HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-2023 Special
Special Planning and Development Committee
Agenda
Date:January 16, 2023
Time:5:00 p.m.
Location:Council Chambers or Microsoft Teams
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street, 2nd Floor
Bowmanville, Ontario
Inquiries and Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for
accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Patenaude,
Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at lpatenaude@clarington.net.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of
General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General
Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording
public by on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar
Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or
placed on non-audible mode during the meeting.
Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive
The Revised Agenda will be published on Friday after 3:30 p.m. Late items added or a change to
an item will appear with a * beside them.
Pages
1.Call to Order
2.Land Acknowledgement Statement
3.Declaration of Interest
4.Presentations/Delegations (10 minute time limit)
4.1 Delegation by Eric Bowman, 2022 Chair, Agricultural Advisory
Committee of Clarington, Regarding the Agricultural Advisory Committee
2022 Update
3
(Correspondence Attached)
5.Planning Services Department Reports
5.1 PDS-005-23 Envision Durham Update Information Report: Proposed
Growth Allocations and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions
5
5.1.1 Correspondence from Libby Racansky, Regarding Report PDS-
005-23
15
5.2 PDS-006-23 Bill 23 Update – Conservation Authorities 25
5.3 PDS-007-23 Project Update - North Village Secondary Plan, Newcastle 42
6.Adjournment
Special Planning and Development Committee
January 16, 2023
Page 2
Agricultural Advisory Committee of
Clarington - 2022 Annual Update
Committee Goal
To assist the Municipality of Clarington in its efforts to identify, review, discuss and
make recommendations to Council on agricultural and agricultural-related issues
(Terms of Reference, April 17, 2001 as amended).
2022 Members
Eric Bowman (Chair)
Henry Zekveld (Vice-Chair)
John Cartwright
Tom Barrie
Ryan Cullen
Ben Eastman
Jennifer Knox
Jordan McKay
Brenda Metcalf
Don Rickard
Mitch Morawetz*
Councillor Zwart
Staff Liaison:
Amy Burke
* Durham Region
Federation of Agriculture
representative
Meetings
The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC) met monthly in 2022, with
the exception of September (11 meetings, total). Due to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, the AACC continued with virtual monthly meetings at the start of 2022. As
public health restrictions were lifted, the Committee transitioned to a hybrid meeting
format.
Consultation Input
In 2022, the AACC was consulted on and discussed various local and regional issues,
including:
• Draft zoning regulations for on-farm diversified uses;
• Rural roadway truck prohibitions;
• Rural roadside drainage and maintenance issues and other roadside travel
obstructions for farm equipment (e.g. overhanging vegetation, signage);
• Envision Durham’s implementation of the Provincial Agricultural System and
proposed Agricultural System mapping;
• Draft Durham Agri-Food Growth Plan;
Page 3
• Proposed changes to the Greenbelt; and
• Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance’s draft event barns position paper.
Presentations to the Committee
In 2022, the AACC expanded its knowledge of agricultural and agricultural-related
issues by receiving presentations and engaging in discussions on the following:
• Balancing On-Farm Diversification and Agricultural Land Preservation in Ontario:
Assessing effectiveness and identifying best practices for the implementation of
OMAFRA Guidelines - School of Environmental Design and Rural Development,
University of Guelph
• Heritage Barns Project Update – Clarington Heritage Committee
• Vertical Farming – Boreal Greens Co.
• Zone Clarington: Second Draft Zoning By-law – Clarington Planning & Development
Services
• Farmer Wellness Program – Durham Federation of Agriculture
• Durham Agri-food Action Plan – Region of Durham Agriculture & Rural Economic
Development
• Local Agricultural Sector Data Profile – Clarington Board of Trade
• 2022 Capital Projects Update – Clarington Public Works
• Bee Keeping and the Winter Die Off – Green Bees
• Stewardship Program Updates – Central Lake Ontario and Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authorities
• Envision Durham: Implementation of the Provincial Agricultural System – Region of
Durham Planning & Economic Development
• Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame – OAHF Association
• Public Works Annual Update – Clarington Public Works
• Update on the Avian Influenza Outbreak – Almet Farms Ltd.
• Clarington Tourism Update – Clarington Tourism
• Clarington East Food Bank – Clarington East Food Bank
In addition, the AACC toured Rekker Gardens Inc.’s temporary foreign worker
accommodation and expanded greenhouse operations. Several AACC members also
attended the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee 2022 Annual Farm Tour, hosted
by Sargent Family Dairy in Enniskillen.
Page 4
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: Special Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: January 16, 2023 Report Number: PDS-005-23
Submitted By: Carlos Salazar, Director of Planning and Infrastructure Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 2.12 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Envision Durham Update Information Report: Proposed Growth
Allocations and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions
Recommendation:
1. That Report PDS-005-23, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received for information;
2. That Council requests the Region to attend a Clarington Council meeting and host a
Public Meeting/Public Information Centre in Clarington on the proposed Growth
Allocations and Settlement Area Boundary E xpansions, in consultation with Planning
and Infrastructure Services staff;
3. That Council requests the Region to provide an extension to the commenting period for
the proposed Growth Allocations and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions (SABE),
and the Draft Working Copy of the new Regional Official Plan to at least March 31,
2023;
4. That Council requests the Region to reassess the land needs and SABEs required to
accommodate the endorsed growth Scenario 2A, to account for the lands in Durham
Region that were recently removed from the Greenbelt Plan area for the purpose of
urban residential development;
5. That a copy of Report PDS-005-23 and Council’s decision be sent to the Region of
Durham, and the other Durham Region area municipalities; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-005-23 and any delegations be advised
of Council’s decision.
Page 5
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-005-23
Report Overview
Envision Durham is Durham Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the
Regional Official Plan (ROP). The MCR was initiated in 2019 to develop the vision for the
Region to 2051. The MCR is now in Phase 3 (Direct), providing direction on various
components and providing the public and area municipalities opportunities to provide
comments.
One such component is the Growth Management and Land Needs Assessment to determine
a preferred growth scenario to accommodate the Province’s 2051 Growth Plan forecast s. In
spring 2022, a series of alternative land needs scenarios were considered, each quantifying
the amount of land that would be required to meet the 2051 forecasts, based on different
built form compositions. Staff presented Report PDS-021-22 with recommendations on the
proposed alternatives in April 2022.
On November 10, 2022, the Region released an information report entitled Draft Settlement
Area Boundary Expansions and Area Municipal Growth Allocations (Report 2022 -INFO-91).
On January 4, 2023, Regional staff advised the consultation period for this component would
close on January 18, 2023.
The purpose of this report is to provide Clarington-focused highlights of the Region’s report.
1. Background
Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Clarington-focused highlights of the Region’s
Growth Allocation and Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Information Report (Report
2022-INFO-91). The Region’s report and the supporting technical report, prepared by
Watson and Associates, is available on the Envision Durham website.
Commenting Period
1.2 On November 10, 2022, the Region released its information report ‘Draft Settlement
Area Boundary Expansions and Area Municipal Growth Allocations’ (Report 2022-INFO-
91) identifying the extent and location of proposed SABEs required to accommodate the
Region’s population and employment growth forecasts to 2051. On January 4, 2023,
Regional staff advised the consultation period for this component would close on
January 18, 2023.
1.3 On December 23, 2022, the Region released a ‘W orking Copy Draft’ of its new Regional
Official Plan to the Area Municipal Working Group, Conservation Authorities Working
Group, and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and requested comments by
January 20, 2023.
Page 6
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-005-23
1.4 A condensed commenting period for area municipalities for policy and mapping changes
of this magnitude is challenging and does not provide sufficient time for staff to
undertake the necessary review. This is particularly so in the current context of the
recent Bill 23 amendments, the implications of which are drastic, and were outlined in
Report PDS-054-22.
Community Consultation
1.5 Since releasing its Information Report on the area municipal growth allocations and draft
SABE mapping on its website in November, the Region has not hosted any community
consultation sessions to provide information and answer questions from the public or
the landowners affected by the proposed changes.
1.6 Given the extent of the proposed SABEs in Clarington, the Region is requested to
attend a Clarington Council meeting and host a Public Meeting/Public Information
Centre to provide the opportunity for members of Council and the public to ask
questions and make comments.
1.7 As a matter of good practice, Planning and Infrastructure Services staff would not
typically provide comments on policy matters as significant as growth allocations and
SABEs without hearing from and considering input from Council, Clarington’s advisory
committees (e.g. Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington) and the public.
1.8 It is requested that the Region extend the commenting period on both the Growth
Allocations and SABEs and the Working Copy Draft of the new Regional Official Plan to
at least March 31, 2023. A deadline in April 2023 may be more appropriate, depending
on the timing of the Region’s public consultation in Clarington.
Region’s Report
1.9 The Region’s report includes draft mapping showing the extent and location of
Settlement Area Boundary Expansions that are required to accommodate the Region’s
population and employment forecasts to 2051 of 1.3 million people and 460,000 jobs.
The Report also includes the draft proposed growth allocations for new residential and
jobs, distributed by area municipality.
1.10 On May 25, 2022, Regional Council endorsed Land Use Scenario 2A, which is based on
a residential unit mix of 33% low density, 38% medium density, and 29% high density, a
minimum intensification target of 50%, and 3,671 hectares (9,071 acres) of additional
developable urban area required to accommodate the 2051 growth forecast. It is noted
the land needs scenario is Region-wide, and not specific to Clarington.
Page 7
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-005-23
1.11 As proposed, the SABEs would consume approximately 60% of the Region’s whitebelt,
and 41% of the Clarington’s whitebelt lands. Clarington is proposed to accommodate
approximately 37% of the total expansion area across the Region.
1.12 The Region’s report was completed prior to the Province’s release of Bill 23 (More
Homes, Built Faster Act, 2022) and does not account for the significant impacts of the
changes to the Planning Act brought forward by Bill 23, or the those of the Greenbelt
Plan amendments removing lands from the Greenbelt for the purpose of urban housing
development.
1.13 The Region states it is intended that the final growth allocations and locations for
SABEs will come forward for Regional Council approval in early 2023, as part of the
draft new Regional Official Plan.
2. Overview and Discussion
The following sections provide the highlights of the Region’s report.
