VFRSHIR FU-KH111111DMi8pecific to the air emissions / quality assessment components (Attachment 2). The comments and recommendations have considered concerns from the public outlined in the ( 65 V❑ Record of Consultation Summary Report (December 20, 2021) and heard through discussions with staff. 2. Background 2.1 The DYEC, located within the Clarington Energy Business Park (Energy Park) and jointly owned by the Regions, has been in commercial operation since 2016. The Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the DYEC currently allows the facility to process up to a maximum of 140,000 tonnes per year of post -diversion waste for disposal at the site. By 2018, the Regions had to begin by-passing some of the post - diversion waste received each year to other waste disposal sites, to ensure that the capacity limits set out in the ECA were not exceeded. 2.2 Despite robust waste diversion programming, the Regions have and expect to continue to see post -diversion waste generation that exceeds the current capacity limit of the DYEC. This is primarily due to population growth and according to the Regions is compounded by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. As stated in the ESR, 15,409 tonnes of post -diversion waste was by-passed from the DYEC by the Regions in 2020. Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS -008-22 2.3 In 2020, a temporary emergency ECA Amendment was issued to the Regions by the MECP, permitting the DYEC to process an additional 20,000 tonnes of waste until December 31, 2020. A second temporary emergency EA Amendment was issued in 2021, permitting the DYEC to process an additional 2,000 tonnes of waste until December 31, 2021. These additionally permitted throughput amounts were not fully utilized by the Regions. 2.4 To address the immediate need for additional waste disposal capacity for waste generated by the Regions, the Regions have initiated the environmental approvals process to increase the amount of material the facility is permitted to process annually, from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes. The Regions state that the DYEC is capable of processing up to 160,000 tonnes of waste annually without any changes to the facility (i.e. modifications or additions to the infrastructure or equipment) being required. 3. Key Findings of the Assessment 3.1 The ESP requires that the proposal be evaluated by proponents against a list of screening criteria, to identify the potential for any negative effects on the environment. Potential environmental effects are grouped into the following categories: • Surface water and groundwater • Land • Air and noise • Natural environment • Resources • Socio-economic • Heritage and culture • Aboriginal • Other 3.2 For the proposed DYEC throughput increase, potential negative environmental effects identified by the Regions included effects on air quality due to facility emissions and the proximity of the DYEC to the future heliport location for the Bowmanville Hospital. For many of the screening criteria, the Regions determined that no potential negative environmental effect was predicted on the basis that the DYEC was already designed and built with the ability to thermally process 160,000 tonnes per year of waste. As indicated, no modifications or additions to the infrastructure or equipment at the DYEC are proposed. 3.3 To determine the potential impact of the increased air emissions at the DYEC, the 5 HJ IRC FRQ/- G9QJM FRP SOM G-Dn Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) (Golder 3 CF] Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Page 5 Associates, December 2021). The ESR indicates that the modelling methodology / input data were reviewed and approved by the MECP in advance of modelling. As \AUNGIDOWH[ 6 5 IMI[P RCHW1FRC FO1G-IG W1 ❑( & [1CF1d-CJM1E[FDSDFLVT\RE 160,000 tonnes per year will comply with the MECP regulated air quality standards and will not have a significant effect on (BFDCDP ELL -1011.E Impact management and P FUVRL J NKWVIOV9H6 5 -EFG VV9HFFRQWCDM-RI VW ❑( & V -H -MO LLD ] pollution control and air emissions monitoring program. No changes to the existing air pollution control technology, continuous emissions monitoring, stack emissions source testing or ambient air monitoring are proposed. 3.4 No additional study can be undertaken at this time with respect to the future heliport location for the Bowmanville Hospital. The ESR notes that air ambulance service is currently suspended to the hospital. Prior to construction of the DYEC, the Regions had received aeronautical clearance from Navigation Canada, which currently remains valid. 6 V91I [[[] LQHWA AfOAWH 5 HJ LRQ/i-: DLH-DF DUHFRl V9H1 HDM-IFJ U lement executed by the Municipality with Lakeridge Health for a temporary air ambulance heliport at 1150 Haines Street, just south of the Bowmanville Cemetery. 3.5 Benefits of the proposal cited in the ESR include: • Increased operating efficiency by allowing for full use of the equipment; • Annual net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; • Cost savings from the reduction or elimination of waste by-passing; and • Increased revenue generation from additional power generation and materials recovery. 4. Municipal Comments on the Environmental Screening Report 4.1 Review of the ESR has been supported by Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon). The Municipality retained Dillon in 2020 to assist Council and staff to understand and comment on the technical air quality components, regulatory requirements, and cumulative impact of the DYEC proposal to increase throughput, as well as St. Marys &HP RWM[11111[ &❑LL11P HCS HGPV6S(1FCIAUff KHLHLSDQ9-G_LVHR[tLow Carbon Alternative Fuels (previously completed). 4.2 The review completed by Dillon on the DYEC proposal is provided as Attachment 2. Dillon has provided recommendations which are intended to support further consultation with the Regions and MECP in the review of this proposal. The comments and recommendatff CD/R_WEHG EHRE,[FRCM94MO-IIDGAFHRI W-10 ❑CtFLSD RQ/ /❑ well as public comments communicated directly to Clarington staff, prior to writing this report. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Air Quality and Cumulative Effects Page 6 4.3 In s u m m a ry -L� 0RQVBLMH111RI AW L114 , ❑ AQ?\/ \KDVV 1L5 HJ LRQJ-DVvHM/P HQM a s generally followed good industry practice, is aligned with provincial guidance, and has generally taken a conservative approach. 4.4 Dillon provides several recommendations to confirm the appropriateness of specific modelling and data inputs used by the Regions, ensuring the modelling is appropriately characterized and conservative. These inputs include: • The data selected to represent background conditions, confirming the approach to selecting background concentrations was sufficiently conservative; • The identification of receptor locations for modelling, ensuring they sufficiently considered sensitive uses permitted by current zoning for the Energy Park; • The assumptions relating to the stack flow and stack temperature increase; and • The absence of an assessment of process upset conditions. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the agreed to modelling methodology / data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taking into consideration Recommendation #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 from Dillon, as described in Attachment 2. 4.5 The AQIA uses ambient monitoring data to represent background conditions. The data period used considered all available data up to and including 2019. The background air quality concentrations are carried forward to the cumulative air quality assessment. The data period selected does not account for the expanded use of Low Carbon Alternative Fuels at the nearby St. Marys Cement Bowmanville Site. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (Dillon Recommendation #5). 4.6 The DYEC is situated in close proximity to multiple new development areas being planned by the Municipality. These include the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan and the Courtice Employment Lands and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) Secondary Plan. Both Secondary Plan areas are envisioned to undergo significant transformation from their current predominantly agricultural use into thriving neighbourhoods with amenities, opportunities for recreation, and residential uses. In accordance with provincial and regional policy, this includes planning to achieve transit supportive densities and a diverse mix of uses in the Courtice GO MTSA. Policy 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Page 7 requires that the Municipality plan to accommodate a minimum overall density target of 150 people and jobs per gross hectare in the Courtice GO MTSA. 4.7 It is unclear in the ESR or AQIA whether the dispersion of indicator compounds that may be achieved by the proposed increase in throughput will potentially impact these G-M1RSP FQVDQCV-I[0 EQFLSDQMVDELQVVRLmeet provincial and regional land use policy requirements for transit -oriented development. It is noted that a Land Use Compatibility Study by the Courtice Waterfront Landowners is underway and will be subject to review and acceptance by the Region. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP include the Courtice MTSA in the AQIA and assess whether the proposal may have potential negative effects on the I WLH P HXR DL D -I[O ❑C LRSDWV DELQW7DFKHYKSUMCFLDCa n d regional land use policy requirements. 4.8 The ESR indicates that the MECP requires an updated Emissions Summary Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) report as supporting documentation for a future ECA Amendment application, demonstrating that the proposal will be compliant with Ontario Regulation 419/05: Air Pollution u/ RFDCZLLJ4 -IDB IM 0CA/1FMH HVARUIPAJ-I composition of the DYEC waste stream have the potential to affect the assumptions made within the AQIA, thereby potentially effecting its results. 4.9 The Region of Durham (Durham) is currently in the procurement process for the future establishment of a waste pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. Staff understand that commissioning of the facility is targeted for 2026. Pre-sorting post -diversion waste collected by Durham is intended to remove organic waste and non -diverted recyclables prior to final disposal at the DYEC. Durham reports that nearly 50% of post -diversion waste collected and destined for the DYEC is organics suitable for anaerobic digestion, while approximately 4% is blue box recyclables. 4.10 Council and staff appreciate the beneficial contribution of the pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility to delay future expansions of the DYEC beyond 160,000 tonnes per year. Durham is the majority owner of the DYEC, contributing roughly 78% of the current approved annual capacity. Council may consider seeking clarity from the Region on the potential effect of waste composition change due to pre-sorting on the emissions from the DYEC or the potential effects to air quality. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that \NHII-WUH-SIU+\ RWPoIG= C7MLERP SR ff\Q FH=ELK1)V_EHHQDSSlJ�SLIC kPA FRQ G4JI lGJ (Dillon Recommendation #7). 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-008-22 4.11 The Host Community Agreement (HCA) for the DYEC sets out criteria and processes that are to be considered when expansions to the waste capacity occur. Durham FRP P AF H_RI DGiEI]i❑SDOAE CE� ❑LKDP IT LQI LYH improvements to the emission control system to meet the then current MACT VDQCDLGv1❑ DUEMACT❑stands for Maximum Achievable Control Technology. The commitments on air emission technology and the waste sources and composition as set out in the EA remain applicable. The current proposal for increased tonnage will not trigger other clauses about building expansion and site plan amendments, as the existing boiler units can address the increase in tonnage. Clarington, for its part committed, in the HCA, to not oppose the development or operation of the facility. Recommendation: That the Municipality request Durham confirm how it has addressed the applicable requirements of the Host Community Agreement. 4.12 As indicated in the ESR, the potential for the proposal to have environmental effects on air quality exists because of stack emissions. On multiple occasions, Staff and Council have heard concerns respecting the potential risk of bioaccumulation as a result of the emissions from the DYEC. A Site -Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) was completed for the facility as part of the 2009 EA and was SHAAHAH HQE_A' -0 CIFLSD RCS MCW(SENES). The peer review concluded that the HHERA for the DYEC considering the 140,000 tonne per year scenario was comprehensive and conformed to risk assessment guidance. It was recommended that the HHERA be updated when the facility expands to 250,000 and 400,000 tonnes per year, as was envisioned at the time. 4.13 There were comments and suggestions for improvement in the HHERA modelling based on operational information. Also, given the age of the HHERA, updating of air emissions standards, changes to baseline conditions existing in the area and significant new development underway, the peer review comments continue to provide valuable guidance. Recommendation: That the Municipality reaffirm its previous request to the Region and MECP that the Site -Specific HHERA be comprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies for the EA to expand the DYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacity. 4.14 ' LMW1HMH111RI0WH� 65 -confirms that odour management practices currently in place at the DYEC reflect good industry practice. However, a concern is raised regarding whether sufficient justification is provided to confirm the conclusion that the proposed increased throughput will not contribute to odour concerns. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Page 9 4.15 Potential odour emissions for current DYEC operations were originally assessed using modelling as part of the initial ECA Amendment application for the facility. Verification by means of on-site sampling was subsequently undertaken in 2015. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP undertake additional technical studies as a component of the ECA Amendment application to verify that the no increase in odours is expected from the proposal (Dillon Recommendation #6). 4.16 The results of the cumulative assessment completed as a component of the AQIA indicate that the maximum predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxides would exceed the relevant air quality criteria during testing of the standby emergency diesel generator. This testing occurs for up to a one-hour period, once per week. The assessment approach was considered to be very conservative, using worst case meteorological conditions. The exceedance was relative to the more stringent Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQs) of 79 ug/m3 in comparison to the Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) of 400 ug/m3. Notwithstanding, no mitigation measures were proposed. While neither the CAAQs or Ontario AAQCs are regulatory compliance limits, minimizing or eliminating the risk of exposure where feasible is requested. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to prevent the risk of nitrogen dioxide exceedances identified in the AQIA, where practicable. 4.17 In addition to nitrogen dioxides, the AQIA cumulative assessment indicated that exceedances of air quality criteria were also predicted for benzo(a)pyrene. The concentration of benzo(a)pyrene was reported to already be in exceedance of the standards in background (i.e. before any additional contribution from DYEC operating at increased capacity is added). Multiple exceedances of benzo(a)pyrene and sulphur dioxide over the applicable Ontario AAQCs at both the Courtice and Rundle ambient air monitoring stations are noted in the ESR. 4.18 The ESR attributes already elevated background concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and sulphur dioxide to other nearby sources, including transportation emissions from Highway 401 and other industrial sources. Members of Council and the public have raised questions and concerns with respect to the state of the local airshed, and the SRI"DCF-P ❑G\&HLH1 I HRAR A-I11QG_ HLDfiUJDRQ1 A GUIQJ aPoll➢U11 the adjacent 400 -series transportation network on local airshed quality. 4.19 00�t 3 RQ�H[I F; P P FAQ RI iANH10 ❑GiFLSDWV -FRQJ❑ LQl ANFRAHYtHw of RI r6 VVD DI V[& HP HQWC & 11111] P HQ(P HQAD6SQFCIfiQ i❑SD-IFVHLRI m R❑ i& DIERQ❑ Alternative Fuels at the Bowmanville Site, Council directed that staff work with MECP and industry (e.g. St. Marys Cement and DYEC) to set up a real-time air quality 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Page 10 monitoring network within the Municipality (Resolution #C-449-20). The conclusion of Dillon) 1HY1H11[reaffirms their recommendation regarding the establishment of a real- time monitoring network in their review of the current DYEC proposal to increase throughput. 4.20 The regulation and monitoring of overall air quality in Ontario is the responsibility of the MECP. Council has previously been made aware of the air quality review completed by the MECP in July 2018 for the south Clarington area ❑❑KlFK1MFD\HGAP DNanalysis shows that air quality in Durham Region is similar to that of other urban settings in \/RL\N+C[2 Q,@JlFJDQGANH-LlU-DHRRl L DM:As an initial step in considering & R❑CFl0 C1HT ❑H\ANO ( U FKDYHY.0 LfHGART❑SGD\H b ffi C/ -P P DLL= O31, Rn a I monitoring with TAGA units in Clarington was conducted in the summer of 2021. Based on recent discussion with the MECP, staff anticipate that the updated air quality review will be provided within the first half of 2022. The Mayor and staff have also engaged local LQG & R❑C O[t HT MM7 KH-SG3,HG=F-DWIFMH❑ L[U L(OEHFO R.P DAH -for this on-going work and is valuable to share with the community. Additional Public Consultation 4.21 Following the ESP, the Regions are required to apply for approval from the MECP to amend the existing ECA to permit the increase in annual processing capacity from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year. While these applications are typically subject to requirements for posting for public comment on the Environmental Registry, there are limited opportunities for exemption where an equivalent public participant process has already been carried out for a proposal. It is not known at this time whether the consultation process carried out by the Regions as part of the ESP would warrant an exemption, or whether the Regions would seek the exemption. Further, the updated ESDM requested by the MECP has not yet been made publicly available. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region and MECP commit to public consultation as a component of the ECA Amendment process to provide the Municipality and the public opportunity to review and provide comment on the application, including all supporting technical studies and other documents. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Other Comments Page 11 4.22 Several of the public comments reported in the ESR Record of Consultation Summary Report (December 20, 2021) raised questions and concerns relating to the potential effect of the proposal on waste reduction and diversion. The ESR outlines long term waste management planning activities underway by the Regions, which seek to maintain a focus on reducing the quantity of waste requiring disposal at the DYEC. Durham Region Council approved the 2022 2040 Long -Term Waste Management Plan and its first five-year action plan on January 26, 2022. The focus of the new LTWMP is on maximizing the diversion of materials from waste and recovering waste as resources to optimize its existing and planned disposal and processing infrastructure and minimize the need for disposal. 4.23 Municipal staff were involved throughR❑VVMA3-M-(0'SP HGM 11WZ HARQV[CH11 Long - Term Waste Management Plan. LFRSE1RI SII SRP P HC W on the draft Plan is provided as Attachment 3. On-going consultation with Local Area Municipalities, municipal Councils, and specific Municipal Departments on the implementation of actions was requested. The comments also underlined &R❑CFL0V-6\AfWLFF30Cflo1]❑[1L[1 2022 goal 1R_IDG)Y H-I]DVIAPoIMiO❑ FFS19;P R.%W �--JFZ:JU55 V-5 H -\/HET] Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. ❑ The development of an updated Long -Term Waste Management Plan by the Region supports the commitment made by the Region in the DYEC Host Community Agreement to the continuous implementation of a comprehensive waste management strategy. 4.24 7KFq 65 tQG-\prope rty values are anticipated to increase with the district heating potential and road infrastructure provided as part of the DYEC construction.Ei One of the major advantages attributed to the DYEC in its EA and Host Community Agreement is its district energy potential. However, the necessary infrastructure beyond the east wall of the DYEC has not been implemented to encourage / promote and utilize the district heating and cooling potential of the DYEC. 4.25 In 2021, a collaboration between the Municipality and Durham was initiated to assess viable options to provide a District Energy System (DES) to serve the Clarington Waterfront, Energy Park and surrounding secondary plan areas. A pre -feasibility study assessing the economic and carbon emission reduction potential of DES options for the area is anticipated to be completed in the coming weeks, the results of which will be presented to Durham and Clarington Councils with a request for direction on whether to proceed with a complete feasibility study. 