Growth Management Strategy
2.1 The Region undertook its Growth Management Strategy in two phases. Phase 1
included a Land Needs Assessment to determine how much additional urban land is
required to accommodate Durham’s forecasted population and employment growth of
1.3 million people and 460,000 jobs by the year 2051. This Phase concluded with
Regional Council’s endorsement of Community Area Land Scenario 2A and
Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2 on May 25, 2022.
2.2 Phase 2 of the Growth Management Strategy addresses overall regional growth,
intensification, housing unit mix, and localized density targets allocated across
Durham’s area municipalities. Area municipal growth allocations have also been
developed. The proposed growth allocations for Clarington are included in Table 1,
below:
Table 1: Proposed Growth Allocations and SABEs for Durham Region and Clarington
Growth Allocation Metric Durham Region Clarington
Population to 2051 1.3 million people 221,000
Employment (jobs) to 2051 460,000 70,300
Household Unit Mix: Low,
Medium, High Density
33% low, 38% medium,
29% high
47% low, 35% medium, 18%
high
Minimum Intensification Target 50% 40%
Total Designated Greenfield Area
Density in 2051
53 people and jobs per
hectare
48 people and jobs per
hectare
Page 8
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-005-23
Growth Allocation Metric Durham Region Clarington
Additional Developable Urban
Land Required (SABEs)
3,671 hectares (9,071
acres)
1,373 hectares (3,393 acres)
Proportion of Whitebelt Lands
consumed by Proposed SABEs
60% 41%
2.3 The Region’s growth management and land needs assessment work considers area
municipal context, including land supply and the ability to accommodate future growth
through SABEs. As such, local intensification targets, density, and housing mix are not
evenly distributed among the area municipalities.
Proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansions
2.4 Provincial policy provides direction on where and how growth can be accommodated
through SABEs. Generally, lands within the Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine are
protected from future urban growth and are not eligible to be considered for settlement
area boundary expansions.
2.5 Lands located outside of current urban boundaries that are also outside of the Greenbelt
Plan area and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan area are referred to as the
‘whitebelt’. Provincial policy provides for SABEs into the whitebelt, subject to
demonstrating the need for an expansion through a land budgeting exercise as part of
an MCR and evaluating the feasibility of the expansion.
2.6 The Region’s whitebelt lands are the focus of the proposed SABEs , and consist of
approximately 6,426 hectares (15,878 acres) of lands within Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa,
and Clarington, when netted for constrained areas (e.g. freeways, rail and utility
corridors, cemeteries, and the natural heritage system). Durham’s remaining
municipalities (Ajax, Brock, Scugog, and Uxbridge) do not have any whitebelt lands.
2.7 In accordance with the policies of the Growth Plan and the current ROP, the proposed
SABEs were developed with the following feasibility criteria in mind: municipal servicing
capacity and feasibility, transportation connectivity, financial viability of providing
services, impacts on watershed conditions and the water resource system, agricultural
capability of the land, aggregate potential, archaeological and cultural heritage, and
compatibility and fit with existing Regional Structure.
2.8 For Clarington specifically, Regional staff identified the following considerations in
developing the proposed growth allocation and draft SABE mapping:
The relatively large whitebelt area in Clarington, providing greater flexibility for
SABEs;
Page 9
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-005-23
Maintaining the existing urban separators to the extent possible between Courtice
and Bowmanville, and Bowmanville and Newcastle;
Logical distribution of Employment Areas along 400 series highways, including along
both sides of Highway 418, east of the existing Courtice urban boundary, and along
Highway 401, where it meets highway 35/115 in between existing Bowmanville and
Newcastle;
Community Areas are proposed adjacent to the existing Courtice Urban Area that
would have the effect of rounding out the planned Courtice Protected Major Transit
Station Area (PMTSA) and the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Area;
For the Orono urban area, a previously deferred expansion to the Orono
Employment Area is included pursuant to a March 16, 2020, decision of the Local
Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), which allows employment uses and applies to
lands on both sides of Tamblyn Road. The proposed SABE implements the LPAT
decision.
2.9 The Region has not accepted Clarington’s request for additional Community Lands in
Orono, citing the request does not conform to the applicable provincial Greenbelt and
Regional policies because of a lack of municipal sanitary services.
2.10 Approximately 37% of the total SABE area lands across the Region are proposed within
Clarington, substantially increasing the geographic areas of Bowmanville, Courtice, and
Newcastle. The full extent of the proposed SABEs in Clarington is illustrated on
Attachment 1 to this Report.
Timing of Development of lands within Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Areas
2.11 The Region indicates the proposed SABEs are intended to designate the land base
necessary to accommodate the Durham’s 2051 population and employment forecasts.
The SABE areas are to be planned to be developed over the 30-year planning horizon.
2.12 The Region’s Land Needs Assessment used density targets that are close to the
Growth Plan’s minimum targets in order to achieve the additional land requirements
identified in the Regional Council-endorsed scenario.
2.13 Current residential development patterns are more compact and are of higher densities,
suggesting the extent to which SABEs are being proposed is not necessary at this time.
2.14 The Region indicates SABE areas are not expected to develop prior to 2031. I t is critical
that area municipalities have the ability to undertake more detailed secondary planning,
including phasing, in order to effectively plan for development within the Built -up Area,
Designated Greenfield Area, and SABE area to ensure the logical progression of
development patterns and the cost-efficient coordination and extension of services.
Page 10
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-005-23
General Considerations and Comments
2.15 The Region’s proposed growth allocations and SABEs for Clarington would result in a
substantial amount of urban land being added to Clarington’s Bowmanville, Courtice,
and Newcastle communities.
2.16 Staff is currently working with Hemson to update Clarington’s population and
employment forecast work and land needs analysis based on the area municipal growth
allocation information released by the Region in November, including an assessment of
the implications of the Bill 23 and Greenbelt Plan changes.
2.17 As noted in the Bill 23 Report presented to Council in December, a nalysis completed to
date suggests Clarington has sufficient planned and approved capacity to accommodate
the recently assigned short-term housing target of 13,000 homes by 2031, and our
planned population growth to 2051.
2.18 The Region is requested to include a designation/policy framework in the new ROP that
provides area municipalities the ability to bring the proposed SABE lands into the urban
area for development as needed within the 2051 planning horizon, and as appropriate in
the local context. Such a framework for phasing will be necessary given the magnitude
of the proposed SABEs to ensure infrastructure planning and budgeting is appropriately
focused and effective. This will be particularly important, given the Bill 23 changes
reducing development charges and parkland requirements.
2.19 Bill 23 identifies Durham Region as a regional municipality without planning
responsibilities, and whose ROP, or components thereof, would be assumed by the
area municipalities to the extent that it is relevant. There is much uncertainty around the
implications of these Bill 23 changes and how they will be implemented. Additional
clarity and insight is requested as to the purpose of expediting the MCR process to
approve the ROP without the typical level of consultation with the community or the area
municipalities expected to assume the document.
2.20 The Greenbelt Plan amendments have not been addressed in the Region’s report.
Significant areas of land in Durham Region were removed from the Greenbelt, including
lands in Pickering, Ajax, and Clarington. It is requested that the Region reassess the
land needs and SABEs required to implement Scenario 2A, accounting for the additional
lands available for development across the Region that were formerly part of the
Greenbelt.
2.21 The Region is requested to attend a Clarington Council meeting and host a Public
Meeting/Public Information Centre to provide opportunity for members of Council and
the public to ask questions and make comments on the proposed changes.
Page 11
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-005-23
2.22 An extension to the consultation period is requested to at least March 31, 2023, to
provide for appropriate community consultation and to allow staff to complete the
necessary analysis and review, including consideration of how the Bill 23 changes and
recently identified 2031 housing targets will impact our forecasting and land needs work.
Additional time may be required, depending on the timing of the requested public
consultation in Clarington.
2.23 Growth Allocations and SABEs mapping is a fundamental component of the MCR that
will significantly impact how and where Clarington will grow over the next 30 years.
Additional detailed comments will be provided to Regional staff on both the Growth
Allocation and SABE component, and the Working Copy Draft of the new ROP once
staff has heard from Council, and the public, and upon the completion of our review.
3. Financial Considerations
Not Applicable.
4. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The purpose of this report was to provide an overview of the Region’s Information
Report on Area Municipal Growth Allocations and Draft SABE Mapping.
5.2 The Region is requested to host a public meeting in Clarington and provide additional
time for review and comments. Recently, significant staff resources have been directed
to the analysis of and comments on Bill 23 and the Greenbelt Plan amendments, further
justifying the need for additional time to review.
5.3 Staff is currently working with Hemson to analyze the proposed growth allocations and
SABEs and to update Clarington’s own growth forecasts and land needs assessment.
This work will inform staff’s detailed comments on this component of the Region’s MCR
and will include the implications of the recent Bill 23 and Greenbelt Plan changes.
5.4 It is respectfully recommended that (i) this report be received (ii) the Region host
community consultation in Clarington (iii) the consultation period for area municipal
comments on the growth allocation and SABE work, and the Draft Working Copy of the
new ROP be extended (iv) that the land needs and SABE requirements be reassessed,
accounting for the former Greenbelt lands, and (v) this report be circulated to Durham
Region and other Durham Region area Municipalities.
Page 12
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-005-23
Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2419 or sallin@clarington.net or Lisa
Backus, Manager of Community Planning, 905 -623-3379 ext. 2413 or lbackus@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansions – Clarington
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 13
"O Cll 0 a:::
"O o3 � C w T IMunicip !rof Clarington
z
A,01 \-\ig\"l\f'/3'/
Taunton Road
Q) .s
C
Q) .:.:: .... Cll 0 I C 0
O') C
Re · � 91onaZH· o 19hway�
Attachment 1 to PSD-0005-23
r
Settlement Area Boundary Expansions -Clarington iJ -4 D Proposed Settlement Area Boundary L Oak Ridges Moraine Areas 0"·\') Expansion Areas c:J -m� Regional Centre / Regional Corridor Greenbelt Boundary
��' CJ Prime Agricultural Areas CJ Urban Area Boundary '
0 1 2 3 4 al Employment Areas .. -, L-.a Municipal Boundary
Kilometres Major Open Space Areas � Selected Endorsed
Employment Conversions Living Areas / Community Areas (for context) Existing ROP Schedule 'A' shown for context
and subject to further refinements. Hamlet D Proposed Major Transit See Covering Report for more information. al Waterfront Areas Station Area Extension
Data Sources and Disclaimer
Regional Official Plan. Schedule 'A' composite. 2020 consolidation. This map has been produced from a variety of sources. The Region of Durham does not make any representations concerning the accuracy.
likely results. or reliability of the use of the materials. The Region hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. Digital cartography by The Regional Municipality of Durham. Planning and Economic
Development Departmenl, 2022. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. Page 14
1
Patenaude, Lindsey
From:Patenaude, Lindsey
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2023 10:05 AM
To:Patenaude, Lindsey
Subject:FW: SOS and Comments on additional lands for development and impacts of previously added lands
unsuitable for development either
From: Libby Racansky <libbyrac@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 8:00 PM
To: Gallagher, June <JGallagher@clarington.net>; Chambers, Michelle <MChambers@clarington.net>;
ClerksExternalEmail <clerks@clarington.net>; Clerks <clerks@durham.ca>; justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca; ministre‐
minister@ec.gc.ca; david.piccini@pc.ola.org; Council <councilOutside@clarington.net>
Subject: SOS and Comments on additional lands for development and impacts of previously added lands unsuitable for
development either
EXTERNAL
To Clerks For Council Special meeting of Planning, January 16 (Communication item for
Council decision on Envision Additional lands included within urban boundary),
Could you please forward this info and our comments to Clarington Council, who is not even aware of
what is happening in Courtice and beyond behind their backs, We want them to help and protect its
taxpayers. Comments end on January 18, 2023. Just because they are not included in Planning or
Works Committees,in Durham Region, this doesn't mean that they should be excluded from
commenting on what is happening at their home - Municipality of Clarington.
At this time they do not have chance.to comment therefore we are asking Durham Region to extend
the time for their commenting.
https://www.durham.ca/en/regional-government/resources/Documents/Council/CIP-Reports/CIP-
Reports-2022/2022-INFO-91.pdf (Envision)
When was this report introduced to the public?
Thank you,
Libby Racansky
Hancock Rd., Courtice, Clarington
Good evening all,,
Happy New Year.to you. We were not so lucky in Courtice because we received a flood gift from
Tannenbaum- Nash Road development on New Year's day..
Page 15
2
Hwy 418 is not depicted on this map. Not even Hwy 407 and others roads, therefore it looks like we
have a lot of Greenbelt land, which is not true.
The newly added parcels (blue colour) are unnecessary and will add cost and complications to
water and wastewater servicing plans (a critical first step to increasing the housing supply).
The previous addition of land removed from the Greenbelt by Tannenbaum -Nash Road
development and the lands owned by Trolleybus (at Hancock Road, Nash Road and Courtice
Road that were purchased by Tannenbaum.
Tributaries are planned to be buried, old growth forest or old but trees that are supporting wildlife of
My neighbours and my PSWetland are planned to be removed, according to a Plan I believe was
approved by the Region. Was it? Our Municipality requested before finalization of their Plans 3
tp 5 meters widening of the Roads that would be used for sidewalks as well. These trees that
hold the moisture underground should be protected because they could shade the sidewalks
along these Roads.
Why should these 200-300 year old healthy trees be protected?
Tannenbaum didn't start building yet, but he gave us a present on New Year's Day, with an
additional GIFT from Hwy 418 collectively:
Narrow cold stream Black Creek with salmon run at this point spilled its waters to private properties.
Is this allowed?
It was a very foggy day -so it was very hard for me to take good photos of the housers around. No
traffic could use the Hwy 418 - was one of our comments that was not noticed by the Regional
Council. It is common knowledge that in areas with high but shallow water table aquifers, the
groundwater is warmer than the temperature of the air -fog will form there. Good for accidents! Bad
Page 16
3
for the people living within and outside urban boundaries far from the Black Creek when it becomes a
river.
With covering even more recharge area by the Tannenboum by impermeable surfaces, more flooding
can be expected. Who will be blamed for this? Not to mention the removal of old forest growth
at the northerly swamp that remained here for ages during the time when Wendats - native
people lived here or even left and admired by First Settlers like William Hancock -
horticulturist, who travelled throughout the world just to learn about trees. The agricultural
part of Tannenbaum - tall habitat for wildlife that is so rare and not found anywhere else will
also be covered by housing/roads or its groundwater will be diverted to surrounding places -
private housing. How can this be allowed?
Weir was created by Tannenbaum by draining the PSW (by ditching around it) at Hancock Road
north. You can also see pink marking Tannenbaum is starting - Bell lines that do not coincide with the
Bell line along the existing Road. More weirs showed up along Hancock Road. Isn't this incorrect
use of our best quality of the water -groundwater that should stay underground to serve its
purpose for the protection of health and safety for people and for our municipal water supply
(when it ends up at the Lake?
We have more than enough ticks, mosquitoes and all kinds of variants of Covid 19 hproveere
now and with runoff from the additional development will only aggravate this problem.
Second, isn-t this use inappropriate to destroy agricultural soil we need? Many studies
now are proving that there are so many homeless and hungry people anywhere, including
Ontario, Canada.
In fact, Oshawa Station CKDO hosted One of the Services for taxes and homelessness just a
few days ago,who added this not at all funny, but very sad joke:
Mom and her young daughter pretended that they were eating imaginary soup. After a
moment, the daughter said: "I don't like it!" Mom told her: "If you eat your imaginary soup, you
can pretend that you can have your imaginary ice cream and if we hear your stomach growl,
you can imagine that it is a tiger sound."
With food prices climbing up, more people will become hungry because of three reasons:
- food has to be delivered from far places, and with our covering up our farmland with houses,
food will become even more expensive.
- families with low job earnings or loss of employment, will not be able to not only buy the
food but to pay for their rent or house. They become homeless. They will not be able
purchase Tannenbaum or other provincially built AFFORDABLE subdivisions.
- Courtice and other places are not ready for the influx of homelessness.
We do not have a Salvation Army or housing accommodation for these people at all.
Bowmanville Salvation Army cannot help Courtice because they do not have enough finances
for helping Bowmanville homeless or poor people.
I have asked our Finance Department s during the PIC if Durham could help Courtice
financially, so that they may accommodate these people. Nothing like that is in the Finance
Plan for 2003 and up.
Without development charges from developers like Tannenbaum, who will pay for this? There
was no reply. Only one general answer I got: all planned projects will be paid by the
taxpayers.
Page 17
4
Back to flooding, diverting the groundwater flow, covering groundwater recharge by
impermeable surfaces - Mr. Almeida wrote to me that there will be an EA for expansion of
CWPC Plant in 2003, because there is not sufficient accommodation for additional flow to this
Plant. Tannenbaum and others like this will just gain and the taxpayers lose by paying for this
milli/billionaire dreams. Does the Council know this? In today's Star, there was an article
about tax hikes - they can double. Toronto's hike is the highest - 5&. All people will not be able
to afford their medicine. This is not humane.
This intermittent but very important tributary for this area after precipitation will be covered up by
Nash development. I will remind Durham Council what will happen here after its removal. There will
be more runoff and pooling in new and existing subdivisions that creates a damp , unhealthy
environment especially for those with upper respiratory illnesses. Durham Region identified
Courtice north in their study in 2017 with higher occurrence of asthma than in other
neighbourhoods. This status was recently included in the 2022 study. All this means that more
pressure will be put on our Health care., Health Department is not suggesting any improvement, they
are just listing health facilities that will become insufficient.
This tributary was even identified by developer's consultant Dillon study (see above photo).
There is a big concern by the residents about contamination of this unconfined aquifer by
construction vehicles. This groundwater or runoff will eventually enter Creeks and Lake. our
municipal water supply. It will affect the Oshawa Second Marsh at the bottom of our
watershed. These leaks are usually not seen unless there is a special air temperature and
wetness. It was above zero and the air was saturated by humidity. Fog was everywhere, the traffic
on Hwy 418 stopped.
These leaks were found at the construction site for the Headgate development intersection of
Gay/Tabb and Broome. The leaks were entering stormwater that leads directly to cold stream
Black/Farewell Creeks. This should not happen at all. The gas leaking from construction
vehicles was spread by cars by local residents all over.
These construction vehicles are not well serviced and usually they are old. They are spreading
gas all over, wherever they go, every day.
Page 18
5
Salmon spawning grounds in Farewell. Salmons in Black Creek couldn't reach
their spawning ground because of siltation coming from the Hwy418 and not yet developed
Tanenbaum lands within the Greenbelt.
The Public spent years establishing protected land within the Greenbelt and now Bill 23 took
all their efforts away. Now, only negative impacts of taking the lands out of the Greenbelt are
proving that it will not work for the environment, people nor the wildlife.What do we need
uneducated politicians who are making uninformed decisions about our lives?
Courtice north and Darlington Ward 1 has the most PS wetlands than other southern Urban
areas in GTA.
Page 19
6
See above attached mapping our wetland complex/- upland forest was not included.
Compare it with few years later mapping by Golder
Page 20
7
and with Gartner Lee later before Hwy 418 was built. As you can see, the northern part of the Hwy
was changed after I took Gartner Lee to a site, where not identified old age growth with endangered
species were..This was approved by both Councils. Map on the right depicts the water basin, red line
- Hwy 418 cutting this basin in half yellow- groundwater was redirected to improper places and this is
now causing flooding.
Page 21
8
Now, there are just remains of these wetlands not at all connected hydrologically nor
physically by leaving wildlife linkages as proposed above. Is the Council aware of this? Could
they at least ask Blackbird- and Tannenbaum to mitigate their negative impacts by allowing
the wildlife and the groundwater flow through 2 underpasses? Maybe even siltation in Black
Creek that affects salmon run could be stopped. They removed 18 ha of PSW and diverted the
groundwater in their deep cuts to flood private lands.
Our Tax Department didn't have any Nash Road or Tannenbaum on their mapping. We were
told that this land is owned by the Province. Does this mean that Tannenbaum didn't pay any
taxes? Was this land a gift from the Province?