5. Environmental Screening Process 5.1 Ontario Regulation 101/07: Waste Management Projects enacted under the EA Act sets out EA requirements for waste management projects. Three categories of project types 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Report PDS -008-22 Page 12 are identified. In general, these include i) projects that are subject to an individual EA, ii) projects that are subject to a streamlined EA, and iii) projects that are exempted from the EA Act. 5.2 Individual EAs are required for large-scale, complex projects with the potential for significant environmental effects. They require MECP approval. Streamlined EAs are used for routine projects that have predictable and manageable environmental effects. Proponents of these types of projects follow a self-assessment and decision-making process. Approval by the MECP is not directly granted for each project. 5.3 In June 2019, the Regions commenced a streamlined EA, referred to as an Environmental Screening Process (ESP), in accordance with Ontario Regulation 101/07: Waste Management Projects as a first step in amending the ECA for the DYEC \R -U VMV9H-fDF0VVI1 DMh SU; FMNLQJ FFD6 V&i� 6 3 FANHEI Regions are obligated to comply with a prescribed process for assessing the environmental effects of the proposal, including requirements for consultation with government agencies, and interested persons, and for documenting the results of the ESP in an Environmental Screening Report (ESR). . ❑=❑11=1EK❑[5 ❑❑[R❑M1 113 ALL❑ outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Key Dates DYEC Throughput Increase Environmental Screening Process July 3, 2019 Notice of Commencement August 21, 2019 Public Information Centre #1 October 23, 2019 Public Information Centre #2 December 2, 2019 Public Information Centre #3 December 20, 2021 Notice of Completion December 20 February 18, 2022 Public Review Period February 18, 2022 Deadline for Submission of Elevation Requests To be determined Statement of Completion 5.4 Upon completion, public notice is provided and the ESR and related technical studies and other supporting information is made available for a review period of at least 60 days. During this period, those with concerns have an opportunity to ask questions and seek to resolve issues directly with Proponents. A Notice of Completion for the 5 HJ IRQ/I_I_( 6 P and the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021) was released on December 20, 2021, for a 60 day review period, ending at 4:30pm on February 18, 2022 (Attachment 1). 5.5 Where concerns cannot be resolved during the review period provided or within an additional time period mutually agreed to by a concerned party and the Proponent, an Elevation Request may be submitted to the MECP that the project be subject to a higher level of study. If no elevation requests are received during the review period, the 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PDS -008-22 Proponent files a final Statement of Completion and can proceed with the project, subject to any other required approvals. 5.6 Section 4 of this report provides multiple recommendations for seeking additional information and clarification from the Regions on the proposal. A consolidation of the recommendations is provided in Attachment 4. Considering the scope of the comments outlined herein and the limited time remaining in the 60 -day review period, it is recommended that Staff immediately seek out a mutually agreeable time period during which the Municipality, our consultants, and the Regions can work towards addressing and resolving questions and concerns. Staff would bring forward an update at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting and seek direction on next steps. 6. Concurrence Not Applicable. 7. Conclusion 7.1 The Regions have undertaken a streamlined EA process in accordance with the requirements for waste projects under the EA Act as a first step in undertaking to increase the amount of waste the DYEC is permitted to process annually by 20,000 tonnes, from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year. Under the proposed 160,000 tonnes per year scenario, no modifications or expansions to the existing infrastructure or equipment would be required. 7.2 The original EA undertaken for the DYEC considered expansion scenarios of 250,000 and 400,000 tonnes per year and has provided much of the technical basis for the current assessment of potential negative impacts. As requested by the MECP, an AQIA has been completed and an updated stand-alone ESDM will be prepared as supporting documentation for the ECA Amendment application process that will follow. 7.3 6 D I I_DMAWL0 C[FLSD LL4 ED G MIJKDYHJIYLH❑ Hd the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021), released by the Regions for a 60 -day public review period. ' LORQVFU-MHLI+CVffREQGAPEVW-i[H]4,FIXD\/-JHCHLDOF followed industry practice and provincial requirements. However, multiple recommendations have been provided requiring discussion with the Regions and MECP. 7.4 The ESP that the Regions proposal is subject to is a proponent -driven process. Concerns with the proposal are to be directly addressed with the Regions. The timelines set out for review of the ESR, addressing questions and concerns with the Regions, and potentially making a request to elevate unresolved concerns to the MECP is limited, ending on February 18, 2022. 3 rn Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report PDS -008-22 7.5 It is respectfully recommended that Council authorize staff to immediately notify the Region and MECP of our interest to have the comments set out herein addressed, and that a mutually agreeable time period to try to resolve concerns be established and communicated to the Director of the MECP prior to the end of the public review period. In order to keep Council informed and to have an opportunity to seek further direction from Council, it is recommended that staff report back with an update at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting. Staff Contact: Amy Burke, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2423 or aburke@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 ❑ Notice of Completion Public Notice dated December 20, 2021 Attachment 2 ❑ Briefing on Durham York Energy Centre proposal to increase throughput (Dillon Consulting Limited, January 27, 2022) Attachment 3 ❑ 0 QFLSDCKRP P RCI 9H-5 FU LRQR 17 ❑LKDP VIE❑❑❑112040 Long-term Waste Management Plan (Draft) Attachment 4 ❑ Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York Energy Centre Screening Report (December 2021) Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Gioseph Anello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham Andrew Evans, Project Manager, Waste Planning & Technical Services, Region of Durham Celeste Dugas, Manager, York Durham District Office, MECP Philip Dunn, Senior Environmental Officer, York Durham District Office, MECP Jeff Butchart, Issues Project Coordinator (Acting), York Durham District Office, MECP Wendy Bracken Linda Gasser Kerry Meydam Clarington Clear c/o Karrie Lynn Dymond 3 rn Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase (From 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) W---:7- YorRegion - : Notice of Completion Works Department December 20, 2021 (revised) Public Notice The Regional Municipality of Durham and The Regional Municipality of York have completed an Environmental Screening Process in accordance with the Waste Management Projects Regulation (Ontario Regulation 101/07) of the Environmental Assessment Act to amend the Environmental Compliance Approval for the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), located at 1835 Energy Drive, Courtice, Ontario. The Regions will submit an Environmental Screening Report to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks on December 20, 2021 for review and approval. The Environmental Screening Report has been prepared to increase the annual processing capacity at the DYEC from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per year. This additional capacity is needed to accommodate population growth within the two Regions, allow the DYEC to operate more efficiently and produce more energy. This increase in capacity will not require any modifications to existing infrastructure. 34 a K o W 0 N O � U Baseline Rd Courtice7Ct 4 - GP MagawaftDr 4d1 F�OhJY Crit � o I Crago DURHAM YORK °N ENERGY CENTRE (DY C) Lakv 0"mriU L The Screening process involved identifying and applying criteria for potential environmental effects, public/external agency and Indigenous consultation and the development of measures to mitigate any identified environmental effects. The proposed capacity increase is not expected to have any significant net effects on the environment. The results of the study were documented in an Environmental Screening Report, available for a 60 -calendar day review period from December 20, 2021 to February 18, 2022. The report is available for public review at durhamyorkwaste.ca If you are unable to access the digital copy of the report posted on this website or require an alternative format, please contact 1-800-667-5671. If you have concerns or comments regarding this project, please contact The Regional Municipality of Durham (contact details below) to discuss. If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in discussion with The Regional Municipality of Durham or The Regional Municipality of York, a person or party may request that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks make an order for the project to comply with Part I I of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a "elevation request"), which would elevate the project to an Individual Environmental Assessment. Requests for an "elevation request" must be submitted in writing to the Director, Environmental Assessment Branch and to the "Proponent" at the address listed below no later than 60 -calendar days from the date of this Notice (December 20, 2021). Elevation request must be made in accordance with the provisions set out in Section B.3. of the "Guide to environmental assessment requirements for waste management projects". The requester must include the following information in a written "elevation request": 3 TFIF] the name of the project and proponent; x the basis of the request; x that the project be elevated to an individual environmental assessment; x the nature of the specific environmental concerns that remain unresolved; x the benefits of requiring the proponent to undertake an individual environmental assessment; x information about any efforts to discuss/resolve these concerns/environmental effects with the proponent; x details of any correspondence between the person and the proponent; and x any other matters considered relevant by the requesting person. Please submit the elevation request to each of the following two contacts. If submitting a hard copy request, please advise by phone or email as well due to COVID-19 circumstances. If no elevation requests are received by 4:30 p.m. on February 18, 2022, The Regional Municipality of Durham and The Regional Municipality of York intend to proceed with the process as scheduled. Director, Environmental Assessment Branch Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 135 St. Clair Avenue W, 1St floor Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 EABDirector(o)_ontario.ca Andrew Evans, M.A.Sc, P.Eng Project Manager, DYEC Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road, East Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 info durhamyorkwaste.ca 905-404-0888 ext. 4130 All personal information included in a submission - such as name, address, telephone number and property location - is collected, maintained, and disclosed by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s.37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Personal information you submit will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless you request that your personal information remain confidential. For more information, please contact the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park's Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator at (416) 327- 1434. 3 rn Memo To: From: cc: Date: Subject: Our File: IAR H QUV SHSRU� DILLON CONSULTING Amy Burke, Senior Planner, Municipality of Clarington Hamish Corbett-Hains, Associate, Senior Air Quality Engineer, Dillon Consulting Limited Ravi Mahabir, Partner, Dillon Consulting Limited January 27th, 2022 Briefing on Durham York Energy Centre proposal to increase throughput 20-3534 Background Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) was retained by the Municipality of Clarington (the Municipality) to provide support in commenting on the proposal by the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) to increase the site's throughput of post -diversion waste from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per year. Specifically, Dillon's review was focused on the assessment of air emissions related to the proposed increase in throughput at DYEC. Dillon's scope included a review of publicly available reporting in sup- port of the DYEC capacity increase, and development of this briefing note that documents key findings. In addition, Dillon was requested to provide an opinion on the assessment of cumulative air quality ef- fects resulting from operations at DYEC as well as the nearby St. Mary's Cement facility. Dillon's scope does not include a compliance review of current facility operations or an assessment of previously approved reports (e.g. original Environmental Assessment or original Environmental Compliance Approval documents). It has been assumed that the MECP reviews ongoing DYEC reporting and DYEC is currently in compliance with applicable air quality regulations. This briefing note is not a detailed peer review of the documents referenced to assess accuracy, rather it is a review of the approach and findings of the air quality studies presented to guide the Municipality in responding to the DYEC proposal. In conducting this review, Dillon therefore relied on the information provided by other consultants. Review of the Studies Dillon reviewed studies made publicly available by the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York (the Regions) in support of a streamlined Environmental Assessment. Included in Dillon's review were the Environmental Screening Report (ESR) authored by the Regions, dated December 2021, and Appendix D to the ESR titled Air Quality Impact Assessment, Durham York Energy Centre, prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), also dated December 2021. The two reports are collectively referred to as "The Reports." Dillon did not perform a peer review of the ESR or the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA), which would involve independently confirming key technical aspects such as air dispersion modelling input parameters. In reviewing the reports Dillon notes that the methods followed appear to generally be DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED wwwAillon.ca Page 1 of 5 3 [[E❑❑ reasonable and in line with provincial guidance and industry standards. Specifically, the following were noted, with recommendations made as applicable: dY/r&]]']/W] ►'P0]vYJ0E iiPU]vrlu]?�o]u]SJvu])�( o]v JE i& x dYVlxlKRY]VtP4@*•C9oIC- x]v0M&$o6]vr4u]Ko]u] y A§ dWpWvPu]KIWIlojW Dillon clari. ed the approach to determining emission rates under the increased throughput YFAWOWW u])�WTWlDO ]]�- for the increased throughput scenario appear reasonable. The AQIA appears to (x(uIK scenario are over -predicted, the AQIA may minimize the di+erence between the two scenarios. 1p"WWWWW Ro W WWX thQ&WWV*VW W*VMW (0*PP1W(0ft PWP* UMHOW M ECP. d Z } u E Y u} v] s} (E ] v P s Y} v A A Z CE u} v] s} CE] v P s A A ] o 0 was considered to be upwind of DYEC. The wind data presented within the AQIA shows that Wff zywgl u*bj* 0uvVWdD}a]]@6W*vDW *]V*.Cff eve d Z Y/ s s s Z s s Z Z P v o s emissions from DYEC. The wind data presented within the AQIA shows that the Rundle MAWzYWWj *]Y0[0Y]WP o]vo ]v]CE 0~]vo].vPv* dY/ vGWo0PE Highway 401. 0uvWdD}a]]fAW*vDW Wa o*04 ] u p i considered. DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED www.dillon.ca Page 2 of 5 3 [[E❑❑ The AQIA used the US EPA's CALMET/CALPUFF modelling system, including meteorological data Pv uVEW ]KVIPWCkkflfio)' )CE PW00o]vP]vP6] o model (CALMET) and the air dispersion model (CALPUFF) were provided to the MECP for review Vw** d7/e16(0o]vPav line with MECP guidance. A nested grid of receptors was modelled to represent the area WvPzWoop]v]AaW ]VCvo].vPWW�kJvWPO�J$�Jl@-v1ftvkE wvl. d Z CE CE o v I} v s} o o} A u o A Y} v} A P Ev o A o X E} o Z } u u v Y} v i W d Z D }z v] ] o] s (E < P • s s Z s o o ^ o} Y} v }( ] v s included in the AQIA and all subsequent studies as appropriate. d70"&ft9 Air Quality Criteria (AAQC), Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and the MECP's tVPLY1 bv)vj/u YdP uvo] u ] §i and appropriate. dY/ ]v]"vX 00041)�01VRAP011W u]vrWv]oo ]A*oQv% ] v5✓v] o off * 0v lv%&4ol1la*V"g/1E6 main process stack from the ancillary sources as no change to any of the ancillary sources is included in the proposed changes at DYEC. When considering DYEC emissions from the main process stack under proposed scenario lv P*v0J1/j&lvlCE compounds were below the relevant criteria. When considering DYEC emissions from the main process stack and ancillary sources under R,' PRv"JAINIA. *�fl*Pu21sgV0Pk1KV]vP indicator compounds are below the relevant criteria. Nitrogen dioxide is predicted to exceed TWPP\ Pvv*P]v FR]*v ]vEE throughput at DYEC. t Z v } v•] CE] v P P u P o Y A } v v s CE u] • ] } v. P v CE } s Z s Z IE ] • Y v P exceeded: benzo[a]pyrene on both a 24-hour and annual basis. For both exceedances, DYEC 8j> iooQA Wv E of benzo[a]pyrene is not predicted to change as a result of the increase in throughput at DYEC. DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED www.dillon.ca Page 3 of 5 3 [[E❑❑ The air dispersion modelling assessment included within the AQIA demonstrates that no signi. cant change to air quality is expected when comparing to the relevant air criteria as a result of the increased throughput from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per .MvGj4lP*v jNPj 6 AolkFoo]vW]KW the increase in throughput. �lvli�o� (WvWkPo]P]o�dPh1?x reasonable. d7/*o�ooR#vWo proposed increase in throughput as a result of increased stack temperature and Gow rate OP]v]u ]v] WfE b$k0PJlN PQW14Vv0qvo od*v ov}( ] o o} v o (E]. s Z o o } Z that stack Gow rate will increase appears reasonable, however, the magnitude of the increase is not clearly explained in the AQIA. Similarly, the conclusion that stack 401VOMWYX WoQWo*11v v"W require revision. 0uv�VVdD}a]]N *YDW (avows to the air dispersion modelling accordingly. The AQIA uses ambient monitoring data to represent background data. Under Ontario's v0v6d4*fuFo Ju]AlvW5WWv this case, the use of Alternate Low Carbon Fuel (ALCF) at St. Mary's Cement (SMC) has been (P]u*f 0uv�WdD}a]]?AW*vDW review the AQIA to con. rm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future kos dtoMoOlib* greenhouse gasses — measured in carbon dioxide equivalents — than the alternate approach of ov.00]vP g*v� greenhouse gasses as a result of land. II diversion as well as the net bene. t of carbon dioxide u110NP(Wv]v*W1u . Pbu]j�ftYP(W0v.00]vP v]vjlL fb The ESR describes the odour management approaches used at DYEC which appear to be in line *}v *WV *i4f0W ✓]/EF DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED www.dillon.ca Page 4 of 5 3 [[E❑❑ Oijmvow ]v h** within the ESR. Fluv4VOIA11WORI�- vDW0V1oJ*loJ* that no increase in odours is expected from the capacity increase at DYEC. x The ESR describes the proposed change at DYEC as an increase in the total volume of waste *V(0ll� a1/ OWPUPOO PQVIL 0`*u�v�6VE)iA]] *• ]mP ] VWE. The ESR describes the methods followed in the 2009 Environmental Assessment to evaluate air p.]VtP0l]v0jvP Uv]P A uo(g VU voA1)"v - has been included in the AQIA. fluv�WOIA]]NW�dDW Pk§vfoo f41VW1vo1VPl)L �Nx Conclusions Dillon was retained by the Municipality to provide support in commenting on the proposal by Durham Region and York Region to increase the throughput of waste at the Durham York Energy Centre. Dillon's scope included a review of publicly available reports supporting the increase in throughput. The findings of the review are as follows: Studies completed by DYEC show that the increase in waste throughput would lead to a small ]vKu1)0W ]v] Pia]] 91111114]] OP0 Regions and MECP in the review of this proposal. When considering the public interest in this project and other projects in the local area, it is recommended that the Municipality work with the MECP and industry (e.g. SMC, DYEC) to set up would measure and report on a range of key air quality indicators. The intent of the network would not be to evaluate industrial compliance, but rather to enhance the public's understanding of air quality within the Municipality with a high -degree of transparency. The network would also be useful in establishing long-term trends in air quality within the Dia]] WPAVd"] ]* DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED www.dillon.ca Page 5 of 5 Clarftmn October 29, 2021 Angela Porteous Supervisor of Waste Services Works Department — Waste Management Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 Email: WastePlan@Durham.ca Dear Ms. Porteous: Re: 2021-2040 Long-term Waste Management Plan Phase Two Consultation File: PLN 33.23 The Region of Durham's Long -Term Waste Management Plan — Draft (September 9, 2021) has been reviewed by the Municipality and we offer the following comments in conjunction with our previous comments provided during the Local Area Municipalities Consultation Session held on May 28, 2020 and May 19, 2021. Background The Region of Durham (Region) is developing a new Long -Term Waste Management Plan (LTWMP) to guide Regional waste management services over the next 20 years. The objectives of the previous Region of Durham Long Term Waste Management Strategy Plan: 2000 to 2020 (December 1999) have largely been met. A significant component of implementation of the previous LTWMP was the establishment of the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) in Clarington's Energy Park. The new LTWMP seeks to respond to a range of current issues which influence planning and provision of municipal waste management services, including a rapidly growing and increasingly diverse population, regulatory changes, and climate change. The focus of the new LTWMP is on maximizing the diversion of materials from waste and recovering waste as resources to optimize its existing and planned disposal and processing infrastructure and minimize the need for disposal. Regional Council endorsed the guiding principles, vision, and objectives for the LTWMP on January 27, 2021. Public consultation on the draft actions and targets proposed in the LTWMP was held from September 21 to October 25, 2021. The draft LTWMP contains measurable targets and accompanying actions for the short term (2021-2026), mid-term (2027-2033) and the long term (2034-2040), and has been designed to be reviewed and updated every five years to ensure alignment with corporate direction and associated legislation. Implementation of the LTWMP is anticipated to begin in 2022, subject to Regional Council approval. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 rn Page 2 Draft Targets and Actions The LTWMP proposes 11 targets coupled with 53 actions to meet these targets. In general, the Municipality strongly supports the LTWMPs emphasis on waste minimization and diversion from disposal, fostering increased understanding and awareness of and access to waste diversion programs, and enhanced environmental protection. This focus is in alignment with Clarington Council's Strategic Plan 2019 — 2022 goal to "advance waste reduction initiatives by promoting the four Rs: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle." As the host community for the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), Clarington is directly affected by the performance of the facility and the potential impacts of future expansion. Within five years of commencing commercial operations and 10 years ahead of original forecasts, the Region is seeking approval to increase processing capacity at the DYEC. With strong growth forecasted to continue in Durham Region, strong action and a commitment by the Region to avoid for as long as possible the next, more significant, DYEC expansion is needed. The development of an updated LTWMP by the Region supports the commitment made by the Region in the DYEC Host Community Agreement to the continuous implementation of a comprehensive waste management strategy. With respect to the draft targets and actions proposed in the LTWMP, we offer the following comments: Target 1A, to increase public engagement on the 5Rs through partnerships, increased accessibility, and different media, is supported by the Municipality. To achieve this target, understanding of the common inquiries Local Area Municipalities hear from the public is important. Common inquiries received by the Municipality relate to the following: x Special pick up for mattresses, appliances, and other large household items that don't fit in the garbage; x How to purchase blue and green bins; x How to dispose of yard waste, trees that have been cut down, used fill, batteries and more; x Complaints about recycling not being picked up, garbage accumulated at local bus shelters, and residents using public garbage receptacles for their own household waste; x Who is responsible for waste collection in the Municipality (multiple calls daily); x Locations of waste drop-off facility locations. The Municipality also commonly receives calls from residents who first reached out to the Region but did not find the wait times acceptable or were awaiting a reply and were contacting the Municipality for assistance in the meantime. The Municipality would like to discuss the establishment of a shared database with Durham Region to access their messaging and infographics regarding waste management services for consistency of messaging. Enhanced communications and awareness of responsibilities for waste management services will be increasingly The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 [[E❑❑ Page 3 important as Durham Region transitions to an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) System for blue box collection. Local Area Municipalities request to be engaged and consulted with as part of communication planning for this transition. To this end, a separate Action 3C2 focused on public engagement and education for planned and future EPR program transitions is set out in the draft LTWMP. It is anticipated that having some waste management services provided by the Region while others are provided by Producers will be confusing for many. The Municipality is fully supportive of this action. More specifically relating to Action 1A6 and Action 1A7, content should ideally be "ready to serve" and easily sharable. This information should be differentiated and geared for children/families and adults so it can be used with the appropriate target audience. It is recommended that the Region develop video and social media that community groups can share on the Region's behalf. Offer opportunity for focus groups or scheduled events for more affected organizations, identifying groups who may have education and/or environmental initiatives as part of their mandate. For example: x Public libraries, who may be able to host an event such as a virtual tour; x Cadets or Navy League; x Horticultural and Garden Clubs, 4H, Agricultural Societies; x Girl Guides and Boy Scouts; x Clarington 55+ Active Adults and Bowmanville Older Adults Association; and x Local Hall Boards. It is recommended that materials be shared with Clarington's Diversity Advisory Committee for input on ways to reach various communities or additional considerations to ensure efforts have the greatest reach/engagement. In addition, it is recommended that public education campaigns be coordinated around related recognition events (e.g. Earth Day, community clean-up days) so the public and our community partners (who are sharing communications on our behalf) can make the connection. Action 2131 proposes that annual generation rates of garbage be measured to track progress in reducing garbage disposed. However, it is not clear whether this information will be made publicly available each year. Annual public reporting for this action is strongly encouraged. Action 2134 proposes collaboration with the Local Area Municipalities on common messaging and an approach to textile diversion and the reduction of single -use plastics/items. The following past actions by the Municipality on these items should be noted: x Over the years, the Municipality has faced challenges with the proliferation of clothing and small household item donation bins throughout Clarington. Donation bins have commonly been used as de facto dumping grounds by the public leading to property standards concerns and enforcement costs. In addition, concerns regarding safety and aesthetics have also been raised. These challenges have resulted in the clean-up and removal of donation bins The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 [[E❑] Page 4 throughout Clarington, except for those located on properties which contain a permitted and operating collection/sorting/retail facility (i.e. Salvation Army store). Presently, neither of Clarington's two zoning by-laws identify donation bins as a permitted use within any zone. Other Municipal by-law also impose restrictions on the placement of donation bins on both private and Municipal property. Local Municipalities should support and promote clothing and household donations to the thrift store retailers operating in their area. This not only addresses the priority of waste diversion but has the added benefit of creating local jobs and markets for these affordable items. More rural parts of our Municipalities can continue to be supported by those charities that offer on-call collection from their door step. x On October 7, 2019, Clarington Council banned the use of all single -use plastics in Clarington's Municipal Administrative Centre, effective November 30, 2021. In accordance with Council's direction staff has also continued to work on the development of programs to effectively eliminate the use of single -use plastics in other Municipal facilities, where there exists an environmentally responsible alternative, and is moving forward with other forms of waste reduction for municipal buildings that are in line with Council's Strategic Priority for Environmental Sustainability. In August 2021, a fully accessible 4Rs pilot project was launched at two Municipal recreation facilities. A three -stream waste system, including bins with educational signage and tactile mats in front of each bin for accessibility now provides for the separation of garbage, blue box recyclables and organic waste. The colour-coded signage provides a QR Code link to the Region's Know Before You Throw webpage to assist users. All Municipal buildings are the responsibility of our Community Services Department, who should be engaged in any future discussions on establishing common approaches and consistent waste programming for Municipal facilities. Action 3A1 captures the initiative already underway by the Region to develop a mixed waste pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. While Clarington Council supports the related objective to increase diversion of waste from disposal and support the circular economy, Clarington Council has declared itself as an unwilling host for the facility (Clarington Resolution #GG -244-20, approved July 6-7, 2020). Action 3A5 and Action 3B3 both relate to increasing diversion and improving servicing for denser forms of development, which we appreciate are becoming increasingly complex. It is not clear whether Action 3133 is referring to both existing and new medium and higher density developments. We recommend action focused on addressing existing challenges with medium and high density housing forms that do not receive Regional waste collection services currently, to transition these built forms to full waste servicing. Specifically relating to new developments, we recommend Action 3A5 be broadened to capture other forms of more complex and dense developments / built forms, including mixed-use and other medium and high density housing forms. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 [[E❑❑ Page 5 To this end, the Municipality is prepared to: x Promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste, with particular attention to medium and higher density housing forms, which meets applicable provincial standards and has given consideration to the Region's waste collection design and servicing requirements; and x Enhance municipal policies to further support waste diversion and servicing for new developments. While Action 31131 and Action 31132 speak to updates that will be needed to the Region's waste by-law, it should also be noted that any consideration of local by-laws to support waste reduction and diversion, local by-law enforcement, and/or proposals for the municipal assumption of responsibility of program and/or services requires full consultation with Local Area Municipalities and the concurrence of municipal Councils. Action 3C4 involves the Region exploring additional opportunities to reuse or recycle materials not covered under the regulations for Hazardous and Special Products. The Municipality requests that Clarington Emergency and Fire Services be consulted on any proposed changes to household hazardous wastes accepted at the Clarington Household Special Waste Depot in order to ensure that appropriate fire safety measures are in place and EFS staff are adequately trained to respond in the event of an emergency. Action 3C7 relates to the evaluation of continued blue box services to small businesses (i.e. BIAs) deemed ineligible for servicing under the new EPR program. Staff understand that a report on potential options will be before Regional Council in November 2021. The Municipality requests that the Region notify our local BIAs and other small businesses currently receiving blue box collection services of this pending options report and consult with them on the options being considered. The Municipality can provide appropriate contacts for our local BIAs, if needed. Target 4A is intended to implement the LTWMP objective to support the Region's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and climate change mitigation efforts. The Municipality provides the following comments with respect to the proposed development of initiatives to offset or reduce GHG emissions from solid waste that contribute to the Region's Corporate GHG emissions: x A strategy to sequester and/or offset carbon emissions should be included in this plan as a solution to the GHGs emitted from the DYEC; x A portion of the waste burned at the DYEC originates from outside Durham Region. Only Durham Region's waste is included in Regional Corporate GHG emissions calculations. This assumes that all other municipalities are taking responsibility for the GHG emissions associated with their waste. The Region should include all GHG emissions from the DYEC as corporate GHG emissions calculations to take responsibility for the impact of the facility, which is under its control. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 [[E❑❑ Page 6 x Currently, scope 3 emissions are not included in the Region's corporate annual GHG inventory reporting. The Region has influence over key Scope 3 emissions categories including contracted waste haulage services. The Region should include this in their GHG emissions reporting. x While the Region is not required to calculate GHG emissions from historical landfills, the Region could take actions to track and reduce GHG emissions and pollution associated with historical landfills. x Within Action 4A1 and Action 4A8, it is unclear what is meant by `alternative fuels'. If the reference is to low -carbon fuel sources, it is suggested that this term be used for added clarity and demonstration of the objective of GHG reduction. x Action 4A4, exploring the possibility of using waste heat generated at DYEC and surrounding facilities for district heating should be expanded to include all potential sites of waste heat production and consumption in the areas in and around the Energy Park. x Regarding Action 4A5, any carbon emissions management plan should include all carbon emissions associated with Regional waste facilities and operations that are under the Region's control, including scope 3 emissions from waste haulage, waste transportation, and staff's transportation. x It is unclear whether the measurement proposed for Target 4A includes annual reporting of waste facility and waste haulage/ transportation related GHG emissions. It is encouraged that this value form part of reporting on the LTWMP. Objective 5 sets out 2 targets and 7 actions to protect or improve water, land and air quality in Durham Region. While Target 5A speaks in general terms to the Region's waste management facilities, there is no direct mention or actions focused on the DYEC. The Host Community Agreement between the Region and the Municipality for the DYEC (item 3) commits the Region to ensuring that the DYEC incorporates and utilizes modern, state of the art, emissions control technologies; uses maximum achievable control technology for emissions control and monitoring systems; and that 24/7 monitoring systems for appropriate parameters are used, where technically possible. In support of this commitment, the Municipality requests that an additional on- going action be added to the LTWMP to review emissions control and monitoring systems at the DYEC and other existing and future Regional waste processing facilities, and to identify, evaluate and implement where feasible and practicable opportunities for improvement based on operational experience, emerging best practices and technological advancements. On November 2-3, 2020, Clarington Council approved Resolution #C-449-20, which included that Municipal Staff be requested to work with MECP and industry (e.g. [St. Marys Cement], DYEC) to set up a real-time air quality monitoring network within the Municipality. In collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, work is underway to update past reporting on the air quality for Clarington and in particular the south Courtice area. We appreciate the support the Region has provided to share information and data and would like to continue to collaborate with the Region, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 [[E❑❑ Page 7 MECP, and other local industries to review and share information about local airshed matters. We request the Region add a further action under Objective 5 committing to collaborate with the Municipality and other local stakeholders on the implementation of a real -term monitoring network in the short-term and to contribute to the monitoring, improvement and reporting on the cumulative impact of the DYEC and other industrial emitters in proximity to the DYEC on an on-going basis. It is not clear how Target 5113 to increase accessibility of waste management programs and services, directly contributes to the overarching objective to protect or improve water, land and air quality in Durham Region. In closing, We appreciate the opportunity to be engaged throughout the development of an updated LTWMP for Durham Region and for the consideration of our feedback. If you have any questions on the comments provided herein, please contact Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects (905-623-3379 ext. 2407 or flangmaidp_clar Lngton.net) or Amy Burke, Senior Planner (905-623-3379 ext. 2423 or aburke(@_clarington.net). Sincerely, n le, Director Plann ng and Development Services Municipality of Clarington cc: Mayor and Members of Council Andy Allison, CAO Department Heads Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects Amy Burke, Senior Planner The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local: 905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net 3 [[E❑❑ PDS -008-22 Attachment 4: Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York Energy Centre Screening Report (December 2021) Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the agreed to modelling methodology / data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taking into consideration Recommendation #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 from Dillon, as described in Attachment 2. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (Dillon Recommendation #5). Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP include the Courtice MTSA in the AQIA and assess whether the proposal may have potential negative effects on the future development of this area and the Municipality's ability to achieve provincial and regional land use policy requirements. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP consider the current waste composition scenario and the future "pre-sorted" waste composition scenario as part of the demonstration of compliance with air quality limits that the Regions are required to undertake to support their ECA Amendment application for the proposed throughput increase. Recommendation: That the Municipality request Durham confirm how it has addressed the applicable requirements of the Host Community Agreement. Recommendation: That the Municipality reaffirm its previous request to the Region and MECP that the Site - Specific HHERA be comprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies for the EA to expand the DYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacity. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP undertake additional technical studies as a component of the ECA Amendment application to verify that the no increase in odours is expected from the proposal (Dillon Recommendation #6). Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to prevent the risk of nitrogen dioxide exceedances identified in the AQIA, where practicable. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region and MECP commit to public consultation as a component of the ECA Amendment process to provide the Municipality and the Public opportunity to review and provide comment on the application, including all supporting technical studies and other documents. 3 rn Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase (from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) Environmental Screening Report (December 2021) Consolidated List of Municipality of Clarington Comments / Requests: That the Region of Durham and Region of York (Regions) and Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) review the agreed to modelling methodology / data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taking into consideration Recommendation #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 from Dillon Consulting, as described in Attachment 2 to PDS -008-22. 2. That the Regions and MECP review the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) (Golder Associates, December 2021) to confirm that all appropriate, reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (see Dillon Consulting Recommendation #5). 3. That the Regions and MECP include the Courtice Major Transit Station Area (map attached) in the AQIA and assess whether the proposal may have potential negative effects on the future development of this area and the Municipality's ability to achieve provincial and regional land use policy requirements. 4. That the Regions and MECP consider the current waste composition scenario and the future "pre-sorted" waste composition scenario as part of the demonstration of compliance with air quality limits that the Regions are required to undertake to support their Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) Amendment application for the proposed throughput increase. 5. That Durham confirm how it has addressed the applicable requirements of the Host Community Agreement. 6. That the Site -Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) be comprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies to expand the DYEC to process 160,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacity and that the HHERA include the south Clarington airshed as a whole, and include a toxicological assessment and a satisfactory opinion from the Medical Officer of Health for Durham Region. 7. That the Regions and MECP undertake additional technical studies as a component of the ECA Amendment application to verify that the no increase in odours is expected from the proposal (see Dillon Recommendation #6). 8. That the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to prevent the risk of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and benzo[a]pyrene exceedances identified in the AQIA, where practicable. 9. That the Regions and MECP commit to public consultation as a component of the ECA Amendment process to provide the Municipality and the Public opportunity to 3 UL❑❑ review and provide comment on the application, including all supporting technical studies and other documents. 10. That the Regions and MECP confirm that all stack parameters and emission rates have been appropriately characterized. 3 [[E❑❑ The surrounding context is rapidly evolving Legend Urban Boundary O Secondary Plan Boundaries O Environmental Areas O Parkland OHighway & Utility O Planned Residential Use O Planned Regional Corridor Use O Planned Mixed Use O Planned Employment Uses MTSA Boundary Existing and Planned Land Use@ontext 30 If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact The Regional Municipality of Durham at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3560. 777W71)) 1 ■� 1 DURHAM REGION February 18, 2022 Kathleen O'Neill, Director Environmental Assessment Branch 135 St Clair Ave W, Floor 1 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1 P5 Dear: Ms. O'Neill: RE: Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes per Year — Notice of Extending Comment Period with the Municipality of Clarington In accordance with section B.2.1.13 of Environmental Screening Report guidelines, The Regional Municipality of Durham, and The Regional Municipality of York (Regions), have agreed with the Municipality of Clarington (Clarington) to continue discussions for a mutually acceptable specified period beyond the 60 -day review period. The Regions have received comments and recommendations from Clarington regarding the ongoing Environmental Screening Process for the Durham York Energy Centre's throughput increase. Following receipt of Clarington's comments and recommendations by the DYEC Project Team, a meeting was held on February 11, 2022, between Regional and Clarington Municipal staff with support from Technical Consultants. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the comments and recommendations, prepare draft responses, and set a preferred path forward for the parties to resolve the comments, given the closure of the 60 -day review period on February 18, 2022. Given the nature of the comments and the timeline of the current process, both parties acknowledged that the issues were unlikely to be resolved prior to the closure of the comment period. Given the impending process timeline, and with the understanding that Clarington Staff will need to respond to their Council, the parties agreed that it would be acceptable to continue the discussions, to finalize resolutions prior to Clarington's March 14, 2022 Council meeting. Please accept this letter as notification that the Regions and Municipality of Clarington will continue to have discussions beyond the February 18, 2022 comment period and will conclude prior to Clarington's March 14, 2022 Council meeting. Sincerely, \�\w Gioseph Anello, M.Eng., P.Eng., PMP Director, Waste Management Services The Regional Municipality of Durham 905-668-7711 extension 3445 Gioseph.Anello@durham.ca C. Laura McDowell, P.Eng. Director, Environmental Promotion and Protection The Regional Municipality of York 905-830-4444 extension 75077 Laura.McDowell@york.ca A. Evans, Project Manager, Waste Planning and Technical Services, Regional Municipality of Durham M. Farid, Contract Management Engineer, Environmental Services, Regional Municipality of York F. Langmaid, Acting Director, Planning and Development Services, Municipality of Clarington A. Burke, Senior Planner, Planning and Development Services, Municipality of Clarington E. Lee, Regional Environmental Planner, Project Review Unit, Environmental Assessment Branch, MECP Enclosed. Via Email to: EABDirector(a,Ontario.ca And info(adurhamyorkwaste.ca February 18, 2022. Director, Environmental Assessment Branch Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 135 St. Clair Avenue W, 1st floor Toronto, ON M4V 1P5 Mr. Andrew Evans, M.A.Sc, P.Eng Project Manager, DYEC Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road, East Whitby, ON LIN 6A3 Re: Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 Proponents: The Regional Municipality of Durham, The Regional Municipality of York ELEVATION REOUEST FOR AN INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I am writing to formally request that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act which would elevate the project to an Individual Environmental Assessment. Part A: Basis of Request 1. The Regions have failed to assess the potential adverse health and ecological impacts of burning up to an additional 20,000 tonnes per year for an unspecified number of years. The Regions have failed to adequately identify and assess the range of potential environmental effects of the project required by the Ministry as part of the Environmental Screening Process. The Regions have failed to identify and assess the potential adverse effects of the project on Water, Land, Natural Environment, Socio -Economic well being, including adverse impacts on public health and safety. The Regions have failed to adequately assess the potential adverse effects of the project on Air. The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) completed by the Region to assess potential negative impacts on air concentrations did not accurately nor conservatively assess those impacts. The AQIA used incorrect methodology to estimate the volumetric flow rate for the 160,000 TPA scenario; the error propagated through the entire assessment and resulted in incorrect and underestimated predictions of air impact. See Sections 1.3.1, 1.3.2, pages 9 to 18. Even with its flaws, the AQIA documents elevated levels of some pollutants and exceedances of air criteria in some instances. The Regions, however, failed to conduct additional studies and mitigation to address these findings as required by the Environmental Screening Process. 2. The Regions have also failed to properly consult with, and update the community, between 2019-2021. All PIC consultations were held in 2019 and before the two studies IMVSSRLVZZF15 Hf IIZ [k 65 ❑the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) and Acoustic Assessment - were produced. There has been no public consultation since 2019. NO consultation for two years. The Regions posted their Notice of Completion (two versions), ESR and Air Assessment (AQIA) and Acoustic Assessment on December 20, 2021- just prior to the holiday period. The Regions have not provided a PIC since 2019 for public citizens to have the opportunity to be informed on the ESR including updates to key reports including the Air Assessment (AQIA). The AQIA had significant updates and changes from the earlier 2019 Technical Memorandum. Furthermore, there are two public Advisory Committees for the DYEC who have not met since the ESR has been posted and have not had the opportunity to discuss and ask questions of staff and consultants as a Committee on the ESR, including the AQIA report. The Energy -From -Waste Advisory Committee (EFWAC) was established to satisfy a Condition of EA Approval set by the Minister of the Environment. The Energy -From -Waste Waste Management Committee was established as part of the Host Community Agreement between Clarington and Durham Region. Consideration of these project documents is necessary for the Committees to fulfill their mandates. Section A.3.1 on Public Consultation in the 0 ( ❑3 wide to environmental assessment requirements for waste management projects VIHSiBtSRSxEQ�[ERQ�Q❑ SUUUP commence early in the Environmental Screening Process and continue throughout the process as necessary= The Regions failed to consult throughout the process. They have failed to adhere to the Ministry Guide. 2 3 TFIF] Part B: The Nature of the Specific Environmental Requests that Remain Unresolved 1. Regions have failed to assess the potential adverse health and ecological impacts of burning up to an additional 20,000 tonnes per year for an unspecified number of years. Please note that Linda Gasser and I, in response to our request to meet, were granted a meeting with the Regions for one hour on February 16th, 2022. While we had some questions answered, the time given was inadequate to get to all our questions. I have attached the two documents containing the comments and questions I submitted to the Regions in advance of the meeting. We were able to ask some of the questions of greatest concern to us and we were not satisfied ❑DKMMWRRS RQks. The following critical unresolved concerns, errors, problems, and requests remain. 1.1 Failures with Process Start with 7IgU Hf IROVERP SONDOW[Screeniniz Criteria Checklist As part of the Process, the Regions decided what effects they needed to check off on the Screening Criteria checklist. They did not check off items regarding effects to land, ecosystems, and public health as being potentially negatively impacted by the increasing garbage burning capacity by 20,000 tonnes per year (from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes of garbage per year) The only environmental item the Regions checked off as potential problem was impact to air and proceeded to determine that the only environmental study (in addition to acoustic assessment) that was needed was one focused solely on impacts on air concentrations. The Regions did not consider the impacts to land and on human health via multiple pathways when 20,000 additional tonnes of garbage are permitted for burning every year for an unspecified number of years (15-25 years?) the incinerator is in operation. This mass loading is significant and must not be ignored. The Regions confirmed at our meeting that they did not assess mass loading. For that reason, the Environmental Screening (ESR) has failed to adequately assess the impacts of the 160,000 tonnes per year case. In S ection 3.3, on page 2 7 FJ Al'i [I • 5 EN -15 f: ' «t2i■ i I ■ \WOf'YTENN (UK- )GGDN= KHHQffHvVU= KHI&ated Al 9 I: it ■D% ■ 111 considered • . of - • , A, M A ■ 111■K1 TI ' \ 11 ill■ conservative• operating underrequested capacity increase to 160,000 ■• f: 1111 \ 1111111 ■Ill\,' R� . • AL. A 111 L I-11 NJI i1TV ■ ■ • fl Illi �� fl 110111■■■■IIIIf\l'1D iX'!'1 111 1 111 I ■ 1.'t: l i\1'� I. it IIa11] Those statements are unsupportable. There are many inputs and assumptions in the EA studies that are no longer current. For example, background air concentrations have changed, local industrial activities ❑including that St Marys Cement Bowmanville, located less than 5 km 3 away, is now able to burn 400 tonnes of garbage per day, and with many developments in the area, receptors of concern have changed. The Regions do not list the Site Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) which was completed for the original EA as one of the studies they considered when reviewing potential Socio -Economic impacts (see Section 3.11, page 68 of ESR). This indicates they failed to consider that important study when they checked of the Socio -Economic Item does VZBilRl DMMII xE( XMXDQM W' FM They also do not list the HHERA as a document they considered for Land (Section 3.7), Surface Water and Ground Water (Section 3.6), Natural Environment (Section 3.9) and Air and Noise (Section 3.8). Furthermore, it appears that the Regions failed to review the Ministry Review of the original EA. That document includes expert reviews identifying many issues and problems with the EA, and some reviewers advised further mitigation measures for a number of pollutants, including for the 140,000 TPA case. Some reviewers also cautioned that their review was up to 140,000 TPA. I have attached the Ministry Review of the original EA to this submission. 1.2 Issues Identified During EA Demonstrate Need for More Scrutiny than ESR has Provided: Additional Mass Loading Could Have Adverse Impacts on Land, Ecosystems and Public Health and Should Have Been Studied Air Quality/Health/Environmental Concerns Registered at time of EA: ❑ NO2 Annual ambient values (2008) measured at Courtice Road station highest in Southwestern Ontario (including Windsor, Hamilton, Sarnia, Toronto)' ❑ mP EWII ITOURIM"K ❑ MQ3FDMV9dMWUW RFRW IQW (PM2.5 and ozone), the monitored data marginally complies or exceeds applicable P I Ill (Mr. Victor Low, Director, Section 9, Environmental Protection Act) ❑ Ozone ambient levels exceeded air quality criteria at Courtice station ❑ Health Canada identified health concerns for PM2.5, NO2, and Respiratory Irritants exposures assessed in the EA for both the 140,000 TPA and 400,000 TPA scenarios and Health Canada recommended additional mitigation measures for these pollutants.' The 'Air Quality Assessment Technical Study Report (AQATSR), Durham York Residual Waste Study, Jacques Whitford Consultants, July 31, 2009, Appendix A, Figure A-2-4, (also Figure 7-10 in HHERA, Dec 2009, page 174) Z Review of the Durham and York Residual Waste StudyAmended Environmental Assessment, Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2010, (subsequent reference Ministry Review), page 109 (pdf), Quote is Comment 8 submitted September 25, 2009, by MOE reviewer Victor Low, P. Eng., Director, Section 9, Environmental Protection Act s Ibid, page 125, Health Canada comments, September 25, 2009, reviewer Melanie Lalani on Durham/York Residual Waste Study Environmental Assessment Study 4 Regions, however, did not act on this advice. Now, in 2022, the Regions are asking for a permit that goes in the opposite direction F1 instead of mitigating pollution exposure, the Regions are applying to do the opposite and increase pollution by burning an additional 20,000 tonnes per year for the next 20(?) to 30(?) years. ❑ Potential risks to human health (Concentration Ratio (CR) values 5 o For Chemical Mixtures: Number of Receptors and Effects including Liver Effects to the Farmer -Infant (HQ=117)8 ❑ TIBIO DW RgF"J - ❑ MDI ❑ risk assessment did not suffice for the 400,000 TPA assessment and listed improvements needed for Ministry to determine if assessment appropriately characterized health risk9 ❑ 7IFIO QX4LM 14 RQFRR(&T DKV" ❑ MUNC risk assessment in a letter dated October 19, 200910; in conclusions in a subsequent letter dated January 2010 he made clear his comments were contingent on the 140,000 TPA scenario - not the 400,000 TPA scenario - and that the proponent has committed to FFRQCPT)XW TQSW support any increased capacity of the facility beyond 140,000 t/y that may occur in the future L111 ❑ Regarding Soil Loading predictions in the original EA, Section 6.2 of the HHERA states m IM LLBQG= HUMEW DGRSHDKQDQasuTHxxsw scenarios respectively was observed, as well as a 4.6 and 6.7% loading for inorganic P HFXl]jZ ❑ Regarding Surface Water predictions in the original EA, for the 140,000 TPA case, Cadmium levels were predicted to increase by 9.3% under normal operations and 13% under process upset conditions; Lead increased by 3.1% (normal) and by 4.5% (process upset); Silver by 4.5% (normal) and by 6.6% (process upset); Thallium by 17% (normal) and 25% (process upset)13 ❑ Regarding Sediment Loading predictions in the original EA, for the 140,000 TPA case, Dioxins/Furans increased by 33% under normal operations and by 92% under process upset conditions; Mercury increased by 54% under normal operations and by 78% under process upset conditions14 ❑ Regarding Fish Loading predictions in the original EA, for the 140,000 TPA case, Cadmium increased by 52% under normal operations and 75% for process upset; Lead by 4.6% (normal) and 6.7% (process upset); Tin by 108% (normal) and 157% (process $ HHERA, Table 7-18, page 194 9 Ministry Review, Comments of Ministry Supervisor, Human Toxicology, Barry Lubek, June 25 2009, page 85 " Ministry Review, Comments of Ministry Toxicologist Samir Abdel-Ghafar, October 19, 2009, page 80 "Ministry Review, Ministry Toxicologist comments by Samir Abdel-Ghafar, January 112010, page 189, Comment 1 12 HHERA, December 10, 2009, Section 6.2 page 76 13 HHERA, December 10, 2009, Table 6-2 Predicted Surface Water Loading as a Result of Normal and Process Upset Operation over a 30 Year Period for 140,000 tpy and 400,000 tpy, pages 81-82 14 HHERA, December 10, 2009, Table 6-3 Predicted Sediment Loading as a Result of Normal and Process Upset Operation over a 30 Year Period for 140,000 tpy and 400,000 tpy, pages 83-84 11 upset); Methyl Mercury concentrations were not measured in the baseline fish, so percent loading of methyl mercury was not predicted 15 GiY-Q �IIII T�FOW MI- MW WM ( ❑3 MQC1Tf)WMDq]ED®QGWU HfH?Q�M own site-specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) identified concerns and potential risks for PM2.5, NO2, and Respiratory Irritants at this site and that expert advice included requests for additional mitigation, the Proponents should have reviewed the HHERA and the Ministry Review and updated the HHERA as necessary. L]MVWU 11l1Qv1REQL1 ❑( 5 ❑ IGD] ❑ MAXHUWQIl1WVhcreases in the loading to soil, surface water, sediments, and fish for various contaminants in the 140,000 TPA case, including dioxins/furans, mercury, cadmium, lead, and tin, the Regions should have reviewed the HHERA to evaluate environmental impacts when completing the screening criteria checklist and should have updated the HHERA for the 160,000 TPA case. The Proponents have failed to provide the evidence that there will be no potential negative impacts on public health and safety, nor to land, water, the natural environment and other living organisms ❑II'IQ�II MQV[MUspecific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) done at the time of the EA identified potential risks in its Multi -Pathway Assessment for various scenarios and pollutants including for infants and toddlers for PCBs and dioxins and furans and Chemical Mixtures, and that dioxins/furans are non -threshold pollutants, and that dioxin and furan emissions are a well known issue with incinerators and that there have been stack exceedances for dioxins and furans at this incinerator, and that there has been an ambient air exceedance for dioxin and furans next to this incinerator, and that dioxins and furans persist and bio -accumulate in the environment in agricultural products and ultimately in all living organisms, and that the incinerator is surrounded by subdivisions, schools, major employment centres, as well as agricultural lands, the Proponents needed to provide evidence that it would be safe to add additional dioxin/furan burden to the present community with the 160,000 TPA capacity increase. As Dr. Copes of Public Health Ontario previously advised Durham Region that using air benchmarks to characterize risk for PM2.5 was not appropriate, and given that expert reviewers have identified elevated levels of PM2.5 at the site and that elevated levels persist at the site 16, and given that the incinerator emits significant quantities of filterable and condensable PM2.5 and that these emissions will increase with the 160,000 TPA proposal, and since the AQIA did not assess the condensable fraction of PM2.5,17and that the condensable fraction of the SCC he majority of the I FLQADaR[ RTM2.5 emissions 18 and that the condensable fraction poses the greatest health risk, and that it is scientifically well established that PM2.5 is a 15 HHERA, December 10, 2009, Table 6-9 Predicted Fish Loading as a Result of Normal and Process Upset Operation over a 30 Year Period for 140,000 tpy and 400,000 toy, pages 98-99 16 7 non -threshold pollutant and that the ultrafine particulate of PM2.5 pose high risk to human health, the Proponents have failed to provide evidence that the health risks of PM2.5 have been adequately assessed in their AQIA assessment of PM2.5 which only compares filterable PM2.5 modelled concentrations against air benchmark project criteria. The Regions have confirmed that the AQIA and ESR have not been reviewed by a Human Health Toxicologist. The Regions confirmed that they have not received opinions regarding public health safety and the potential impacts of the project from the Medical Officers of Health for Durham and York Regions. The Ministry Human Health Toxicologists identified concerns at the time of the EA and the Regulatory Toxicologist advised that a new environmental study would be required if any expansion is required in the future. There have been numerous ambient air exceedances for respiratory irritants as well as an ambient air exceedance for dioxins and furans and there have been stack exceedances as well. Attachment 4 to this submission is a compilation of the ambient air exceedances summarized in the DYEC annual ambient air reports. The Regions had Ministry approval and Toxicologist review up to 140,000 TPA. There has been no health expert that has reviewed this proposal to burn 160,000 TPA and provided opinion on potential human health and ecological impacts. The Regions have also failed to assess the impacts of the project on Lake Ontario. This was also not assessed in the original EA. The Regions have failed to identify and assess the potential adverse effects of the project on Water, Land, Natural Environment, Socio -Economic well being, including adverse impacts on Public Health and Safety. 