If this would be true, will the Province pay for the improvement of the dirt, potholes and
flooded Roads he needs for his development?
Page 22
9
Hwy 418
Lastly, could the Council help to protect old forests-swamp and trees within the existing
subdivisions and Tannenbaum land to lessen all we are experiencing now? Below are just
some examples of the size of trees and vernal pools so important for the wildlife.
Page 23
10
Provincial government's goal:
We have a plan to build Ontario so that our great province is the best place anywhere in
the world to live, work and raise a family.
Where is it reflected in Courtice groundwater recharge area with PSWetland Complex?
Maybe the Minister of Environment the Honourable David Piccini could give you some
points on why this is not happening in his riding and what is there that he could help us
with? What can he do for the improvement of Hwy 418, so that it doesn't impact our
health and safety, how can he help us with flooding and pooling within subdivisions and
private lands?
Also, the federal government used to protect our watershed, especially Oshawa Second Marsh.
See their studies with a warning of what may happen to this 1st class wetland, if precautions
are not taken.
What could the Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Minister of Environment
and Climate Change the Honourable Steven Gilbeault do for us regarding climate change
that is directly tied to the protection of forests, swamps and groundwater?
Environment and Climate Change Canada informs Canadians about protecting and conserving our
natural heritage, and ensuring a clean, safe and sustainable environment for present and
future generations.
We do not need information - we live it right now in poor air/water/soil quality and
illnesses that relate to these changes. How will our Lake Ontario get its protection?
Contamination of its water will not stay only in Courtice, but it will spread throughout the
Lake if nothing is done.
Thank you again,
Libby Racansky
FOF and neighbours from around Courtice
This time, please, read my email and look at the photos, pictures, maps before you will make
any decisions like you did for the Greenbelt takeover. If you are smart, you would realize that
you are not making decisions just for us but for future generations. You will pay for unnecessary
infrastructure that is not there also. Think of the people with low income. It is obvious that none
of you ever experienced hunger or losing your home, etc. More poor, homeless people you will
create will make our and your lives harder (crime will increase, robberies, shootings.illnesses
will rise).
Page 24
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Special Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: January 16, 2023 Report Number: PDS-006-23
Submitted By: Carlos Salazar, Director of Planning and Infrastructure Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: Resolution#:
Report Subject: Bill 23 Update – Conservation Authorities
Recommendation:
1. That Report PDS-006-23, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received for information.
2. That Staff be authorized to use consulting services to provide the technical expertise
previously provided by the Conservation Authorities.
3. That any additional costs relating to the implementation of Bill 109 and Bill 23 be
considered as part of the current review of the Fees By-law for all services to be
provided by the Municipality.
4. That a copy of Report PDS-006-23 be forwarded to Clarington’s member Conservation
Authorities.
5. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-006-22 and any delegations be advised
of Council’s decision.
Page 25
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-006-23
Report Overview
Bill 23, the More Homes, Built Faster Act, 2022, was introduced on October 25, 2022, and
received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022. According to the Province, the purpose of Bill
23 is to build housing faster and bring costs down. These legislative changes will impact
Clarington’s powers under the Planning Act, the Ontario Heritage Act, and the Development
Charges Act, and our working relationship with our Regional and Conservation Authority
partners.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the Province’s recent approved legislative
changes under Bill 23 and as provided through recent correspondence from the Province
and to bring forward a recommendation to address the immediate implication of the
legislation for Council’s consideration.
1. Background
1.1 To date, several major steps have been taken by the Province in implementing the
Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force recommendations. These include:
April 14, 2022 - enactment of Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022;
November 28, 2022 – enactment of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022;
December 21, 2022 enactment of Changes to the Greenbelt Plan to add and remove
lands;
October 25, 2022- December 30, 2022, housing-focused policy review of A Place to
Grow and Provincial Policy Statement.
1.2 In response to the above legislation, when they were still being proposed, staff have
reported (2 Briefing Notes and 3 Staff Reports) to Council as noted below:
November 9, 2022, Briefing Note – Proposed Changes to the Greenbelt Lands in
Clarington to be Removed
November 28, 2022 General Government Committee PDS-059-22 Province’s
Proposed Amendments to the Greenbelt Plan, 2022.
December 5, 2022 Planning and Development Committee PDS-051-22 More Homes
for Everyone Act, 2022(Bill 109) and Bill 13, Supporting People and Businesses Act,
2021 – a Recommended Path Forward for the Development Process
December 5, 2022 Planning and Development Committee PDS-054-22 More Homes
Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23): Comments
Page 26
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-006-23
December 19, 2022, Briefing Note – Financial Impact – Bill 23, Development
Charges and Grants
1.3 Council (and staff) were also in receipt of correspondence from the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing (Dec. 22, 2022, Jan. 4, 2023) and the Ministry of Natural Resources
and Forestry (Dec. 28, 2022) regarding Bill 109, Bill 23 and changes to the
Conservation Authorities Act (See Attached).
2 Greenbelt Act, 2005
2.1 On November 4, 2022, the Province released proposed amendments to the Greenbelt
Plan and associated Ontario Regulation 59/05. On November 28, 2022, staff provided
comments at to the General Government Committee through staff report PDS 059 -22.
Staff report PDS-059-22 and corresponding resolution was sent to the Province.
2.2 On December 14, 2022, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing amended the
Greenbelt Plan and the plan boundaries. As a result, the lands located at the northwest
corner of Hancock Road and Nash Roads, approximately 35 ha (86 acres) are no
longer located within the Greenbelt.
3. Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022
Background
3.1 Bill 23 is wide-ranging and makes changes to ten different acts and numerous related
regulations. Staff Report PDS-054-22 summarized the Province’s proposed changes to
the legislation under Bill 23 that would have the most significant impacts on the
Municipality, including the Planning Act, the Ontario Heritage Act, the Conservation
Authorities Act, and the Development Charges Act, and presented staff comments on
the proposed changes for Council’s consideration.
3.2 On November 28, 2022, Bill 23 (2022) received Royal Assent, and this is when the
majority of the changes proposed in Bill 23 came into effect, including changes to the
Conservation Authorities Act.
3.3 The December 28, 2022, correspondence received from the Ministry (see Attachment 3)
reaffirmed that several changes were made to the Conservation Authorities Act
intended to “further focus conservation authorities on their core mandate, support faster
and less costly approvals, streamline conservation authority processes and help made
land suitable for housing available for development.”
3.4 A new Minister’s Regulation (Ontario Regulation 596/22: Prescribed Acts) came into
effect on January 1, 2023, that when reviewing and commenting on development and
Page 27
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-006-23
land use planning the CAs comments must be limited to only Category 1 programs
(Natural Hazards). Category 1 programs include stormwater management, flood plain,
steep slopes, erosion prone areas and wetlands.
3.5 Under this Regulation, CAs are no longer able to comment on Category 2 (Municipal
programs and services they provide at the request of the Municipality) or Category 3
(other programs and services the CA determines to be advisable) programs under the
following prescribed Acts:
Aggregate Resource Act
The Condominium Act, 1998
The Drainage Act
The Endangered Species Act, 2007
The Environmental Assessment Act
The Environmental Protection Act
The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act
The Ontario Heritage Act
The Ontario Water Resources Act
The Planning Act
3.6 Category 2 programs include, land use planning and development related to Natural
Heritage, Municipal led Subwatershed Studies and Tree planting. Category 3 programs
include surface water quality monitoring and land acquisition.
Planning Act Process Implications
3.7 The Planning Act prescribes the agencies that are required to be consulted. When
processing and evaluating a Planning Act application the agencies prescribed by the
Planning Act are consulted and the comments they provide are considered as staff
make a recommendation to Council for the conditional approval or denial of an
application.
3.8 The Planning Act has not been changed to remove the Conservation Authority as a
prescribed agency and therefore staff will continue to circulate Planning Act applications
to the CA as they did prior to January 1, 2023, so that they may review and comment on
natural hazard including flood plains and source water protection matters.
However, as outlined in correspondence received from both the GRCA and CLOCA, CA
staff will now scope their review to include wetlands, valleylands, watercourses and
Page 28
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-006-23
stormwater management amongst others as these are integral component of natural
hazard management in addition to their source water protection mandate.
Official Plan Policy Implementation Implications
3.9 The Clarington Official Plan provides a robust policy framework to protect the Natural
Hazards (flood plain, erosion prone areas etc.) and Natural Heritage System (woodlots,
wetlands, fish habitat etc.) from development. The Clarington OP policy framework is
based on both Provincial (Planning Act, PPS, Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges
Moraine Plan) and Regional (Durham Region Official Plan) legislation and policy.
Clarington staff relies heavily on the expertise of CA staff to implement Official Plan
policies. As CAs may no longer provide the technical expertise to implement OP policy
(Natural Heritage system), Clarington must find this expertise elsewhere.
3.10 As Bill 109 has introduced punitive consequences in the form of fee refunds from
Municipalities to applicants if a decision is not made on a file with the legislated
timeframes, a very short-term solution is needed to bridge the expertise gap until there
is a long-term solution. Although Council has received correspondence from Minister
Clark (see Attachment 1) pledging to change the in-force date for the refund of
Rezoning and Site Plan fees to July 1, 2023, the current in force date for all affected
application types is January 1, 2023.
3.11 In the immediate term, it is appropriate to retain consulting services to provide the
technical expertise previously provided by the CAs through the land development
process. These additional costs would be added to the Fees By-law Review currently
underway.
4. Financial Considerations
4.1 Currently the Planning and Infrastructure Services Department have many files that
include Environmental Impact studies. The need to retain natural heritage expertise to
bridge the gap created by the reduction in Conservation Authority services is among the
many implications of Bill 109 and Bill 23 that must be addressed immediately. There will
be other costs that will become apparent as staff continues to work through the Bill 109
and Bill 23 changes. It is recommended that any additional costs relating to the
implementation of Bill 109 and Bill 23 be considered as part of the current review of the
Fees By-law. While the Fees By-law review is undertaken the existing consulting
services budget will be utilized. Staff will report back to Council on this issue for
additional funding if the need arises.