1.3 The Regions Have Failed to Adequately Assess Potential Adverse Effects on Air The Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) completed by the Region to assess potential negative impacts on air concentrations did not accurately nor conservatively assess those impacts. The AQIA used incorrect methodology to estimate the volumetric flow rate for the 160,000 TPA scenario; the error propagated through the entire assessment and resulted in incorrect and underestimated predictions of air impact. E3 m■■ Details of Concerns with Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) 1.3.1 Inconsistency/Error with Flow Rate Calculation Impacts Emission Rates and Entire AQIA As part of the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report, December 2021 (ESR) to support their proposal to increase incinerator burning capacity to 160,000 TPA, Durham and York Regions submitted the Air Quality Impact Assessment, December 2021 (AQIA)19. The AQIA concluded that: ❑2 YHLMAY-LIHIOMAY-LPR6HM2JLLEILLPIQFQIFBUEWDWM60,000 tpa would result in a small overall decrease in the maximum predicted concentration for all contaminants and the change in cumulative concentrations would be even less significant. The decrease is attributed to increased stack gas temperature and flowrate which improve the dispersion characteristics of the facility V1 This 2021 AQIA assessment claim that maximum environmental emission concentrations will decrease when tonnage of waste burned increases demands scrutiny. The ESR documents describe that to determine the impacts of the proposal to increase capacity to 160,000 TPA an Emissions Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) update was taken in advance of the project. The ESDM update report is the Golder Technical Memorandum ❑Air Quality Impact of 160, 00 TPA Waste at Durham York Energy Centre dated February 18, 2019 and is Attachment 4 of Appendix G in the ESR. The 2019 Golder Technical Memorandum built on the existing air quality modelling which was completed for the original 2011 ESDM report by Golder which supports the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the incinerator. 21 To assess the impact of the proposed 20,000 TPA step change increase on predicted air quality concentrations, the emission rates for the 160,000 TPA scenario were calculated using the same emission factors as the 140,000 TPA scenario in the 2011 ESDM but the flow rate was adjusted according to source testing done.22 " Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report, December 2021 (ESR) https://www.d urha myorkwaste.ca/en/faci I ity- approvals/resources/Documents/2021%20Environmental%20Screening%20Report/Accessible 2022/20220119 DY EC ESR FINAL ACC.pdf 20 Air Quality Impact Assessment, December2021 (AQIA), Golder Associates Ltd., Section 8.0 Conclusions, page 51, https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/facility- approvals/resources/Documents/2021%20Environmental%20Screening%20Report/Appendix%20D%20Air%20Qual ity%201mpact%20Assessment December%202021FINAL.pdf 21 Durham/York Notice of Request to Consult, November 18, 2019, page 4; Notice is in the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report, December 2021 (ESR), Appendix G, Consultation Summary, page 44 of pdf 22 Golder Technical Memorandum O] The 2019 Technical Memorandum states flow rate was adjusted to source testing; however, it appears that the temperature was not adjusted. The Ministry should determine if the temperature used in the AQIA is appropriate. The 2019 results were subsequently compared to the original 140,000 TPA scenario found in the 2011 ESDM.23 The same background data was used for the 140,000 TPA and 160,000 TPA scenarios to assess cumulative effects.24 Section 2.0 of the Golder 2019 Technical Memorandum provides a Solid Waste Refuse Firing Diagram (Figure 1) as part of their facility description and is pasted on the next page (I have added highlighting and annotations to Figure 1). (The same diagram was used in the 2011 ESDM report.) https://www.d urha myorkwaste.ca/en/faci I ity- approvals/resources/Documents/2021%20Environmenta1%20Screening%20Report/REVISED%20- %20December%2021/Appendix%20G Consultation%20Sumary%20RPT.pdf 2s Ibid. 24 Ibid, page 2 3 Ell[][] 10 2.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION DYEC operates two identical combustion trains, each of which are designed to process a nominal 218 tonnes per day of MSW referenced at 13 MJlkg specific energy content. This amounts to a total heat release of approximately 118 GJlhour or 33.64 tonnes/hour of steam. This is defined as the maximum continuous rating [MCR] of the units. However, since the refuse will have continuously varying characteristics, the control system adjusts throughput to maintain the heat release necessary to attain a target steam production rate. The mass and heat input range of each grate is represented in the Solid Waste Refuse Firing Diagram below (Figure 1 ). 140 134 LLJ ion d N 50 a LU W SO H 4 u W 2 60 REFUSE FIRING DIAGRAM COMANTA 140,000 TPA Case 160,000 TPA Case ;� \.i6.o hWft 74.UMJ0t9 9a.a M1i1 ,yp µykg ........................ ................................... � 1T.S MJ.pq 1 • e.oT n.0Wky 1 flE% MCR 1 ........... 1Q.6 kWlkg 10R 2 10.0 W!kq ......................... y Nominal Case 0.0 KAg W Al ao1 0.i NLI� �o d1 Dost 143 r• 1743 19aa 211, 130 $0 230 250 REFUSE THROUGHPUT {TonneslDAYj Figure 1 : 8ase facility Refuse Diagram For the ECA application, DYEC was modelled operating at reference point 2' as this results in the highest concentration possible for each contaminant modelled. Reference point 2' equates to the facility operating at a waste throughput of 216 tonnes per day, per unit, of MSW. This would occur for approximately 325 days per year to achieve an annual throughput of 140,000 tonnes per year This is defined as the 140,000 TPA Scenario. The waste processing rate of 216 tonnes per unit, per day which occurs at reference point 2' is not sufficient to achieve an annual throughput of 160,000 tonnes. To achieve this MSW processing rate, DYEC would have to be operating at 1101% MGR at reference point 1' to process approximately 232 tonnes per day per unit of MSW and produce 37 tonnes per hour of steam. This would occur for approximately 345 days per year to achieve an annual throughput of 160,000 tonnes per year. This is defined as the 1130,000 TPA Scenario. The 140,000 TPA scenario is defined as 216 tonnes/day per unit, operating 325 days per year and is U1FHiTF1SR1QWTTQ3d4H1IG UP. The 160,000 TPA case is defined as 232 tonnes/day per S1=L>�T ®�[5H-1fIH� ®QQ�H�QRLQ� In the 2019 Memorandum 160,000 TPA Scenario, emission rates for contaminants with averaging periods of 30 days or less were calculated using the in -stack emission limits listed in the current ECA, where applicable, or using the emission factors listed in the ESDM Report, which are provided on a mass per flow basis at reference conditions. As the facility was now " Golder Technical Memorandum, 2019, Section 2.0, page 3 11 3 [[1❑] operational, the flow rate for the 2019 160,000 TPA scenario was calculated using observed data.26 The 2019 Technical Memorandum describes the observed data conditions: ®wring source testing completed in October 2017, DYEC processed 205 tonnes per day per unit of MSW and produced 32.75 tonnes per hour of steam T. The 2021 AQIA uses 2020 source testing stack emissions data for some of the pollutants for its 140,000 TPA scenario 28, however the exhaust flow rate and stack exhaust temperature for the 2021 140,000 TPA scenario remain the same as the 2019 Technical Memorandum.29 Regarding the exhaust flow rates for the 2021 160,000 TPA, there is a fundamental discrepancy and error in the 2021 AQIA calculation of the volumetric flow rate at reference conditions for the 160,000 TPA case which would impact the emission predictions and potentially the conclusions. The process by which the volumetric flow rate (reference conditions) was calculated in the 2021 AQUA is of significant concern and appears to be in error because, in addition to being contrary to the procedure described in Section 3.0 of the 2019 Golder Technical Memorandum, it also does not appear to follow scientific laws. Section 3.0 of the 2019 Golder Technical Memorandum describes the procedure stating: ❑y R®il I Fill I I 13 ❑CBFf❑ SIB ❑❑�� (corrected to reference conditions) was multiplied by the ratio of the steam production at 110% MCR to the steam production during source testing to calculate the exhaust flow rate at 110% MCR (at reference conditions FFT bolding added) This 2019 statement asserts that to extrapolate the 140,000 TPA volumetric flow rate to the 160,000 TPA scenario, the multiplication by the ratio of steam productions must be applied to the 140,000 TPA volumetric rate AT REFERENCE CONDITIONS. Multiplying at reference conditions is consistent with scientific principles (see reference to Ideal Gas Law below). However, in the 2021 AQIA, the multiplication by the ratio of steam productions is applied to the 140,000 TPA volumetric rate AT ACTUAL CONDITIONS. The consultants then took that result and converted it back to reference conditions. Thus, it appears the 160,000 TPA volumetric rate at reference conditions is INCORRECT. The ratio of Csteam productions ❑at 160,000 TPA and 140,000 TPA is stated as approximately 1.13 .30 This is consistent with other information stated previously: the measured stack flow rate 26 2019 Golder Technical Memorandum, Section 3.0, page 4 2' 2019 Golder Technical Memorandum, Section 3.0, page 4 28 AQIA 2' Golder Technical Memorandum, 2019, Section 4.10, Table 2, page 7 and AQIA, Table 10, Section 5.3, page 27 30 AQIA, December 2011, Section 5.3, page 27 12 3 ❑❑ used for the 140,000 TPA actual volumetric flow rate was measured/observed during a 2017 source test burning at a rate of 205 tonnes/day per unit. The 160,000 TPA case is defined at 232 tonnes/day per unit. The ratio of masses is 232/205 13 METHODOLOGY USED IN 2021 AQIA CF1-1.226 _ CF2-1.328 CORRECT METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN 2019 MEMORANDUM 1 CNS 1.226 x n=1.13 I x CF2=1.328 where VFR stands for volumetric flow rate CF, is the factor the 2021 AQIA used to account for the change in volume caused by the difference in parameters between 140k TPA actual and reference conditions (405.37K and 298.15K) CF2 is the factor the 2021 AQIA used to account for the change in volume caused by the difference in parameters between 160k TPA actual and reference conditions (413.5K and 298.15K) n is the ratio of the daily tonnage between the 140k TPA and 160k TPA scenarios (called ratio of steam production in reports). This is calculated: (232 tonnes per day) l (205 tonnes per day) - 1.13 2021 AQIA RESULT: VFR @ 160k TPA REF _ VFR @ 140k TPA ACTUAL x 1.13 - 1.328 1.226 VFR @ 140k TPA REF VFR @ 140k TPA ACTUAL _ 1.226 — 1.13 x 1.328 - 1.05 CORRECT RESULT: VFR @ 160k TPA REF _ VFR @ 140k TPA ACTUAL - 1.226 x 1.137 VFR @ 140k TPA REF VFR @ 140k TPA ACTUAL - 1.226 = 1.13 Thus, the increase in volumetric flow rate at reference conditions is significantly underestimated. Instead of a 5% increase in the 160,000 TPA case, there should be a 13% increase. As the 160,000 TPA volumetric flow rate (reference conditions) was used in the 2021 AQIA assessment as a factor to calculate emission rates of pollutants for the 160,000 TPA scenario, the error in its calculation would affect those emission rates directly. If the volumetric flow rate increases by 13%, the emission rates would increase by 13%. 14 Such an error would propagate throughout the rest of the report and result in underestimated point of impingement (POI) concentrations for the 160,000 TPA scenario and the AQIA conclusions would be based on incorrect information and false comparisons. Further scientific justification to dispute the methodology used in the 2021 AQIA can be derived from a simple application of the ideal gas law. This states that for modelling a simple gas, the following relation holds: 15 Region before the deadline for elevation requests (February 18 202 1) and they advised that was not possible, but that responses would be given at a later date in a consultation record. The concern, discrepancy and error remain unresolved. The reviewer for the Municipality of Clarington also expressed concerns regarding the flow rate FDgXBNQ FMWI3A�RV6RVUEOPKU-FRQFl0PKHl]UE UWVDQGIEP IV<HW rates presented for the existing and proposed scenarios. A detailed technical review is required to G%& U4 FM I 7HM!W P HTHI WM N[jFISDWMWW it request that the Regions and MECP confirm that all stack parameters and emission rates have been appropriately characterized." I urge the MECP to conduct a detailed technical scientific review of the inconsistency and error described above for the volumetric flow rate for the 160,000 TPA (reference conditions). This error would result in significant underestimation of the emission rates for 160,000 TPA case. Emission rates in the AQIA increase by 5%, but it should be 13%. This is a significant increase and would affect modelled concentrations and potentially the conclusions. The ESR AQIA is inadequate for assessing air impacts. It contains a fundamental inconsistency/error. 1.3.2 Inconsistencies with March 2011 ESDM: Concern with Selection of Maximum Scenario There are likely further implications if the AQIA is in error, and it would have implications for the March 2011 ESDM that supports the incinerator ECA. In the Refuse Firing Diagram included earlier and again below, the March 2011 ESDM states: E7ISHIIArea 4-5-6-8-m3-) is the rated continuous operating range of a thermal WIWH 4 The March 2011 ESDM UIFLXW5 HII HS MOE -M KHVfR P with 110% MCR and refers to SRIQ FII: HS UMQAMIP DUP )T [SRS BH�W impacts d5. A similar statement is in Section 2.0 of the 2019 Golder Technical Memorandum .36 33 Air Quality Review of Proposed Increase to Throughput at DYEC February 7th, 2022 Hamish Corbett-Hains, M.A.Sc., P.Eng Associate, Senior Air Quality Engineer, Presentation to Clarington Joint Committees 34 Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling Report to support DYEC ECA Application, March 2011, Golder Associates, (March 2011 ESDM) Section 4.1, page 15; this is the ESDM which supports current DYEC ECA. "Ibid (March 2011 ESDM), page 19 36 Golder Technical Memorandum, 2019, Section 2.0 16 2.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION DYEC operates two identical combustion trains, each of which are designed to process a nominal 218 tonnes per day of MSW referenced at 13 MJlkg specific energy content. This amounts to a total heat release of approximately 118 GJ)hour or 33.64 tonneslhour of steam. This is defined as the maximum continuous rating (MCR) of the units. However, since the refuse will have continuously varying characteristics, the control system adjusts throughput to maintain the heat release necessary to attain a target steam production rate. The mass and heat input range of each grate is represented in the Solid Waste Refuse Firing Diagram below (Figure 1). 140 130 120 REFUSE FIRING DIAGRAM C11 V 5.4TA 60 130 'ao 230 280 REFUSE THROUGHPUT JonnesIDAY) Figure 1: Base facility Refuse Diagram Exhibit 4 in the March 2011 ESDM gives estimates for the actual flow rates at each operating point37 including: Point x]140,000 TPA scenario) is 26.1 Ami/s Point x]160,000 TPA scenario) is 25.3 Ami/s Point 8 is 26.3 Ami/s In summary, the March 2011 ESDM Exhibit 4 values show the actual volumetric flow rates decreasing for the 160,000 TPA case. This would be inconsistent with the suggested corrected estimated flow rate increasing for 160,000 TPA, and it is also inconsistent with the 2021 AQIA estimated actual flow rate increasing for the 160,000 TPA case. There has been no explanation for the inconsistencies and contradictions in these two documents. The ECA does not have a daily limit on the amount the Regions can burn at the facility. I confirmed this with the Regions at our meeting on February 16, 2022. There can and will be days when the facility is burning above the nominal amount of 218 tonnes/day - it is within their air permit and operating range to burn up to 270 tonnes/day/train. 37 March 2011 ESDM, Golder Associates, Section 4.1, Exhibit 4, page 18 17 3 CF] 7IFI0 IUKI LSI 6 L1 MiXILN3RLMELIds the reference point which would result in the KJRN EOfl MaB2 , epresented the maximum potential ambient impacts.38 I asked the Regions to provide the rationale and the supporting information, including any source testing, that 3RlQi ISRlW DSP V [SR'VJEOKFP SIFVds required by Section 10 of O. Reg. 419/05. They were not able to provide any supporting rationale and confirmed that they had not source tested at higher throughput points (including Points 7 and 8) in their operating envelope. The Regions made the FRP P I HXVI) UJQI ILL III UP K3HMFQTML not in line with their ESDM which uses that diagram to define their operating range of each train of the Facility. The March 2011 ESDM also specifies that the grate capacity per train was designed to accommodate 270 tonnes/day/train. Given the AQIA calculations show that emission rates increase with increased refuse throughput, it appears Point 8 with garbage throughput at 270 tonnes per day per train, should have been considered in the AQIA as the point with the maximum possible emissions impact. It would have the highest emission rate due to the highest volumetric flow rate and it is still within the DYEC operating range. There are further implications whether the present ESDM, and furthermore, source testing (the AQIA relied on 2020 source testing) have been done properly and in accordance with O. Reg 419/05, Sections 10, 11 and 12. 1.3.3 AQIA Did Not Assess Impact of Increased Throughput on Combustion and Potential Effects on Emissions and Did Not Discuss Best Control Practices To assess the impact of the proposed 20,000 TPA step change increase on predicted air quality concentrations, the scope of the AQIA was limited to an assessment of how increased mass burned affected flow rate which in turn affected air concentrations. There are operational aspects and potential air impacts of the increased throughput that could have very significant impacts on emissions, but they appear to have not been considered. 1. Increased throughputs without increasing the size of the furnace/capacity can be expected to increase particulate matter carry-over and eventually loadings to the air pollution control equipment. 2. Increased waste throughputs could result in reduced combustion residence times which may increase air emissions of products of incomplete combustion (PICs), including dioxins and furans. 38 Ibid, Section 4.1, page 19 18 3. Increased waste throughputs could result in less turbulence and mixing in the combustion zone (less oxygen availability) leading to poorer combustion and result in increased emissions of PICs. 4. Increased waste throughputs can result in increased furnace exit temperatures which by the time the flue gas exits the stack the anticipated increase in stack gas temperature is proportionally smaller than the temperature increase in the furnace zone. Section 5.1 of Guideline A-7 sets out the requirements for combustion temperature, combustion residence time, combustion air distribution, oxygen availability and gas -phase turbulence and mixing. Guideline A-7 Section 5.1.6 Range of Operations NINIMP" be designed and operated to achieve the required temperature, residence time, oxygen availability and turbulence over the expected range of operation, taking into account feed rate variations, as well as ultimate analysis, heating value, ash and moisture content of the waste together with combustion air requirements and heat losses m The Proponents have not discussed how the existing unit will be able to conform to the design and operation requirements in MECP Guideline A-7 with this proposal as they have confirmed to us at our meeting that they have not tested at the increased throughput. The Proponents have not provided a detailed heat and mass balance ultimate analysis. To ensure best available control efforts are continually being demonstrated, the Proponents should have considered and implemented measures which conform with the best available pollution control (BACT) requirements in leading jurisdictions, including the United States (US federal requirements for air pollution control with respect to waste combustion units, such as 40CFR60 subpart AAAA and/or subpart Eb). The Proponents advised at our meeting that they did not look at BACT requirements in other jurisdictions for the ESR to increase capacity to 160,000 TPA. 1.3.4 AQIA Project Scenarios Do Not Consider Shut Down/Process Upset Scenarios: The Emissions Scenarios considered in the March 2011 ESDM PQ FJQNTDQ3HLTI these various scenarios: (110% MCR Both Units, 110% MCR Single Unit, Phase 2 Start up both units, Phase 2 Start-up one unit, Phase 1 Start-up both units, Phase 1 Start-up one unit, ID Fans on, 110% Both Units with Silo Filling and Standby Generator testing) 39 Shut -down and process upset scenarios were not listed as Emissions Scenarios in the March 2011 ESDM.ao " March 2011 ESDM, Golder Associates Section 4.1, Exhibit 2, page 16 40 Ibid. 19 3 CF] The 2021 LA, ❑ NU3Y1P DUP XP 3WLV4p and shut -down conditions remain unchanged from the existing permitted conditions and are not considered in VAP H�&1 Shut down and process upset scenarios, however, WERE NOT considered in the 2011 ECA Application. 42 The emissions scenarios of process upset and shutdown have not been assessed in the 2021 AQIA. The original EA did assess the Process Upset scenario and that method is outlined in Section 4.2.2, page 56 of the EA AQATSR. Risks were identified for Process Upset for both 140,000 TPA and 400,000 TPA assessments. Given the numerous exceedances at the stack and in the ambient air since this facility began operations in 2015, the very limited continuous monitoring at the stack and the inability to measure emissions of most of the pollutants of concern continuously, as well as the potential for formation of dioxins/furans under process upset conditions, such analysis should have been done for the 160,000 TPA scenario. 1.3.4.1 The Concern of Dioxins/Furans and Other Pollutants of Incomplete Combustion (PICS) Dioxins/furans are highly toxic and cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, and can interfere with hormones43 Dioxins/furans accumulate in food chains, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals.44 �❑ M%azardous organic PICS that have been found in the flue gas of DQEFR DM9Q5 Dioxin/furans emissions are of particular concern with incinerators.46 4' It is well established that the potential for formation of dioxins/furans under process upset conditions is very high and that production of dioxins and furans rapidly increase when operations are outside a window of good -combustion conditions. 48 41 AQIA, Section 3.0, page 17 42 March 2011 ESDM, Golder Associates, Section 4.1, Exhibit 2, page 16 43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) https://www.epa.gov/dioxin/learn-about-dioxin 44 Ibid. 41 Waste Incineration & Public Health, National Research Council (US) Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. 46 Waste Incineration & Public Health, Chapter 5 4' Health Canada Fact Sheet, 2019, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food- safety/chemical-contaminants/environmental-contaminants/dioxins-furans.html 48 Waste Incineration & Public Health, National Research Council (US) Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233627/ 20 A recen C3E1EU [DQFL hof-the-I erm stack testing, which only provides a snapshot of emissions at normal operations, greatly underestimates the real amounts dioxins and furans and persistent organic pollutants released into the air49 Another recent study done on a hazardous waste incinerator found that the total amount of PCDD/F emissions, resulting from three shutdown-startup cycles was almost equal to that generated during one year under normal operating conditions .50 De novo synthesis was found to be the major source of the dioxins/furans and that before passing through the APC filters, the dioxins/furans were mainly in the particle phase, but after being filtered the dioxins/furans prevailed in the gas phase with the dioxin/furan fraction in the gas even exceeding 98% after passing through the scrubber .51 7 fP FLE IIIA higher chlorinated dioxins and furans accumulating on inner walls of filters and ducts during these periods which could be released again during normal operation, significantly increasing PCDD/F emissions. 52 Dioxins and furans are just some of the products of incomplete combustion (PICs) from an incinerator. Examples of other PICs are CO, methane, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzo(a)pyrene) and benzene. PIC emissions depend on how well the waste is combusted, which depends on the design and state of operation of the incinerator. 53 There have been numerous -fifty (50) - ambient air exceedances for benzo(a)pyrene between 2016 and 2020 at the monitoring stations established for the DYEC incinerator.54 There have been multiple exceedances for dioxins and furans which are described below. There have also been a high number of shutdowns at the incinerator since it commenced operations. The AQIA was limited to comparing predicted modelled air concentrations of dioxins and furans - under normal operations - against a Ministry air guideline. This kind of limited risk assessment is what the U.S. National Research Council cautioned may now be considered inadequate for a complete characterization of risk in part due to their failure to account for changes in emissions during process upsets.ss The AQIA should have considered/assessed emission impacts under all process upset conditions. 49 Hidden emissions: A story from the Netherlands Case Study, Abel Arkenbout, November 2018 so Li, Wang, Cen, et al., PCDD/F emissions during startup and shutdown of a hazardous waste incinerator, Chemosphere, August 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/I.chemosphere.2017.04.044 " Ibid. 12 I bid. 53 National Research Council (US) Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration. Waste Incineration & Public Health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. 3, Incineration Processes and Environmental Releases. Available from: http5://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233627/ 54Compilation of Ambient Air Exceedances, see Attachment 4 "Ibid., Chapter 5, ©nderstanding Health Effects of Incineration 21 1.3.4.2 History of Dioxin/Furan Exceedances at the Durham/York DYEC Incinerator Dioxin/furan exceedances are of concern with the Durham York incinerator. There have been numerous public delegations which have brought these concerns to the attention of co- owners Durham and York. Stack Exceedances in 2015 and 2016 For Dioxins/Furans During acceptance testing done for the Durham/York incinerator, stack tests for both boilers found dioxin/furan emissions in exceedance of the stack limit.56 There was a major stack exceedance of dioxins/furans which followed in May 2016 at the incinerator. The emissions were 818 pg TEQ/m3 when the emission limit was 60 pg TEQ/m3 57 That the incinerator was emitting dioxins/furans in far excess of the limit was not discovered until the stack test results came back as there was no indication from the CEMS in the control room that there were problems. 58 That these stack exceedances were detected is remarkable given that the stack testing is pre- announced and completed only twice a year (once for compliance, once voluntarily) and that these tests are performed in triplicate and are only 4 -hours long ❑ stack testing only provides a snapshot in time as it ERi 3NH1EF1CNVL1WHDJQ W H❑ It brings to question what the dioxins/furans stack concentrations are for the remaining 99.5% of the year. It is not known how long the incinerator operated in exceedance for dioxins/furans in 2016. While the Regions are required under the ECA to conduct long-term sampling of dioxins and furans and use the AMESA system to do that, the Regions have not released the monthly AMESA results for the years 2015 to 2019, although public members of the DYEC waste advisory committees have repeatedly requested them. Further details are provided below. Ambient Air Exceedance in 2018 for Dioxins/Furans Remains Unexplained and Without Thorough Investigation There was also an ambient air monitoring exceedance of dioxins/furans in May 2018 at the Courtice monitoring station closest to the incinerator.'y 56 Acceptance Test Review Report Prepared for the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York, April 20, 2016, HDR Consulting, Table 11 and Table 12, page 19 https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/operations- docu me nts/resou rces/Documents/Faci I ityAcce pta nceTesti ng/DYECAccepta n ceTestReviewRe portH D R. pdf S' Covanta Durham York Renewable Energy Limited Partnership May 2016 Emission Testing at the DYEC, Report #21656, Executive Summary Page 8 https://www.d urha myorkwaste.ca/en/environ menta (- monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/May 2016 Source Test Report.pdf 58Ibid., page 14 s9 QUARTERLY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE 22 Other monitoring stations (Crago and Rundle Road) were on the verge of exceedance (Crago actually was found in exceedance on a repeat test) and the dioxin/furan concentrations increased with proximity to the incinerator60 The RegionVJconsultant (Stantec) did an assessment that concluded it was not likely caused by the incinerator mainly based on wind patterns. We do not accept the rationale as the meteorological data showed it was a very calm day61 and other relevant information was not considered. The Stantec report failed to even mention the distances from the incinerator stack to each of the monitoring stations which should have been a key consideration, nor did it discuss the high calms values, nor did it acknowledge the other exceedances and data invalidations that occurred that same day. The Stantec report did not mention that, on May 26, 2018 ( the day as the dioxin/furan ambient exceedance), there were also ambient air exceedances for benzo(a)pyrene Ram) at the Courtice monitoring station to the west of the incinerator (it is the closest monitoring station to the incinerator), where the B(a)P concentration was 261% above the MECP criteria62, and at the Crago Monitoring Station, next closest to the incinerator and east of facility, where the B(a)P concentration was 195% above the MECP criteria63, and at Rundle Road (farther east and north), where the B(a)P was 178% above the MECP criteria.64 Like the dioxins and furans concentrations measured that day, the benzo(a)pyrene concentrations increased with proximity to the incinerator. Like dioxins and furans, benzo(a)pyrene is a product of incomplete combustion. The incinerator could be a possible source. Ambient particulate matter (PM) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) levels were also elevated that day (May 26, 2018) at the Courtice, Crago and Rundle Stations. On that same day (May 26, 2018), however, the Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) data was invalidated at the Fence Line Station LIVa power failure occurred at the Fence Line station LI 65 Despite the power issue, the data appears to exist as it was invalidated. MECP should request it. https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/envi ronmental- monitoring/resources/Documents/AmbientAir/20180810 AAQ2 2018 RPT.pdf " Letter dated July 312018 From Stantec Consulting to the Regions re: Durham York Energy Centre, Ambient Monitoring Program 23 There were also a very high number of shutdowns for both boilers around and near the time the dioxin/furan exceedance occurred as shown in the tables pasted below for Quarter 2 of 2018.66 The Ministry confirmed in writing to me that they did not look at the AMESA results for the period in which the ambient air exceedance occurred, nor did they look at the congener profiles. I filed two Freedom of Information requests in May 2019 for the monthly AMESA data, correspondence and workplans. This process is ongoing, and the Regions continue to withhold the AMESA data. In one document (see Attachment 5) released there was a table of AMESA monthly values for the period of the exceedance (May 26, 2018) which is pasted here: 67 66 QUARTERLY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE (CRAGO ROAD STATION) 24 The above table shows that the dioxin concentration for Boiler 1 in the period during which the ambient air exceedance occurred increased 834% from the previous month, which may potentially be related to the ambient air dioxin furan emission exceedance. Durham staff have maintained that the AMESA monthly values during this period were Q' FDW he dioxins/furans collected and measured, however, are emitted from the incinerator itself []the AMESA device does not manufacture them Lin another document obtained through the FOI requests, the manufacturer of the AMESA attests to this fact that AMESA is a pure sampler. As such, the AMESA samples can STRY1QHX\FIX1qRLP DKRQDQGZLBWMT FDQOWE= There needs to be analysis of all information to determine what/if any patterns exist between startups, shutdowns, process upsets and elevated dioxin/furans, or other PICS - including benzo(a)pyrene - as well as particulate matter. For instance, the above table shows a high dioxin concentration (162.6) in Boiler 2 for another monthly period in Quarter 2 (Mar 212018 to April 24 2018) which also (see Table 3-6 on page 24) had multiple shutdowns/stoppages occurring. Before contemplating increasing capacity to 160,000 TPA, which will result in increased dioxin/furan emissions, the Regions should have done a more thorough review of the 2018 ambient exceedance and included review of AMESA data as well as ambient levels of other pollutants. Region staff, however, at our February 16th meeting maintained that sufficient explanation has been given. Ambient air monitoring of dioxins/furans is only done about 4% of the operating time (24-h period only one out of 24 days). Given that frequency of monitoring, it is remarkable that the May 26, 2018, dioxin/furan exceedance was detected and brings to question if more ambient exceedances could be occurring the remaining 96% of the time. Dioxins/furans are extremely toxic and there is no safe level of exposure. An ambient air exceedance should not happen. All the modelling done for the EA did not predict ambient air exceedances for dioxins/furans, yet this exceedance did occur. The source of the exceedance has not been identified. The incinerator was the closest stationary point source. That there was an exceedance in the ambient air near the incinerator and that the incinerator is located very close to urban centres with schools, subdivisions as well as major employment centres, and agricultural lands should have triggered a thorough investigation, including a review of the AMESA data and the congener profiles. There has been no such public investigation. It is imperative that these scenarios (process upset, shut down) be fully assessed to protect public health and the environment. Clarington also has a unique situation with two major stationary point sources of dioxins and furans. St 0 DiLIICement Bowmanville is situated less than 5 km east on the Courtice waterfront and in 2021 was granted an amendment to their air permit to more than quadruple the amount of garbage they can burn (up to 400 tonnes/day) and to include more types of wastes. The 25 background concentrations used in the AQIA do not assess the impact of the amended St 0 fl 1 V operations as they only included monitoring up to 2019. The Proponents failed to assess air emissions impacts under process upset conditions and shut down scenarios. They have also failed to assess the impact of the recent ECA amendment allowing St Marys next door to burn quadruple the garbage they can burn. That the Proponents have failed to consider these potential impacts is especially important given the risks and evidence of exceedances for dioxin/furans and other pollutants of incomplete combustion. 1.3.4.3 More Details/Concerns with Failure of Regions to Provide AMESA Data, Underlying Reports There have been numerous delegations, and concerns and questions registered at the public EFW -Advisory Committee (EFWAC) mandated by the Minister of the Environment as a Condition of Approval and at the EFW -Waste Management Committee to the Regions regarding concerns with the AMESA monitoring and reporting. This is a very important long-term sampling system for dioxins and furans. It was the public that pushed for this monitoring at the time of the EA and application for ECA. The public requested this monitoring to address the fact that stack testing takes place less than 0.5% of the operating time, and because the long-term sampling systems would provide information about dioxin/furan emissions over all operating conditions, not just normal operation as is done for the compliance source tests. As stated previously, the Regions have withheld the monthly AMESA sampling results and underlying reports from the public and Host Community for the years 2015 to 2019. As a long-time member on both Advisory Committees, I state the Regions have made it IP SR I IU Hf MQNMR1 BAR[®0 ( 6 ❑ ELIL] appropriate, whether the Regions have implemented MECP direction, whether modifications that have been made to the AMESA sampling system are appropriate, and whether the sampling protocols and lab analyses are appropriate. I attest to the fact that the AMESA monitoring has not been traceable, and it has not been transparent. It is also impossible to determine what the impact these changes have made on the monthly AMESA data and whether sampling procedures and data validation have been appropriate because key information -including all underlying reports -have been withheld from the public. The Municipality of Clarington and public citizens, including myself, have registered multiple Hf IRQVTEDQOj QI ®Q UBIUQI [B,1 X0III]0 ( 6 ❑ P VAW and have made requests for all AMESA results, including underlying reports and data validation protocols. I have attached a July 2021 resolution of Clarington Council on these matters (Attachment 6) to the Regions as well as a letter sent by myself and two other citizens (who are also members of DYEC advisory Committees) to the MECP (Attachment 7). 26 I also attach my latest delegation (Attachment 8) on this subject to be included as my comments. These concerns with AMESA monitoring/reporting remain unresolved and should have been and must be fixed before the 160,000 TPA additional dioxin/furan emissions are considered. The Regions have recently started to post quarterly AMESA reports and had posted Q1 and Q2 reports for 2021 at the time of this comment deadline (February 18, 2022), however the reports are untraceable and not understandable. We do not know F1KDNU10ffNDhU3 HMOV-Imean in these quarterly reports as no explanations are provided and it is unclear whether they are individual month concentrations or whether they are rolling averages the Region intends to use in their Annual Reports. 68 The quarterly reports are not signed at all and the supporting underlying documents, including the lab analyses reports, are not provided. Also, while a [data investigation checklist []has been provided by the Regions, no data validation protocol has been provided. This gap is problematic and raises many concerns that data will be invalidated inappropriately. Given the above, presently the public cannot have confidence in the AMESA reporting. Furthermore, 2021 Q3 and Q4 are still notop sted on the DYEC website. The Q3 report, however, was included in a Council information package release February 25 2022. It appears that of the four (4) AMESA monthly FIEUGIVNIP S LLRQiM_1P P sample collection was invalidated due to a single boiler trip having occurred during that month. This does not seem appropriate at all. There are also concerns regarding the annual reporting of AMESA results. Although the 2020 Annual Report reported most AMESA monthly concentrations for that year (this was the first annual report to do so), it appears the public will not be getting individual monthly AMESA concentrations in future annual reports, and instead will be presented with twelve (12) month rolling averages. 69 Reporting rolling averages is contrary to the purpose of informing levels for the latest individual month and is NOT what the public advocated for. The public should not have to work backwards performing multiple math calculations to figure out what the results were for each month. Rolling averages may be appropriate for other pollutants that are measured by the second or minute, but certainly not here where the AMESA is a LONG-TERM monthly sampling system. 68 DYEC Long Term Sampling System Quarterly Report Q1 and Q2, Section 7 AMESA Performance https://www.d urha myorkwaste.ca/en/environ menta (- monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/2021/20210909 RPT CIP DYEC LTSS Q2 Report ACC.pdf 69 DYEC ECA 2020 Annual Facility Operations Report, Section 5.6, page 31 https://www.d urha myorkwaste.ca/en/operations- documents/resources/2020/20210330 RPT 2020 DYEC ECA Annual ACC.pdf 27 A rolling average, however, would serve the purpose of masking a high monthly result. Is that the objective of the Regions and Covanta? Rolling average reporting of AMESA results is NOT appropriate at all. Ms. Sandra Thomas of MECP made recommendations to the AMESA work plan in 2017 and asked the Regions to revise the plan accordingly. Her recommendations obtained through my FOI requests are included as Attachment 9. I also reference them in Slides 10-14 of the recent delegation I attached (see Attachment 8). Her recommendations included to use WHO toxicity factors to calculate dioxin/furan/dioxin-like PCB concentrations in accordance with O. Reg 419/05 and to have CEN/TS 1948-5:2015 specifications form part of the Work Plan - including a specification that the dioxins/furans and PCBS be collected in both gaseous and particulate form and that the whole collection system be sent to the lab for analysis. We have seen no evidence that the recommendations of Sandra Thomas of MECP have been implemented by the Regions. Instead, we have the following evidence to the contrary. In a June 2021 report Durham advised they would use NATO values instead of WHO toxicity factors when calculating the AMESA concentrations. 70 At the November 29, 2021 EFWAC Advisory Committee meeting, Durham staff verbally advised the Committee members that only the XAD-trap in the AMESA sampling system is sent for analysis. This is not consistent with the CEN specification Ms. Thomas indicated should be part of the AMESA work plan. In summary, numerous AMESA issues remain unresolved. It is not acceptable that the Regions plow ahead and seek to increase capacity resulting in increased dioxin/furan emissions, without taking simple actions to fix these issues such as i) including the supporting underlying documents to AMESA reports; ii) providing AMESA data for all years to the public and to Clarington., and iii) providing a sound data validation protocol. 1.3.4.4 Concern and Questions Regarding Dioxin and Furan Source Testing Results The AQIA relies on 2020 Source Testing results. The following concerns are related to dioxin and furan source testing methods, analysis, and results. 70 Durham Region Report #2021 -WR -10, Section 3.6, page S https:Hca I enda r.du rha m.ca/meetings/Detai 1/2021 -06 -02 -0930 -Works -Com m ittee-Meeting/101674d7-Oa b4-4b26- b342-ad3600967a41 28 After the May 2016 major stack exceedance for dioxins and furans, there were some changes made to the source test sampling for dioxins and furans including some changes to the Environment Canada reference method. Questions remain whether the changes made to the sampling procedures, solvents used, analyses and equipment were appropriate. For source testing of dioxins/f irans/PCBs at the DYEC, are all parts of the sampling train recovered and reported for dioxins, furans, and dioxin -like PCBs and in accordance with the Environment Canada reference method? Shouldn It the Regions report for compliance using WHO toxicity factors instead of using the older NATO factors? As a member on the EFW Advisory Committee, I expressed concern that changes were made to the Environment Canada reference method as the Environment Canada webpage describing the method cautioned that it was a sensitive method and that any changes or modifications must be confirmed with Environment Canada. Staff dismissed my concerns at the Committee meetings and stated that the Ontario Ministry had approved them. Through my FOI request, there is a memorandum from the Region consultant John Chandler expressing concern with the Fall 2016 source testing results for dioxins and furans. I paste an excerpt of that memorandum below which was sent on March 24 2017 email to L Brasowski of Covanta, with G Anello of Durham Region copied: A.J. ChandlerAssociates Ltd. MEMORANDUM 24 March 2017 TO: Leon Brasowski, Covanta cc: Gioseph Anello, Durham SUBJECT: AMESA Comparison Testing Since our teleconference earlier this week I have been doing some investigation and thinking about how to approach the testing. We all know that the results of the stack testing show that the levels in the stack are wen below the limits set out in the ECA for the facility. The stack testing values obtained by ORTECH in the Fall 2016 testing are so low that the uncertainty in the value is high - I would suggest that it would be above the ±50 pg TEQ/Rm3 uncertainty that has been documented for concentrations at the Canadian LOQ of 32 pg TEQ/Rm3. With that level of uncertainty, the AMESA cartridge results from the Fall 2016 testing agree with the stack results. 