Page 29
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-006-23
5. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
6. Conclusion
7.1 It is respectfully recommended that consulting services be retained to provide the
technical expertise previously provided by Conservation Authorities. It is also
recommended that any additional costs relating to the implementation of Bill 109 and
Bill 23 be considered as part of the current review of the Fees By-law.
Staff Contact: Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net, Carlos
Salazar, Director of Planning and Infrastructure, csalazar@clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachments 1 & 2 – Letters from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Attachment 3 – Letter from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Page 30
234-2022-6136
December 22, 2022
Dear Head of Council:
Ontario’s housing supply crisis is a problem which has been decades in the making. It
will take both short-term strategies and long-term commitment from all levels of
government, the private sector, and not-for-profits to drive change. Each entity will have
to do their part to be part of the solution.
To help support this important priority, I am pleased to provide you with an update on
recent legislative and regulatory changes our government has made to help get 1.5
million homes built over the next 10 years.
Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, was introduced on March 30, 2022
and received Royal Assent on April 14, 2022.
As part of the government’s More Homes for Everyone Plan, Schedule 5 of Bill 109
made changes to the Planning Act. Consequential changes were also made to the City
of Toronto Act, 2006.
Most of the Planning Act changes are now in effect except for the zoning and site plan
control fee refund provisions, which are due to come into force on January 1, 2023.
However, I am committed to bringing forward legislation to delay the effective date of
the fee refund changes from January 1, 2023 to July 1, 2023. These legislative changes
would be introduced in the new year.
In the event that any fee refunds become due to applicants before these legislative
changes are made, municipalities might consider not issuing refunds in the interim given
my express commitment to introduce legislation that, if passed, would retroactively
cancel the requirement.
You can find more information about Bill 109 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario
(019-5284), and the Ontario Legislative Assembly website.
…/2
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Office of the Minister
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto ON M7A 2J3
Tel.: 416 585-7000
Ministère des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
Bureau du ministre
777, rue Bay, 17e étage
Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2J3
Tél. : 416 585-7000
Attachment 1 to
PDS-006-23
Page 31
-2-
Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster, 2022
Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, was introduced on October 25, 2022,
and received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022.
To support More Homes Built Faster: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan: 2022–
2023, Schedule 9 of Bill 23 made changes to the Planning Act. Schedule 1 of Bill 23
also made similar changes to the City of Toronto Act, 2006 related to site plan
provisions. Schedule 3 of Bill 23 made changes to the Development Charges Act.
The planning-related and municipal development-related charges changes came into
force on November 28, 2022, except for provisions related to removal of planning
responsibilities from certain upper-tier municipalities, certain provisions related to
parkland dedication, and exemptions from municipal development-related charges for
affordable and attainable housing, which will come into force on a day in the future to be
named by proclamation. Provisions related to Conservation Authorities will take effect
January 1, 2023.
Bill 23 also made changes to legislation led by other ministries. Please see Appendix A
for an overview of the effective dates of the Bill 23 changes by schedule.
You can find more information about Bill 23 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario
(019-6163), and the Ontario Legislative Assembly website.
Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022 and Bill 39, the Better
Municipal Governance Act, 2022
Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022, was introduced on August 10,
2022, and received Royal Assent on September 8, 2022. Bill 3 and associated
regulations (O. Reg. 529/22 and O. Reg. 530/22) came into force on November 23,
2022.
Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022, was introduced on November 16,
2022, and received Royal Assent on December 8, 2022. Bill 39, amendments to
associated regulations (O. Reg. 581/22 and O. Reg. 583/22), and additional regulations
to prescribe provincial priorities (O. Reg. 580/22 and O. Reg. 582/22) came into force
on December 20, 2022. Additional details can be found in Appendix B and on the
Ontario Legislative Assembly’s website (Bill 3 and Bill 39).
Sincerely,
Steve Clark
Minister
c: Chief Administrative Officer
Page 32
Appendix A
Effective Dates for Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022
Schedule Effective Date
Schedule 1: City of
Toronto Act, 2006
All of the changes in Schedule 1 (City of Toronto Act) came into force
on the day the bill received Royal Assent.
Note: The legislative changes to the City of Toronto Act include
amendments that give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
authority to make regulations imposing limits and conditions on how
municipalities can regulate the demolition and conversion of residential
rental properties of six units or more. No regulations have been made at
this time.
Schedule 2:
Conservation
Authorities Act
Changes in Schedule 2 (Conservation Authorities Act) came into force
the day the bill received Royal Assent, except for:
• On January 1, sections related to streamlining disposition of lands
for CAs comes into force which would allow CAs to sell or lease
land without Minister’s approval provided they follow rules around
public consultation and notifications.
• Also on January 1, sections that enable the Minister’s ability to issue
direction to freeze fees and ability to scope CA commenting on
development applications and land use planning policies through
regulation, would come into force but only have effect when the
Minister issues direction on fees or if a regulation prescribing Act
under which CA commenting roles is restricted is made.
• Changes related to CA permitting (including removal of
“conservation of land” and “pollution”, adding “unstable soil and
bedrock”, regulation making powers to exempt development from a
CA permit where it has been authorized under the Planning Act,
etc.) take effect on a later date (upon proclamation) once a new
regulation under Section 28 of the CA Act is in effect. MNRF
continues to consult on that regulation through the Environmental
Registry (#019-2927).
Schedule 3:
Development
Charges Act, 1997
All of the changes in Schedule 3 (Development Charges Act) came into
force on the day the bill received Royal Assent, with the exception of
provisions relating to development charge exemptions for affordable
and attainable housing units, which would take effect upon
proclamation.
Schedule 4:
Municipal Act,
2001
All of the changes in Schedule 4 (Municipal Act) came into force on the
day the bill received Royal Assent.
Note: The legislative changes to the Municipal Act give the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing authority to make regulations imposing
limits and conditions on how municipalities can regulate the demolition
and conversion of residential rental properties of six units or more. No
regulations have been made at this time.
Schedule 5: New
Home Construction
Licensing Act,
2017
Many of the amendments in Schedule 5 (New Home Construction
Licensing Act) came into force on the day the bill received Royal
Assent.
The amendments regarding the maximum fine that a court may impose
for a subsequent conviction, as well as most of the amendments related
Page 33
Schedule Effective Date
to administrative penalties, will come into force on February 1, 2023.
Schedule 6:
Ontario Heritage
Act
Most of the amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) made
through the bill will be proclaimed into force on January 1, 2023. These
include:
• The new authorities under Part III.1 of the Act that relate to the
Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage
Properties.
• Most of the changes to procedures related to municipal registers,
including the process and requirements around inclusion of non-
designated properties on the municipal registers. However, the
requirement for municipalities to make their municipal registers
available on a publicly accessible website will not come into force
until July 1, 2023 to provide municipalities with time to ensure
compliance.
• Limiting the ability to issue a Notice of Intention to Designate a
property subject to a prescribed event to only those properties
included on a municipal register.
• The authority to prescribe criteria for determining cultural heritage
value or interest for the purposes of including non-designated
properties on the municipal register and designating a Heritage
Conservation District (HCD).
• The authority to set out processes to amend and repeal HCD bylaw
in regulation. Note, the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
will consult on the development of these processes to be set out in
regulation in 2023.
Regulatory amendments to O.Reg. 9/06: Criteria for Determining
Cultural Heritage Value or Interest will also come into force on January
1, 2023. These changes establish that non-designated properties
included on a register must meet one or more of the criteria outlined in
the regulation, and that individual properties and HCDs must meet two
or more of the criteria included in the regulation in order to be
designated. The regulation also includes transitionary provisions to
address matters underway at the time of the changes coming into force.
The outstanding amendments to the OHA made through Bill 108, the
More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, will also be proclaimed into force
on January 1, 2023. The amendments speak specifically to the
demolition or removal of an attribute that is not a building or structure
within an HCD.
Regulatory amendments to O.Reg. 358/21: General will come into force
on January 1, 2023. These amendments include consequential
housekeeping amendments and transition provisions related to the
above legislative amendments coming into force.
Bill 23 included some minor housekeeping amendments to the OHA
that came into force upon Royal Assent. These included repealing the
alternative definition of “alter”.
Schedule 7:
Ontario Land
Tribunal Act, 2001
The changes in Schedule 7 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) will
come into force on proclamation.
Page 34
Schedule Effective Date
Schedule 8:
Ontario
Underground
Infrastructure
Notification System
Act, 2012
The changes in Schedule 8 (Ontario Underground Infrastructure
Notification System Act, 2012) came into force on the day the bill
received Royal Assent.
Schedule 9:
Planning Act
The changes in Schedule 9 (Planning Act) all came into force on the
day the bill received Royal Assent, with the following exceptions:
• provisions related to removal of planning responsibilities from
certain upper-tier municipalities, which would come into force on a
day to be named by proclamation.
• provisions related to the exemption of community benefits charge
and parkland dedication requirements for affordable and attainable
housing units
• provisions related encumbered land to be conveyed to
municipalities by developers for park or other recreational purposes
• provisions related to Conservation Authorities (linked to the changes
in Schedule 2) will take effect January 1, 2023
Schedule 10:
Supporting Growth
and Housing in
York and Durham
Regions Act, 2022
Except as otherwise provided, the Act set out in Schedule 10 came into
force on the day bill received Royal Assent.
• Sections 7 to 10, subsection 11 (5) and section 14 come into force
on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.
Once in force, these sections will require a prescribed municipality
to develop, construct, and operate the Lake Simcoe phosphorus
reduction project and allow the Ontario Clean Water Agency to
undertake some or all of that project if ordered to do so by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council. The project will also be exempt
from the Environmental Assessment Act.
• Subsection 85 (1) comes into force on the later of the day
subsection 44 (1) of this Act comes into force and the day section 2
of Schedule 5 to the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021
comes into force. Subsection 85 (1) makes consequential changes
to the Act arising out of changes to the Expropriations Act in respect
of alternative hearings processes.
• Subsection 85 (2) comes into force on the later of the day section
61 of this Act comes into force and the day section 42 of Schedule 4
to the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 comes into
force. Subsection 85 (2) makes consequential changes to the Act
arising out of the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019
consistent with other Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and
Parks legislation. The change would allow a person undertaking an
inspection to obtain the assistance of the local police force rather
than the Ontario Provincial Police Force.