29 Region consultant John Chandler cautioned that Fall 2016 dioxin/f Iran source test results are so low the uncertainty is very high. I ask the Ministry to review the changes made to the source testing reference method for dioxins and furans and these comments of Mr. Chandler regarding the uncertainty of the dioxin/furan source test results to ensure that source testing for dioxins/furans, upon which the AQIA relies, has been done appropriately, that dioxins, furans and dioxin -like PCBs are recovered from ALL all parts of the sampling train using the correct solvents and procedures and that all is done in accordance with the Environment Canada reference method the Regions are required to follow. 1.3.5 Concerns with Background Concentrations Used in the AQIA For background VOC concentrations, the AQIA used Newmarket background air data71, though Table 472 shows there were two Toronto stations that could have been used as they were also within 100 km. Their urban air concentrations had more recent data available than Newmarket and may be more representative of the Courtice site as its air shed values are often referred to as being similar to other southern Ontario urban centres. Use of the Newmarket VOC background concentrations potentially underestimates the total air impacts of VOCs. In contrast, the EA used data from three NAPS Toronto station and NAPS Newmarket to estimate VOC background73. Also, the EA background estimate for benzene was much higher than that used in AQIA and would be 8.67 times (867% of current project criteria). Note the present Chair of Durham Region, Mr. John Henry, submitted comments to the Ministry registering his objection to the use of VOCs from other jurisdictions for use as Courtice background concentrations at the time of the EA74. The Regions failed to provide a sufficient explanation of how Newmarket air concentrations are more representative of the Courtice site than the Toronto stations and did not provide a comparison of the Toronto NAPS data and Newmarket data. For averaging periods of 24 -hours or less, the 90th percentile of the data was used to represent background air quality. As this is used to predict maximum concentration at maximum POI, a more conservative approach would be to use the maximum background concentration. The background concentration for 1 -hour NO2 from the air quality assessment (AQATSR) for the EA (used Courtice Monitoring Station measurements) of 64.6 30 background concentration 30.0 31 Potential risks to human health (Concentration Ratio (CR) values 32 This is a CAAQ standard based on the three-year average of the 98th percentile daily maximum 1 -hour average concentrations. 85 The Regions have more than three -years of ambient data for NO2 and were able to adhere to the guidance required by the CCME Guidance Document for the 1 -hour NO2 98th percentile standard for the background NO2 concentration, however it appears that the Regions used the 901h percentile 1 -hour for background to calculate their maximum predicted concentrations. Using the 90th percentile concentration to compare against a 98th percentile standard is not conservative and underrepresents the potential risk of NO2 impacts. The Regions are continuing to follow a practice that was identified as a problem in the EA. Expert reviewers at the time of the EA expressed concerns that 90th percentile values were used instead of maximum identified concentrations which could have impacted/underestimated overall baseline CRs. 86 In my comments/concerns submitted to the Regions on February 16th, I asked the following: Would the predicted maximum concentration exceed the Project Criteria for 1 -hour NO2 if the 98th percentile background concentration was used? 98'a pCrU-riTlle ROY C10SI~r CO MaX U09 C1: EummuV d r........- mod Pu dl. C�dl r*. It's 1*+0 �}d0 bla. 74h36r 17.27 ALM ?3M -CfJiC.Flil 15 4 SOL p w-vn1114 =1 O.—J.- 10+* I ]dla 1 ia-+ 1 VX n ham 147S "M 44M NO2 Very High W— 11th id kti A 11 . . L ti .-[.•,' ,.. ,t �i "I 1 It I NA I N.% U% ;Mould Ceileria be Exaeded if �S'-- Vem ikilk used` "Guidance Document On Achievement Determination For Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards For Nitrogen Dioxide, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2020, htt s: ccme.ca/en/res/gdadforcaagsfornitrogendioxide en1.0.pdf 86 Ministry Review, Health Canada comments by Allison Denning, October 13, 2009, page 16 33 In the one hour meeting we had with the Regions on February 16th, there was not enough time to get to this question, and since I have not received any further response from the Region, I have investigated this further since I submitted my elevation request on February 18th and discovered the following: The AQIA uses the CAAQS 1 -hour NO2 standard of 42 ppb, which is roughly to 79 34 The predicted 1-h NO2 levels are at the red zone management level set by the CCME shown below 91: Table A2-4: Management levels for nitrogen dioxide Management level NO2 1 -hour NO2 annual 2020 2025 2020" 2025 FM > 6C ppb > 42 ppb > 17.0 ppb > 12.0 ppb Orange 32 to 60 ppb 32 to 42 ppb 7.1 to 17.0 ppb 7.1 to 12.0 ppb Yellow 21 to 31 ppb 2.1 to 7.0 ppb G s 20 ppb <_ 2.0 ppb The concentrations have the same statistical form as the corresponding CAAQS and the metric values for comparison to the concentrations must be rounded to the same number of digits as the shown concentrations. The scenarios that include ancillary sources exceed the CAAQS by even wider margins when the appropriate background of 36.4 ppb is used. The CCME outlines necessary actions for the various management levels. At the red zone management level, all orders of government need to develop Cit comprehensive air zone management plan to reduce concentrations below the CAAQS L0QGffRQKHLMWmportant sources. 92 The management action table is pasted on the next page. Here, in the 160,000 TPA environmental screening, we have our regional government proposing to do the opposite and add more NO2 emissions. 7 KHEI L0 ( NUMNON1411 orders of government have a responsibility to ensure that pollutant levels do not increase and that CAAQS are not exceededF] Durham Region and York Region should NOT be adding to the NO2 burden in Clarington at all. "Guidance Document On Achievement Determination For Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards For Nitrogen Dioxide, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2020, page 18 https:Hccme.ca/en/res/gdadforcaagsfornitrogendioxide en1.0.pdf 92 Ibid., page 11 35 Action 4innan Yellen Reaponatbla jurlstllctton Develop an air D. -op. Develop a comprehensive zone management comprehensive air air zone management plan if required to zone management plan plan to reduce prevent air quality to improve air quality. concentrations halo. the deterioration. Consider all important CAA45. Consider all Consider all sources of air important sources of air important sources pollutants, provincial pollutants, provincial and of air pollutants, and territorial policies, territorial policies. Provinces and and provincial and including short,including short, medium territories to lead the territorial policies. medium and long-term and long-term milestones development of air milestones and targets. and targets. zone management The plan should plans. Development of consider CUKCAC The plan should The plan should consider an air zona NA and may consider consider C111(CAC and CIlKCAC and current and All orders of management plan current and future may identify key future directions in air government have a projections of air emissions sources, quality based on trends or responsibility to ensure quality, defined air consider current and projections, and include • that pollutant levels do zone goals, the role protected air quality actions to be undertaken not woreasa and that ofstakeholtlars, based on ambi ant air by governments antl CAA45 are hot priority emission pot lutanttrands, and stakeholders to reduce excBeded. sources, set out actions to he emissions with short, mechanisms to un derlaken by medium and long-term achieve air quality governments and milestones and targets; improvements, and stakeholders to reduce and detailed modeling to any additional emissions. show how planned monitoring and actions will improve air inventory required. quality. Provinces and Implement air Implem ent the air zone ma nagem a rd plan that outlines the roles andterritories to lead All zone NA responsibilities of all partes, icipants, estimated ti and the process for orders of government management plan review. have si artily to ensurea CAAQRA45 are not exceeded. Guidance Document On Achievement Determination For Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards For Nitrogen Dioxide, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2020, page 11 The 36.4 ppb value for the 3 -year 98th percentile background was in W-15 Hf R?QVIRLIQ❑ documents. They could have used it from the 2020 report or even the 2019 report could have been used for a 2 -year average which would still conform to CCME guidance for the CAAQS. Instead, and unacceptably, the AQIA, in using 90th percentile values, does not comply with the CCME guidance. Its use misrepresents the NO2 background level burden on the community. Assessment of Annual NO2 The CCME Guidance document for NO2 standards states: [The annual NO2 standard applies to the average of all NO2 1 -hour measured at a station over a single calendar year. m Further details about the annual calculation in the Guidance document are pasted here: 36 5.2 Calculation of Annual Metric Values The annual metric value at a monitoring station is the average of all NO2 1 -hour measured in a single calendar year and is calculated as per equation 5.2. Annual metric value = (Ci + C2 + "' + CN1h) - N1h (equation 5.2) In this equation, Ci is the NO2 1-bour for the ,ilh,' hour in the year. "Nth" is the number of NO2 1 -hour available in the year and it ranges from 1 up to 8760 (8784 in leap years). Note that for the annual metric value the selection of the daily maximum 1 -hour is not required. I asked the following question in my concerns sent to the Region, but, again, was not able to address this in the one hour meeting we had, and I have not received any further response: Did the AQIA follow the CCME guidance procedures when calculating background annual NO2 concentrations? I rely on the Ministry to review this. 1.3.7 Assessment of Particulate, PM 10 and PM2.5 Impacts Additional PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions from the incinerator are a major concern as background concentrations are already elevated 93 and emissions from the incinerator are significant -in mass, in the number of particulates emitted, in their properties and because incinerator emissions include other toxic substances, including heavy metals and dioxins/furans, that can adsorb onto the surfaces of these particulates. The fine and ultrafine particulates are light, travel far and are of the greatest risk to health as they carry those toxins deep into the respiratory tract and can even pass through the blood -brain barrier. PM2.5 is a non -threshold pollutant [there is no safe level. What is the rationale for adding more PM2.5 emissions to an already elevated present situation when PM2.5 is a non -threshold pollutant? This proposal which will increase PM2.5 emissions has not been assessed by a human toxicologist and the Medical Officers of Health for the Regions. The AQIA results show that maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations are approaching the CAAQS criterion limit under both existing and proposed 160,000 TPA scenarios. 94 The incinerator is a very significant emitter of particulate matter, PM 10, PM2.5 and ultrafine particulate El scientists caution that it is not the mass that counts the most, but rather the number and size of the particulates. This is very relevant to incinerators where high temperature " Dillon Consulting Ltd, Presentation to Clarington Council, February 7, 2022 94 AQIA 37 3 ❑❑ combustion, especially when increasing throughput (as is the case here to 160,000 TPA), result in high particulate generation. Expert reviewers identified concerns regarding elevated PM2.5 levels at the site and the additional impact of the incinerator emissions at the time of the EA. Health Canada advised action to mitigate PM2.5 emissions from the facility.95 The Regions did not take action on those comments. Now, in 2022, Durham and York are doing the opposite of minimizing PM2.5 emissions. In the ESR they are proposing to increase emissions of PM2.5 despite elevated levels. The Health Canada (2009) comments are pasted below and remain relevant given the AQIA (202 1) annual PM2.5 maximum predicted concentrations (140,000 TPA and 160,000 TPA) are 93% of the CCME Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQ)96 Assessment of 24-hour PM2.5 The AQIA project criteria that was used to assess 24-h PM2.5 concentrations is 27 38 The Regions have more than three -years of ambient data for PM2.5 and so could have adhered to the guidance required by the CCME Guidance Document for the 24-h PM2.5 98th percentile standard for the background PM2.5 concentration, however the Regions used the 90th percentile 24-hour for background to calculate their maximum predicted concentrations. Using the 90th percentile concentration to compare against a 98th percentile standard is not conservative and underrepresents the potential risk of PM2.5 impacts. Expert reviewers at the time of the EA expressed concerns that 90th percentile values were used instead of maximum identified concentrations. 99 In the one hour meeting we had with the Regions, there was not enough time to get to all of the questions I had submitted on the AQIA assessment of PM2.5. Since I have not received any further response from the Region, as I did for NO2, I have also investigated PM2.5 assessment further since I submitted my elevation request on February 18th. I discovered the following: The AQIA uses the CAAQS 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 27 39 The AQIA, in using 90th percentile values, does not comply with the CCME guidance. Its use misrepresents and underestimates the 24-h PM2.5 background level burden on the community. 1.3.8 Concerns/Ouestions with the Meteorological Data Input in the AOIA Meteorological inputs include observational inputs from surface stations and large-scale mesoscale meteorological data from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model between 2014-2018, inclusive 104 The modelled WRF data ❑13VXVI4P SONNTID5VIin the data. 105 What percentage of the meteorological data was taken from Courtice and Rundle Road stations? The concern is that modelled data based on numerous assumptions is being used instead of local data. Meteorological input came from surface stations in addition to Courtice and Rundle, that included Buttonville, Cobourg, Oshawa, Toronto International Airport, Toronto Island Airport, Trenton Airport and Ajax106 Why were other distant surface stations involved when the local Courtice and Rundle stations were measuring all the parameters needed (except for lake temperature difference done in Ajax) and when was data from the other surface station used? Concern is that the local stations would provide the most accurate data and use of distant station data will be inaccurate resulting in incorrect predictions. I rely on the Ministry to determine if the meteorological data input was appropriate. 1.3.9 AOIA Did Not Consider the Impact of the Mixed Waste Pre-sort/AD on Waste Composition and Affect on Emissions Durham plans to construct a Mixed Waste Pre-sort (Dirty MRF) facility and AD next to the incinerator in the next few years, yet they have not provided analysis on how removing the organics and other materials from the waste being burned at the incinerator will impact waste composition and incinerator emissions. This is critical missing information. It is certainly expected there will be a be a higher concentration of plastics, and, with the organic material out, increased toxicity is a concern. More plastics will mean more halogen content which increases the potential for increased dioxin and furan emissions. 10' AQIA, Section 5.2, pages 24 105 Ibid 106 AQIA, Section 5.2.1, pages 24, 25, including Table 9: Meteorological Stations to be Used in CALMET El 3 ❑❑ Higher heat values will also likely mean less mass going to ash and more mass ❑increased emissions - going up the stack. A fulsome study is needed to assess air impacts. The AQIA is deficient in that no consideration of this major factor has been done. Durham knows its plans. It is completely unacceptable that they have not taken this into account in the ESR. Durham failed to assess the impact of their plans in this AQIA and failed to be protective of the public health in this regard. 1.3.10 Other Concerns with the AQIA The ESR did not consider risks of the following pollutants at all despite the fact that they are emitted from incinerators, are extremely toxic, and science has well established they have serious adverse health effects: ❑ Ultrafine particulates (UFPs) ❑ Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) ❑ Brominated and Fluorinated Dioxins/Furans The ESR also did not assess impacts of the project on ozone levels. This is an important and unacceptable omission as the original EA and Ministry reviewers identified that ozone levels in the area exceeded relevant criteria and the 160,000 TPA scenario means increased emissions of ozone precursors including NO2 and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). 1.4 Concerns ReizardinL, Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions Burniniz 160.000 TPA I register my concerns with the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions, and especially with the numerous reductions that are applied, especially using outdated conventional landfill comparisons to reduce the facility emissions, as if conventional landfills are the only alternative, and which do not account for new policy directions and actions to ban organics from landfills. According to the Energy Justice Network, incineration releases 2.5 times as much carbon dioxide (CO2) to make the same amount of electricity as a coal power plant. 107 At the time of the EA, Canadian environmental organizations, including CELA and the David Suzuki Foundation, produced fact sheets which also showed incineration had higher GHG emissions than coal-fired plants (see Attachment 10). 10' Energy Justice Network, Trash Incineration and Climate Change: Debunking EPA Misinformation, httP://www.energyoustice.net/incineration/climate 41 3 rn The original EA predicted that the annual GHG emissions from the incinerator would be 139,000 TPA CO2e when burning 140,000 TPA of garbage. 108 The 2019 DYEC Annual Operations report states that 140,000 tonnes were thermally treated at the incinerator. 109 The total GHG emissions emitted in 2019 were 159,545.40 tonnes CO2e.1 to So, the actual GHG emissions for the DYEC incinerator are higher than what was predicted in the original EA. Actual GHG emissions are 15% higher than what the public was told during the EA. This fact was not clearly represented to the public in the ESR. Instead, the ESR statements deflect and compare the GHG increases to the much larger Canadian and Ontario emission totals where, of course, the increased emissions are a far, far less percentage. The ESR states CJhe actual GHG emissions from the DYEC at 140,000 tonnes per year was comparable with what was predicted in the 2009 EA studies in terms of the effect on the Canadian and Ontario GHG emission totals EE[That is unacceptably deceptive for the public. The Regions are not being forthright about the GHG emissions. The ESR predicts that burning 160,000 TPA will result in 182,337 tonnes CO2e. �' 1 So, burning 20,000 tonnes more of waste per year is predicted to result in 22,800 tonnes CO2e of additional GHG emissions. The Regions use the same EA model, assumptions, and the same 8 -page unsigned report from 2007 titled Supplement to Annex E-5: Comparative Analysis of Thermal Treatment and Remote Landfill on a Lifecycle Basis to arrive at the co(JU0XRQV0&the DYEC results in a net improvement of air emissions compared to landfill on a life -cycle basis LH' The 2007 report was prepared by GENIVAR and Jacques Whitford. GENIVAR was a member of the Canadian Energy -From -Waste Coalition (CEFWC). Jacques Whitford was acquired by Stantec which was also a member of the CEFWC. The climate impacts of the incinerator and the project need more and independent scrutiny and by climate experts. The Regions appear to reduce the IQFKJ1IIhreenhouse gases by ignoring "biogenic" carbon emissions. 113 According to the Energy Justice Network the assumption that burning the biogenic fraction should not be counted )RL1EL6VDIEFKKMMUf1J40MFP DvVRQs has been thoroughly debunked 108 Durham/York Air Quality Assessment Technical Study Report (AQATSR), December 4, 2009, Table 8-2, page 275 109 2019 DYEC Annual Report, page 15 110 ESR, Section 4.3.2. Greenhouse Gas, page 94 111 ESR, Section 3.8.6, Table 4, page 60 112 ESR, Section 4.3.2, page 92 113 Ibid. 42 by recent studies including a major study done by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 114 Discounting the biogenic fraction is flawed because it assumes that when the biogenic fraction is burned those plants and trees are immediately re -planted and their growth immediately offsets the CO2 emissions that resulted from burning it, which is not what happens in reality."' 1.5 Ash Concerns The environmental impacts of the Durham/York incinerator bottom ash and fly ash have never been assessed and were not assessed in the ESR for the project. Furthermore, the ESR contains incorrect information about the percent increase in fly ash and bottom ash for the project capacity increase to 160,000 TPA. Table 4 Anticipated Increase in Ash Generation, on page 84 of the ESR, states the fly ash percent increase is 13.3%116 and it should be 14.3% ( 43 This appears to be consistent with diagnostic testing done at the DYEC incinerator following the major dioxin/furan exceedance in May 2016. The table pasted below shows the dioxins/furans concentrations before and after the flue gases pass through the APC equipment.19 The concentration after the APC is roughly 1% to 1.5% of the total - roughly 98.5-99% of the total concentration prior to the APC is caught in the APC. A very high percentage of total dioxins/furans is in the incinerator fly ash that will eventually be going to landfill. Boiler No- owrating ing C-diQuench Test No- 52mplingoate NATOJCCIVS (1989) TER" Ory Adjusted Canc-(PBTEQ/Rm')• inlet APC Outlet Ory Adjusted Cont. Quench Inlet O. Reg, 419/05 WHO (2065) TER" (pg TEQ/Rm'I` Emission Rate(ng TEC/s) APC Outlet Quench Inlet APC Outlet 1 26 Sept 2016 1249 41.8 1758 112.5 72.7 0.25 High 2 265e 2616 1712 111.7 1029 112.0 26.4 0.24 Car6an 3 27 Sept2016 1259 <6.24 1147 16,73 23.1 DA3 VLN ltir A 1207 19.93 1112 130.4 22.1 0.21 4 29 Sept 2016 1586 19.89 1456 110.6 28.6 0.21 Boiler No. Medium 5 29 Sept2016 1569 17.47 1454 17.94 2.8 ,7 AMli 1 Carbo, 6 3n Sept 2016 1425 18.42 1301 0.98 25.8 0.17 VLNAir Average 1527 <8,59 1404 19.17 27.7 0.18 Medium 7 4 N. 2016 767 15,49 a5g9 d.25 <14.0 0.12 Carhan 8 4 NW 2016 1x15 05.67 11273 (5.88 115.5 s13.11 vu5 Gas A 1881 6.48 1981 16,46 M. 10.12 1 19 Sept 2016 1618 123.5 1450 44.0 2..8 0.48 High 2 20 Sept 2016 1003 122.0 4 Q2A 117,8 0A5 Carina, 3 20 Sept2016 1155 121.7 1045 225 20A 10.45 VLN Air 7275E 2016 1239 112.5 1153 <13�5 23.1 m.27 A 1254 1199 4137 120.6 122.5 0.41 Boiler Na. 4 22 Sept 2016 1691 118,9 1663 119.8 32.3 0A0 2 Medium 5 235E 2016 2009 115.5 lana 116.9 35.5 033 6 2016 23 Sept3.8 2155 4 11942 115.3 138.3 0 .30 VLNAr LN A r Average 2002 116.1 11803 117.3 135,4 0.34 Medium a 4Nw 2016 696 18,43 6583 4.69 111.6 0.19 Carbon 9 4N 2016 696 <B.Sj <6a7 64d . 112.7 0.18 VIN Gas Average 671 <&2s 1 1610 <9.56 1 132.1 0.18 ' at 25°C and 1 atmosphere, adjusted to 11% oxygen calculated using the full detection limit for those isomers not detected. Covanta Diagnostic Emission Testing at the Durham York Energy Centre (September 19 to September 30 and November 4, 2016), page 5 While TCLP tests are done on the DYEC ashes as required by the Ministry, scientists have long cautioned that these tests performed in ideal laboratory conditions, do not accurately represent the behaviour of wastes in the environment and actual leachability of toxic pollutants, particularly ones with an organic fraction - including dioxins and furans - when these ashes are landfilled. 120 Durham Region continues to maintain that the fly ash Lkabilized❑in Portland cement/pozzolan and sent to landfill is inert and dismiss its environmental risk. Citizens and EFWAC and WMAC public committee members have repeatedly asked the Regions to provide evidence and studies to support these assertions but have never been provided with any evidence and it is not in the 2021 ESR either. Furthermore, and perversely, in my opinion, those ashes are being as [landfill cover Eland thus can be counted towards diversion. The serious concern is that the fly ashes are highly contaminated with toxic pollutants, including dioxins and furans, which persist in the environment and do not breakdown, however, the cement that encapsulates them will, creating a serious environmental problem for future generations. It is 119 Covanta Diagnostic Emission Testing at the Durham York Energy Centre (September 19 to September 30 and November 4, 2016), page 5 https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental- monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/December2016 Abatement DiagnosticTestReport.pdf 120 IPEN, After Incineration: The Toxic Ash Problem, page 13 44 3 1❑] important to remember that the dioxins/furans were CREATED in the waste incineration process. Clearly the toxic ash problem cannot continue to be ignored and needs the scrutiny of an individual enviromnental assessment. Part C: Benefits of Requiring an Individual Environmental Assessment Concerns regarding and evidence of critical errors, omissions, and deficiencies made throughout Va-5 Hf [process that were documented above are summarized here and followed by bolded explanations of how an individual EA could address them. ❑ Failure to identify, assess and analyze the potential adverse health and ecological impacts of burning an additional 20,000 tonnes of garbage every year for an unspecified number of years in a community that is a growing urban community and an important agricultural community with sensitive natural systems An individual EA would address this issue by requiring an updated human health and ecological risk assessment to assess the impacts of the project as well as review by Ministry experts (including toxicologists) as well as outside agencies (Health Canada). ❑ Failure to consult with the public appropriately and adequately and follow Ministry environmental screening guidance to consult throughout the process: with no public consultation since 2019 and none since the ESR, AQIA and other major reports were posted, the ability of the public to participate, comment and inform the process has been seriously undermined and has impaired the ability of the environmental screening process to arrive at appropriate actions and decisions for this project An individual EA would address this issue by requiring in depth consultation that would provide the community with opportunities to understand the project risks and benefits more fully, to enable the public to make fully informed comments which in turn should illicit responses/actions from the proponents to address public concerns and comments for the benefit of the environment and the community. ❑ Failure to provide toxicologist opinion and medical opinions on the health and ecological impact of the project An individual EA would address this issue by requiring an updated site health and ecological risk assessment (HHERA) of the project which would be reviewed, assessed, and commented on E FEGFM I Medical Officers of Health. This is very important since - despite the obvious health and ecological concerns of the project - )KH5 H LRIIQU❑ review by engineers and technical staff. 45 ❑ Failure to accurately assess the potential impacts of the project on air; the AQIA is flawed with technical errors in flow and emission rate calculations An individual EA would address this issue by requiring a more thorough and detailed technical review by a team of technical experts at the Ministry. ❑ Failure to address inconsistencies with the 2011 ESDM which supports the ECA for the facility and failure to assess the maximum emission scenarios required by Ontario Regulation 419/05 An individual EA would address this issue by requiring a team of technical experts at the Ministry to review and determine whether the) EFIMMW 1111 3W SII N0111 Ontario Regulation 419/05 and Section 10, 11, and 12 requirements to assess emissions for highest concentration/maximum emissions/testing across all operating scenarios. This would also determine whether the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) supporting the project was done in accordance with O. Reg 419/05. ❑ Failure to assess and characterize the potential risks of increased emissions of Respiratory Irritants with the project -including particulate matter, PM2.5, NO2, SO2 and benzo(a)pyrene - accurately and adequately; this failure is egregious given that ambient levels for these individual pollutants are already exceeding or near exceeding regulatory standards and/or CAAQS and AAQC air standards An individual EA would address this issue by providing an updated air quality technical study assessment (AQATSR), an updated human health assessment (HHERA) and would also provide review by health experts and toxicologists who could provide comments to inform the project. An updated ATATSR and HHERA are critically needed since: 1) The AQIA compared modelled air concentration to air standards/benchmarks and many air standards are outdated and not protective of health and air benchmarks are not necessarily health based. 2) ❑ HSIM]OQMfor which high concern has been scientifically well established including PM2.5, ultrafine particulates, brominated and fluorinated dioxins/furans, and PFAs. 3) O. Reg 419/05 requires modelled emission concentrations from the Facility alone to meet standards for individual pollutants and this raises the possibility that communities can become here proponents/consultants propose and falsely justify additional burdens to a community by comparing increases to already elevated levels. This is certainly of concern here. The AQIA puts emphasis on comparing percent increases in individual air concentrations to existing 46 background and does not adequately assess/analyze/highlight the cumulative burden. The Regions intend to continue to add on the already high burden by employing this flawed and dangerous rationale that more emissions DUFUUVWV D® S MUDIEL 1H�C1 The Regions do not intend to stop at 160,000 TPA. Durham recently endorsed a long-term waste management plan (LTWMP) which includes plans to increase to 250,000 TPA and recently approved a waste budget with millions of dollars set aside for 2025 to commence an EA. The community, however, needs an updated HHERA now to assess the broader health and environmental impacts including assessing total mass loading and multi -pathway exposures with this project. 4) O. Reg 419/05 does not consider Chemical Mixtures where pollutants have additive effects and common endpoints, for example Respiratory Irritants and Liver Effects, but an updated HHERA would. This is very important given the existing elevated levels and the highly toxic effects of respiratory irritants and dioxins/furans which will increase further with the project. ❑ Failure to appropriately assess/characterize the risk of PM2.5 emissions given PM2.5 is a non -threshold pollutant and ambient levels are at or exceeding CAAQS and AAQC An updated HHERA could provide an appropriate, health -based assessment of this non -threshold pollutant. ❑ Failure to assess impact of increased throughput on combustion and to review and discuss best available control practices An individual EA would provide an opportunity to require the proponents to conduct a review of BACT used in other jurisdictions, including the U.S., as well as a review of regulatory standards and requirements to improve and monitor combustion and emissions. It would also ensure the scrutiny of Ministry experts. ❑ Failure to assess impacts under process upset conditions An updated HHERA would provide assessment of Process Upset scenarios. ❑ Failure to adequately consider and assess dioxin/furan exceedances and longstanding dioxin/furan monitoring concerns (stack and long-term sampling (AMESA)) to inform the project and evaluate/discuss further mitigation and monitoring strategies All the above could be investigated further through an individual EA. This could also involve input from federal counterparts, including Environment Canada, with respect to dioxin/furan source testing modifications as well as long-term sampling. As the Ministry does not have experience with long-term sampling systems for dioxins/furans 47 such as AMESA, and as there have been numerous monitoring and reporting issues with it as well as modifications to both equipment and sampling procedures, there really needs to be independent as well as multi -government input, including information on European best practices and requirements. ❑ Failure to adequately assess impacts of changing waste composition expected from other Durham waste projects, evolving waste policies and organics management changes An individual EA could provide this assessment. ❑ Failure to adequately assess ash impacts An individual EA could provide this much needed assessment which has never been done as ash impacts were omitted from the Terms of Reference in the original EA. ❑ Failure to adequately assess greenhouse gas emissions impacts An individual EA could provide a more thorough up to date assessment of greenhouse gas impacts as well as review by experts that are climate scientists. Such review is sorely needed. Durham is touting this project - which emits more greenhouse gas emissions - as having net benefits to climate change, but their assessment is outdated and employs inappropriate assumptions and comparisons. ❑ Failure to investigate and discuss best available control technology, additional monitoring and mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce impacts of the project on the environment and on the community An individual EA would be able to identify potential risks of the project and what additional monitoring, reporting and mitigation measures should be implemented to protect the community. These might include monitoring encouraged in Guideline A-7 including continuous emissions monitoring/reporting of particulate matter and continuous sampling of mercury. It might also include increased/more environmental monitoring F] for more ambient stations, for more pollutants (including VOCs which are not currently monitored), for increased frequency of monitoring (ambient dioxins/furans, soil) and for other types including agricultural products such as eggs as is done in Europe. Finally, I make the general remark that I have observed the Durham Waste staff and their statements and reports since 2007 and I continue to be troubled by a lack of objectivity and lack of balanced information. I have found their documents and statements to be slanted and pro - incineration and contain very little information about the risks and problems with incineration. As an example, in recent documents and presentation on Durham1� long-term waste management plan (LTWMP) there were many references to the problems of landfill like methane emissions, but no discussion about the risks of ash landfill. 48 The Regions also continue to use the same consultants repeatedly for DYEC reports including Golder and Stantec who were members of the Canadian Energy -From -Waste Coalition (CEFWC). This coalition had a registered lobbyist for the incineration industry. An individual EA would provide broader scrutiny from different government organizations and experts and could provide more and independent information and perspectives that would benefit all and the environment. Part D: Details of Correspondence and Efforts to Resolve Concerns with the Proponent(s) I attended the public information centres (PICS) that were offered in 2019 and I submitted comments to the Proponents. I have attached the comments I submitted on August 30, 2019 (Attachment 11). Many of the comments and concerns I put forward today are also part of this submission as the Regions did not take action on them. I have also done numerous formal delegations and submitted correspondence to Durham Region regarding the concerns I have outlined above. I have often raised many of these concerns as an EFWAC member to both Regions and as an appointed member on the WMAC committee. I submitted detailed comments and questions on the ESR and AQIA on February 10, 2022 (Attachment 1) and at that time requested a meeting with the Regions to discuss my concerns and questions, as well as those of Linda Gasser. The Regions responded to our meeting request on February 15, 2022 and offered a one-hour meeting on the afternoon of February 16th, 2022. I submitted additional comments and questions on the morning of February 16, 2022 (Attachment 2). We had a virtual meeting with the Proponents the afternoon of February 16th. Durham staff advised we would have no more than one hour. As there were numerous questions, including the technical ones regarding the flow rate and emission rate calculations and operating scenarios, we ran out of time and were not able to get to most of our questions. With regards to the technical concerns, as Golder was not present and since regional staff did not appear to be able to address the flow rate calculation and said they were relying on their consultant, I asked if it would be possible for them to have Golder provide a written answer to those questions before the comment deadline. Durham staff advised that was not possible and there would be a response when the comment/response consultation record was eventually prepared and released. We (Linda Gasser and I) have had no further response from the Proponents regarding our concerns and questions. 49 There has been no consultation since 2019 and no public consultation opportunity provided since the Regions released the ESR and AQIA reports in late December 2021. A private meeting of one hour with the proponents very close to the comment deadline is not public consultation. At the meeting we asked the proponents whether we could have an extension on the deadline to submit comments and/or elevation request to March 7th as was granted to the Municipality of Clarington. Durham staff answered no, we could not. Their decision was without Ministry input. I submitted my Elevation Request to the EAB Director and to the Proponents on February 18, 2022, before the deadline. Having no opportunity to ask questions about the AQIA and ESR at a public consultation (also where consultants are typically available) has undermined the ability of the public to understand these long and complex documents and has placed undue burden on citizens like myself who have had to spend long hours reviewing facts and figures to gain understanding and make informed comments. The one-hour meeting was insufficient to address questions and I had to spend more time trying to find the answers myself. I was not able to finish my submission completely under these circumstances and did not have time to provide all the references and attachments. In the time that has transpired since the deadline, I have continued to review the ESR and AQIA seeking answers to the unresolved questions, and I have now updated my submission with my findings as well as numbering, references, attachments, and a separate section dedicated to describing how an individual EA would address concerns and how I have corresponded with the Regions. All the issues identified in my submission of February 18th remain, and I have added additional details and comments regarding environmental loading (land, water, sediments, fish) documented in the original EA, the dioxin/furan exceedance, AMESA issues, NO2 and PM2.5 assessment, and greenhouse gases emissions. I have also added a section on ash concerns. If the Ministry and Proponents do accept this updated Elevation Request submission, then please use this document in place of my February 18th Elevation Request. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Bracken, B.Sc. (Hons), B. Ed. Newcastle, Ontario (905)-987-3896 wendy-ron(�),sympatico.ca 50 Enclosures: Attachment 1: W Bracken Comments submitted to Regions February 10, 2022 Attachment 2: W Bracken Comments submitted to Regions February 16, 2022 Attachment 3: Ministry Review of Original EA Attachment 4: Compilation of Ambient Air Exceedances (2016-2020) Attachment 5: 2018 AMESA Long Term Sampling System Work Plan, November 14, 2018 Attachment 6: Municipality of Clarington Resolution re AMESA requests to Durham Attachment 7: Letter to L. Trevisan, MECP Director, Central Region re AMESA concerns Attachment 8: Delegation to Durham Regional Council, Dec 2021 re AMESA concerns Attachment 9: Email (May 2, 2017) S Thomas to Regions/Covanta re AMESA work plan Attachment 10: Fact Sheet Incineration and Impact on Global Warming Attachment 11: W Bracken August 30 2019 Comments Submitted on Capacity Increase 51 Planning and Development Committee March 7, 2022 Moved by: Corinna Traill Second by: Whereas Clarington has declared itself an Unwilling Host Community to the proposed Durham Region Anaerobic Digestion and Presort Facility (-AD); And whereas Clarington Planning have had a briefing from Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the tools the Municipality of Clarington currently has to prevent the proposed Durham Region Anaerobic Digestion and Presort Facility from being forced upon unwilling residents in an Unwilling Host Community; And whereas Clarington Council passed a motion demanding a full environmental assessment for the proposed AD and is presently filing the necessary documentation to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change; And wherewas the Clarington Energy Park is a key economic development area and was created for Prestige Employment Uses; And whereas proposed re -location of Ontario Power Generation 9 head office to the Clarington Energy Park is a prime example of a Prestige Employment Use; Now therefore be it resolved: That the Municipality of Clarington directs Staff to implement an Interim Control By -Law to commence a study on the entire Clarington Energy Park so as to enable the Council of the Municipality of Clarington to determine what type of enhancements to its zoning is necessary to protect our future economic development in this area; and That all interested parties EHDGIL IGIII-IIR❑ ❑