Page 35
Appendix B
Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022 and Bill 39, the Better
Municipal Governance Act, 2022
As a result of Bills 3 and 39, changes were made to the Municipal Act, 2001, City of Toronto
Act, 2006 and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and regulations were established to
give the mayors in Toronto and Ottawa strong mayor powers to help advance shared
provincial-municipal priorities, including building new homes. These powers include:
• Choosing to appoint the municipality’s chief administrative officer,
• Hiring certain municipal department heads, and establish and re-organize departments,
• Creating committees of council, assigning their functions and appointing the Chairs and
Vice-Chairs of committees of council, and
• Proposing the municipal budget, subject to council amendments and a head of council
veto and council override process.
The mayors of Toronto and Ottawa can also use strong mayor powers related to provincial
priorities. These include:
• Vetoing certain by-laws if the mayor is of the opinion that all or part of the by-law could
potentially interfere with a provincial priority,
• Bringing forward matters for council consideration if the mayor is of the opinion that
considering the matter could potentially advance a provincial priority, and
• Proposing certain municipal by-laws if the mayor is of the opinion that the proposed by-
law could potentially advance a provincial priority. Council can pass these by-laws if
more than one-third of council members vote in favour.
The provincial priorities for the purposes of strong mayor powers are prescribed in O. Reg.
580/22 and O. Reg. 582/22 and they are:
1. Building 1.5 million new residential units by December 31, 2031.
2. Constructing and maintaining infrastructure to support housing, including, transit, roads,
utilities, and servicing.
Page 36
234-2022-5422
January 4, 2023
Dear Heads of Council,
I’m pleased to share an update on key initiatives underway at my ministry to help meet our
government’s goal of building 1.5 million new homes over the next 10 years.
The legislature recently passed our government’s More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 which
takes bold action to ensure that all communities can grow with a mix of ownership and rental
housing types to meet the needs of all Ontarians.
Our government knows that building inspectors play a critical role in ensuring that new homes
meet the public safety requirements set out in Ontario’s Building Code. However, the capacity
of municipal building departments has been impacted by recruitment challenges and the
increasing number of building inspectors retiring from the profession. That’s why, earlier this
year, we took action to help municipalities address labour supply shortages in the building
sector by amending the Building Code to provide a new model for municipal building
departments to design and administer internship programs for building inspectors.
Effective July 1, 2022, municipal building departments can establish program entry criteria for
interns that meet their own local recruitment and enforcement needs. This new internship
model supports public safety by continuing to require that a qualified building inspector or
Chief Building Official supervises the work of interns. The interns must also pass ministry
technical and legal exams before being able to practice independently as building inspectors.
In the coming months, the ministry will develop guidance materials to support municipalities
that are interesting in launching local programs to recruit new intern building inspectors. We
look forward to working with municipalities to implement local internships.
Additionally, the ministry has engaged a consultant to identify opportunities for enhancements
to the qualification program for building practitioners. We are seeking input from the public,
including municipalities, building inspectors, designers, septic installers and building
professionals not regulated by the ministry. This feedback will help guide future decisions on
new approaches to qualification.
For more information and to review the discussion paper, please visit the Environmental
Registry of Ontario (ERO) website at https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-6433.
…/2
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Office of the Minister
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto ON M7A 2J3
Tel.: 416 585-7000
Ministère des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
Bureau du ministre
777, rue Bay, 17e étage
Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2J3
Tél. : 416 585-7000
Attachment 2 to
PDS-006-23
Page 37
-2-
In addition to this ongoing work, the ministry is modernizing the provincial Qualification and
Registration Tracking System (QuARTS). QuARTS is used by over 7,000 building
practitioners to update their qualification and registration information online and to help the
government regulate safety and compliance in the Ontario building industry.
Modernizing QuARTS will create a more efficient and user-friendly system, allowing building
officials to spend more time on the important task of reviewing and issuing building permits to
support the government’s key priority of increasing housing stock.
Finally, the ministry made the 2012 Building Code Compendium freely available in Adobe
PDF format through the website (https://www.ontario.ca/page/request-digital-copy-2012-
building-code-compendium). Since its launch in March 2022, the ministry has provided free
copies to over 5,000 building professionals to reduce barriers and help accelerate the
construction of new homes across the province. This initiative has enabled inspectors to
access Building Code requirements while performing their work onsite in a more convenient
format. Additionally, candidates studying for the ministry’s exams are able to access and
learn Building Code content in an easy to navigate, user-friendly manner.
As part of the plan to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years, the government looks
forward to continuing consultations with municipalities, the building industry and the public)to
investigate further changes to Ontario’s Building Code in order to create more housing and
support public safety.
If you are interested in learning more about any of the ministry’s initiatives related to the
transformation of Building Code services in Ontario, please contact us at
BuildingTransformation@ontario.ca.
Thank you for your continued partnership as we work together to get more homes built faster
for all Ontarians.
Sincerely,
Steve Clark
Minister
c: Municipal Clerks
Page 38
1
To: Conservation authorities and participating municipalities, Conservation
Ontario and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario
From: Jennifer Keyes, Director
Date: December 28, 2022
Subject: Legislative and regulation changes affecting conservation authorities
Good afternoon,
I am writing to provide you with information on amendments to the Conservation
Authorities Act made as part of the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, as well as two
regulations that have been approved by the province in support of Ontario’s Housing
Supply Action Plan, both of which will come into effect on January 1, 2023. In addition, the
Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry has issued a direction regarding fees that will
be distributed separately from this letter. A notice will be posted to the Environmental
Registry of Ontario (ERO) in the coming weeks regarding these decisions.
Legislative Amendments
As you are likely aware, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 was passed this Fall,
receiving Royal Assent on November 28, 2022. Several changes were made to the
Conservation Authorities Act that are intended to further focus conservation authorities on
their core mandate, support faster and less costly approvals, streamline conservation
authority processes, and help make land suitable for housing available for development.
Notably, one part of the More Home Built Faster Act, 2022 which came into effect upon
Royal Assent were changes to Section 28.0.1 of the Conservation Authorities Act, which
include provisions to require a conservation authority to issue a permission or permit where
a Minister’s Zoning Order has been made under section 47 of the Planning Act. This
section was amended to also apply to orders made under section 34.1 of the Planning Act,
otherwise known as the “community infrastructure and housing accelerator” tool, in
addition to some other minor changes.
Other changes, which will come into effect on January 1, 2023, include:
Ministry of Natural Resources and
Forestry
Resources Planning and Development
Policy Branch
Policy Division
300 Water Street
Peterborough, ON K9J 3C7
Ministère des Richesses naturelles et
des Forêts
Direction des politiques de planification et
d'exploitation des ressources
Division de l’élaboration des politiques
300, rue Water
Peterborough (Ontario) K9J 3C7
Attachment 3 to
PDS-006-23
Page 39
2
• Updates to Section 21 of the Act so that a disposition of land in respect of which the
Minister has made a grant under section 39 requires authorities to provide a notice
of the proposed disposition to the Minister instead of requiring the Minister’s
approval. Authorities will also be required to conduct public consultations before
disposing of lands that meet certain criteria.
• Sections 21.1.1 and 21.1.2 of the Act which provide that authorities may not provide
a program or service related to reviewing and commenting on proposals,
applications, or other matters under prescribed Acts.
• A new section 21.3 that enables the Minister to issue temporary direction to a
conservation authority preventing the authority from changing the amount of a fee it
charges under subsection 21.2 (10) of the Act.
Remaining legislative changes regarding conservation authority development regulations
will not come into effect until proclaimed, following the creation of a new Minister’s
regulation with supporting regulatory details. This regulation is currently being consulted on
until December 30th on the ERO, #019-2927: Proposed updates to the regulation of
development for the protection of people and property from natural hazards in Ontario .
New Regulatory Requirements
Following the passing of these legislative amendments, the government has proceeded
with making two regulations, both of which will come into effect on January 1, 2023.
Amendments were made to Ontario Regulation 686/21: Mandatory Programs and Services
to require conservation authorities to identify conservation authority lands suitable for
housing. This requirement is part of the preparation of the land inventory required to be
completed by conservation authorities by December 31, 2024, and certain considerations
for identifying whether or not lands are suitable for housing are listed.
A new Minister’s regulation (Ontario Regulation 596/22: Prescribed Acts – Subsections
21.1.1 (1.1) and 21.1.2 (1.1) of the Act) was also made to focus conservation authorities’
role when reviewing and commenting on proposals, applications, or other matters related
to development and land use planning. Under this regulation, conservation authorities are
no longer able to provide a municipal (Category 2) or other (Category 3) program or
service related to reviewing and commenting on a proposal, application, or other matter
made under the following Acts:
• The Aggregate Resources Act
• The Condominium Act, 1998
• The Drainage Act
• The Endangered Species Act, 2007
• The Environmental Assessment Act
• The Environmental Protection Act
• The Niagara Escarpment Planning
and Development Act
• The Ontario Heritage Act
• The Ontario Water Resources Act
• The Planning Act
Page 40
3
This regulation does not affect conservation authorities’ provision of mandatory
programs or services (Category 1) related to reviewing and commenting on a proposal,
application, or other matter made under those Acts.
An administrative update to the “Determination of Amounts Owing Under Subsection
27.2 (2) of the Act” regulation (O. Reg. 401/22) was also made to update the methods of
determining amounts owed by specified municipalities for operating expenses and
capital costs related to mandatory the Clean Water Act, 2006 and Lake Simcoe
Protection Act, 2008 programs and services to enable use of a benefit-based
apportionment method.
I appreciate that with these most recent amendments, along with changes made over
the last number of years, this is a time of significant transition for conservation
authorities and their member municipalities. Throughout this time, conservation
authorities have continued to deliver on their important roles in protecti ng people and
property from natural hazards, conserving and managing lands, and drinking water
source protection.
The ongoing efforts of conservation authorities to implement these changes is
acknowledged, including initiatives led by conservation authorities and Conservation
Ontario that have contributed to the Government’s objectives of improving accountability
and transparency and supporting timely development approvals to help address
Ontario’s housing supply crisis.
If you have any questions, please reach out to the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Forestry at ca.office@ontario.ca. I look forward to working with you in the coming year.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Keyes
Director, Resources Planning and Development Policy Branch
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Page 41
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: January 16, 2023 Report Number: PDS-007-23
Submitted By: Carlos Salazar, Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 41.14 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Project Update - North Village Secondary Plan, Newcastle
Recommendation:
1. That Report PSD-007-23, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received for information.
Page 42
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-007-23
Report Overview
The purpose of this information report is to provide a project update on the North Village
Secondary Plan and integrated Environmental Assessment (EA). Phase 2 of the 4 -phase
project is completed. The Phase 2 Summary and Engagement Feedback Reports are
attached to this report. Phase 3 of the project has commenced.
1. Project Update
1.1 In April 2019, Council authorized staff to commence the North Village Secondary Plan
(PSD-019-19). Staff was authorized to finalize the draft Terms of Refence and issue a
Request for Proposal to retain the necessary consultants.
1.2 The North Village Secondary Plan includes an integrated Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the re-alignment of Regional Road 17. The EA component of the Secondary
Plan is managed by the Municipality in co -ordination with the Region of Durham.
Integrating the EA for Regional Road 17 re-alignment into the Secondary Plan project
allows for a co-ordinated process that satisfies the requirements of both the Planning
Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.
1.3 Between 700-1,400 new units are anticipated depending on final densities.
Figure 1: Map of North Village Secondary Plan
Page 43
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-007-23
Phase 1
1.4 Phase 1 of the project started in 2019 and included preparation of background and
technical reports, such as Transportation Report, Cultural Heritage Report, Stage 1
Archeological Assessment and Master Servicing Report.
1.5 Two Public Information Centres (PICs) were held to gather public feedback on Phase 1
of the project.
1.6 In November 2019, the first Public Information Centre (PIC) was held to introduce the
project and share public engagement opportunities, as well as receive initial public
feedback.
1.7 Public Information Centre #2 was held November 2021 to present the findings of the
background and technical reports and receive feedback from the public. An
Engagement Feedback Report was prepared to detail public engagement and feedback
received at PIC #2.
1.8 In March 2022, Phase 1 of the project was completed. A Phase 1 Summary and Public
Engagement Report was prepared to summarize the technical analysis and public
engagement completed as part of the first phase.
Figure 2: Attendees and engagement boards from Public Information Centre #1
Phase 2
1.9 Phase 2 of the project started in early 2022 to prepare three land use alternations for
the North Village Secondary Plan area and create evaluation criteria to evaluate the
options.
1.10 Public Information Centre #3 was held June 8, 2022, to share 3 land use alternatives for
the North Village Secondary Plan area and criteria to evaluate the options. A live poll
was used during the meeting to engage attendees, and public feedback was received
Page 44
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-007-23
on the 3 options presented at the PIC. An Engagement Feedback Report was prepared
to detail public engagement and feedback received at PIC #3 (Attachment 2).
1.11 In October 2022, Phase 2 of the project was completed. A Phase 2 Summary and
Public Engagement report was prepared to outline the 3 land use alternatives,
evaluation criteria and public engagement completed (Attachment 1).
Figure 3: Interactive polls from online Public Information Centre #3
Phases 3 & 4
1.12 Phase 3 of the project is on-going and includes creation of a preferred land use plan for
the North Village Secondary Plan area and integrated Environmental Assessment (EA)
for Regional Road 17 re-alignment. Phase 4 requires a Statutory Public Meeting, which
is anticipated to take place prior to Council’s 2023 summer recess.
2. Financial Considerations
Cost recovery agreements with the North Village Landowner Group requires that the
land owners pay 100 per cent of the preparation costs for the Secondary Plan.
3. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
4. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council receive this report for information.
Staff Contact: Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, 905-623-3379 ext. 2413 or
lbackus@clarington.net, Emily Schaefer, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2428 or
eschaefer@clarington.net.
Page 45
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-007-23
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Phase 2 Summary Report: Alternative Land Use Plans and Evaluation
Attachment 2 - Engagement Feedback Report: Public Information Centre #3
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 46
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan
Phase 2 Summary Report:
Alternative Land Use Plans and Evaluation
August 2022
fffAttachment 1 to
PDS-007-23
Page 47
Newcastle North Village Secondary Planii
Acknowledgements
Land Acknowledgement
The Municipality of Clarington is situated within the traditional and treaty territory
of the Mississaugas and Chippewas of the Anishinabeg known today as the Williams
Treaties First Nations.
Our work on these lands acknowledges their resilience and their longstanding
contributions to the area now known as the Municipality of Clarington.
Municipality of Clarington
Lisa Backus, Acting Manager of Community Planning & Design
Karen Richardson, Manager of Development Engineering
Mark Jull, Senior Planner
Steering Committee
Durham Region
Jeff Almeida, Regional Servicing and Transportation
Doug Robertson, Transportation Infrastructure
Valerie Hendry, Policy Planning
Garanaska Region Conservation Authority
Ken Thajer, Planning & Regulations
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
Christian Singh, Senior Project Manager
North Village Landowner’s Group
Scott Waterhouse, Planning Manager, GHD
Jennifer Haslett, Senior Project Manager, Brookfield
Paolo Sacilotto, Project Manager, Planning, DG Group Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB
Jeanette Thompson, Manager, Planning Services
Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland and
Clarington CDSB
Kevin Hickey, Manager of Purchasing Planning and
Facility Administration
Consulting Team
SvN Architects + Planners
Shonda Wang, Project Director
Jonathan Tinney, Principal
Michael Matthys, Associate
Kelly Graham, Senior Planner
Kim Behrouzian, Urban Designer
BTE Engineering
Steve Taylor, Project Manager
AECOM Canada Ltd
Kevin Phillips, Municipal Transportation Manager
Peter Middaugh, Civil Engineering Lead
Footprint
Cindy MacCormack, Sustainability Specialist
Urbanism x Design
Harold Madi, Urban Design Advisor
Community Members
We appreciate all of the members of the community who
took the time to ask questions and provide feedback on
the materials presented at the Public Information Centres.
To learn more about the project, visit clarington.net/northvillage
Page 48
Phase 2 Summary Report iii
Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................................................2
2.0 Phase 2 Engagement Activities ............................. 9
3.0 Vision and Guiding Principles ................................11
4.0 Baseline Parameters .................................................13
5.0 Alternative Land Use Plans .....................................17
5.1 Assumptions.........................................................................................17
5.2 Three Land Use Alternatives ....................................................18
5.3 Land Use Alternative 1 ..................................................................19
5.4 Land Use Alternative 2 .................................................................21
5.5 Land Use Alternative 3 .................................................................23
6.0 Evaluation of Alternatives .......................................25
7.0 Conclusion & Next Steps .........................................31
Appendix A - Land Budgets
Page 49
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan1
North Village
Secondary Plan Area
(“Project Area”)
Context
Area
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetHighway 35/115Canadi
a
n
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
R
a
i
l
w
a
yRegional Road 17Approved
Area
RR17 Current Alignment
RR17 Future Alignment (Approximate)
Page 50
Phase 2 Summary Report 2
Sustainability +
Climate Change
Urban
Design
Affordable
Housing
Community
Engagement
Zoning By-Law
Amendement
Sustainable +
Urban Design
Guidelines
1.0 Introduction
North Village is envisioned as a vibrant neighbourhood
that is open to all, at all stages of their life. Walkable and
welcoming, it reflects the rich spirit of the Newcastle
community.
1.1 Background and Intent
A secondary plan is required to facilitate the
development of North Village, a new neighbourhood in
the community of Newcastle. The Durham Official Plan
and Clarington Official Plan recognize that planning
for new neighbourhoods should be done in a holistic
manner, evaluating what infrastructure is required to
support the planned uses and activities, and preparing
a comprehensive planning policy framework to guide
development and decision-making.
The purpose of the project is to create a secondary plan
and zoning by-law that will guide the development of the
Secondary Plan Area (‘the Project Area’) (Figure 1) in a
manner that is consistent with the Municipality’s guiding
priorities of sustainability, affordable housing, community
engagement, and urban design.
Much work and discussions with municipal and regional
staff, landowners, and community residents have gone
into shaping the vision for North Village. A picture of its
character, sense of place, and quality of life is beginning
to take shape.
North Village is a neighbourhood that will be known for
its great parks and walkable streets. A central square
is the main gathering place, where seniors meet to play
chess, and families check out a weekend pop-up. It is a
neighbourhood that has something for everyone, with
housing options for young parents, empty nesters, and
retirees.
The North Village Secondary Plan (‘NVSP’) project sets
the stage for this to become reality.
1.2 Purpose of this Document
This report provides a summary of the work completed in
Phase 2 of the Project, including the preaparation of three
Alternative Land Use Plans and associated land budgets.
These plans were presented to the public in June 2022.
Evaluation criteria were developed to provide an objective
basis for comparing the three Alternatives. The results of
this evaluation are also included in this report.
Page 51
NVSP Area
Approved Area
Context Area
Municipality of Clarington
Urban Area Boundary
Built Up Area
Village Centre
Highway
Railway
Arterial Road
GO Station (existing)
GO Station (proposed)
Greenbelt Area Boundary
Oak Ridges Moraine
Protected Countryside
Watercourses
Page 52
1 5km
Highway
Railway
Arterial Road
GO Station (existing)
GO Station (proposed)
Figure 1 Clarington Context
Page 53
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan5
1.3 Project Area
The Village of Newcastle is an urban settlement area
centered on Durham Highway 2 (King Avenue) and
Regional Road 17 (Mill Street). The Village of Newcastle
is one of four urban areas that make up the Municipality
of Clarington, the easternmost municipality in the Region
of Durham (Figure 2). The Secondary Plan Area (the
‘Project Area’) is bounded by Concession Road 3 to the
north, Arthur Street to the east, draft approved plans of
subdivision to the south, and Highway 35/115 to the west.
This project will consider the relationship of the Project
Area to areas immediately adjacent. The lands to the
south of the Project Area include lands which have been
draft approved for plans of subdivision, and are referred
to as the ‘Approved Area’. Lands to the south and west of
Regional Road 17 (‘RR17’) are referred to as the ‘Context
Area’. These lands are not currently contemplated for
development, but it is acknowledged that they may
develop at some point in the future. Taken together, these
three areas are referred to as the ‘Study Area’.
1.4 Guiding Priorities
In addition to the principles set out in the Clarington
Official Plan, the Municipality has also established four
Guiding Priorities for the North Village Secondary Plan, to
be addressed through the site analysis, the development
of alternative land use and transportation scenarios, and
the refinement of the final Secondary Plan.
URBAN DESIGN
New neighborhoods will be designed to enhance the
history and character of Clarington. Excellence in urban
design will consider elements like building design,
complete streets, views, park connectivity, sun and
shadow impacts, and active transportation, as well as the
integration of green infrastructure.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Clarington Official Plan encourages a minimum
of 30% of all new housing built in Urban Areas to
be affordable. The NVSP will include strategies for
contributing to the achievement of this target.
SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Clarington Council adopted a sustainable, ‘green lens’
approach to development, known as the Priority Green
Development Framework. Sustainable development
principles and practices will be incorporated into every
part of the NVSP, and it will include measurable targets to
move towards a net zero neighbourhood that is resilient
to the impacts of climate change.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The preparation of the NVSP will be supported by a
thorough public engagement strategy and include
a range of public consultation initiatives in order to
share, consult, deliberate and collaborate with all
stakeholders.
Welcome to Newcastle sign at Highway 35/1155 off-ramp
Page 54
Phase 2 Summary Report 6
1.5 What is a Secondary Plan?
A secondary plan is a land use planning document
that contains policies and maps to guide the future
development or redevelopment of a particular area of the
municipality, such as a neighbourhood or village centre. A
secondary plan is used to locate land uses such as homes
and businesses, new roads and trails, and neighbourhood
amenities such as parks and schools. It also establishes
key objectives for the area, including sustainable design
principles and population density targets.
The objectives of the secondary planning process are
outlined in Section 23.3 of the Clarington Official Plan, and
are summarized on the right side of this page.
1.6 What is an Integrated EA?
The Secondary Plan is supported by an Environmental
Assessment (EA) process in order to document the
need and justification for new infrastructure network
elements within the Secondary Plan area. New roads and
stormwater management systems require an EA to be
completed to the satisfaction of the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP), before
construction can proceed.
Under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Province
has laid out certain steps that must be met for an EA
to be deemed complete. Many of these steps, such as
public engagement and evaluation of alternative designs,
align with the planning process for a secondary plan. The
Project Team is undertaking the EA for infrastructure
in North Village as an integrated process to avoid
duplication of effort and consolidate public engagement
opportunities in a manner that optimizes time spent for
public engagement events.
An EA monitoring report will be prepared towards the end
of the project and submitted to the MECP for approval,
along with all of the supporting technical studies. This will
facilitate the development of the Project Area, along with
all the required infrastructure.
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
Growth management objectives,
including the minimum density target of
50 residents and jobs per hectares;
The provision of a diverse and compatible
mix of land uses and housing types;
The design of a connected system of grid
streets, an active transportation network,
and connections to transit, community
facilities, schools and parks;
Sustainable design standards for
sites and buildings, including green
infrastructure;
The protection and incorporation
of natural heritage and hydrologically
sensitive features;
Mitigation of potential land use conflicts
associated with proximity to existing
agricultural uses;
Opportunities to create visual interest
through a varied built form, landscaping,
and open space;
The location of significant public
buildings on prominent sites with street
frontage;
Principles of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED); and
Inclusive design that meets the needs
of residents of a variety of ages, abilities,
and income levels.
Page 55
Page 56
Phase 2 Summary Report 8
1.7 Timeline and Ways to be Involved
This report represents the conclusion of the second of
four phases (Figure 2). The background reports, technical
analyses, and public consultation in Phase 1 will inform
the creation of alternative land use plans in Phase 2.
These alternative land use plans will be presented to the
public for feedback, and a preferred land use plan will be
selected and further refined in Phase 3. The preferred
plan will form the basis of the draft secondary plan and
zoning by-law in Phase 4.
The Project Team and the Municipality are looking for
public input at every stage of the project. Two PICs were
held in Phase 1. The Phase 2 PIC was held on June 8,
2022 to present the three Alternative Land Use Plans. A
final PIC will occur towards the end of 2022 to present the
preferred Land Use Alternative as well as the Technically
Preferred design for Regional Road 17.
Following this, a draft secondary plan, zoning by-law, and
urban design guidelines will be prepared and presented
for public comment at an open house and statutory
public meeting in front of Clarington Council.
All of the project information is available on a project-
specific webpage on the Municipality’s of Clarington’s
website:
www.clarington.net/northvillage
You can submit questions or comments at anytime via
the project webpage or by calling the municipal Project
Manager.
Figure 2 NVSP Project Timeline
Page 57
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan9
2.0 Phase 2 Engagement Activities
2.1 Engagement Overview
Community Engagement is one of the guiding priorities
of the NVSP, and is crucial to the creation of a plan that is
appropriate for its location and context in Newcastle, and
that addresses the needs of current and future residents,
as well as other stakeholders.
A steering committee was formed at the outset of
the project, which includes representatives from the
Municipality of Clarington, Durham Region, the North
Village landowners group, and other key agencies. The
steering committee provides oversight for the project,
and is a key resource for local knowledge and technical
information. Two steering committee meetings were
held in Phase 2. Valuable insight was provided to inform
the creation of the Alternative Land Use Plans and the
Emerging Plan.
While there are currently only a small number of residents
within the Study Area, one objective of the secondary
planning project is to knit the new neighbourhood into the
fabric of the existing Newcastle community. The Secondary
Plan is also an opportunity to address needs identified
by existing residents, such as services and amenities that
are desired as part of a Neighbourhood Centre, in order to
create a more complete Newcastle. Current residents are
important stakeholders in this process.
The involvement of these stakeholders will ensure that a
multitude of interests are represented and balanced within
the planning framework. The engagement process takes
place in three phases and is aligned with the technical work
(Figure 2). Engagement activities include eight Steering
Committee Meetings, five open house events (four Public
Information Centres and one statutory Open House), online
engagement throughout the project, and one statutory
Public Meeting before Clarington Council.
2.2 Public Information Centre #3
The third Public Information Centre (PIC) was held in a
virtual format using Zoom Webinars. It took place on June
8, 2022 from 6:30 pm to 8:00 pm.
A presentation was given by SvN Architects and Planners,
containing the following information:
• Project Overview and Timeline
• Vision & Guiding Principles
• Baseline Parameters and Evaluation Framework for
assessing the Alternative Land Use Plans
• Three Alternative Land Use Plans
• An update on the RR17 Environmental Assessment
study, including alignment and cross section
alternatives.
The presentation was followed by a moderated question-
and answer period, where participants could submit
questions in writing and a panel including Municipality of
Clarington Staff and the Consultant Team responded.
Public feedback was received via the following methods:
During the public meeting:
• Virtual live polling to learn more about attendees,
their priorities for Newcastle and North Village,
and to get input on the draft vision and guiding
principles;
• Moderated question and answer period;
After the public meeting
• Web survey available on the project website from
June 15 to July 15; and,
• Personal correspondence to the Municipal Project
Manager.
Page 58
Phase 2 Summary Report 10
2.3 What We Heard: Key Themes
Between the live poll results, the participant questions,
and the web survey results, the following emerged as key
priorities for North Village:
• Participants value the “village” feel of Newcastle
and the fact that most daily needs can be met
locally. North Village should similarly be a complete
community, with an assortment of retail & service
uses that do not compete with the businesses on
King Avenue.
• The school is a community priority and key civic
feature for the neighbourhood, and it should be
located near the Neighbourhood Centre.
• Participants like parks, trails, and walkable
streets, and would like to see more of these.
Elongated parks that also provide off-street active
transportation opportunities are desired.
• Respondents preferred medium density residential
areas to be more evenly distributed through the
plan area rather than clustered in one location.
This feedback will inform the creation of an Emerging
Land Use Plan which will form the basis of the Secondary
Plan, Urban Design Guidelines, and Zoning By-law, as well
as the other technical supporting documentation. The
Emerging Land Use Plan will be presented to the public in
a fourth PIC event in the fall of 2022.
Page 59
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan11
3.0 Vision and Guiding Principles
A LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD
• Provide a mix of housing options that are
available to a wide range of ages, abilities,
incomes, and household sizes.
• Provide an appropriate mix of uses,
amenities, and services at the heart of
the neighbourhood to encourage active,
sociable lives and support a sense of well-
being and connection.
• Provide a range of community facilities
and co-locate these facilities where
possible.
A CONNECTED NEIGHBOURHOOD
• Prioritize pedestrian mobility and comfort
by designing a neighbourhood that is
well connected internally and provides
safe and walkable links to surrounding
neighbourhoods.
• Design the movement network to safely
and comfortably accommodate all modes
of travel (pedestrians, cyclists, transit
vehicles, loading and private vehicles).
The following principles form the core tenets of the North
Village Secondary Plan. Together with the vision, these
principles will guide decision-making as the Secondary
Plan is prepared and implemented.
A BEAUTIFUL & INVITING NEIGHBOURHOOD
• Design a variety of open spaces linked by a
beautiful and functional public realm.
• Encourage a high standard of design.
• Utilize the existing topography to optimize views
of the surrounding areas.
A RESILIENT NEIGHBOURHOOD
• Minimize contribution to climate change by
incorporating green design principles related
to energy, water, and waste at the building and
neighbourhood scale.
• Where economically feasible, utilize materials
from sustainable sources for construction and
infrastructure projects, account for positive and
negative life-cycle impacts of materials when
assessing their contribution.
• Integrate indigenous and pollinator-friendly
species into the development.
• Support resilience and future adaptability by
designing homes and buildings to accommodate
different uses and densities with diverse unit
configurations.
A UNIQUE NEWCASTLE NEIGHBOURHOOD
• Foster a unique identity by celebrating the rural
heritage of the area.
• Engage the Newcastle community in planning
the future of North Village.
North Village is a vibrant neighbourhood that is open to all, at all stages of their life.
Walkable and welcoming, it reflects the rich spirit of the Newcastle Community.
Page 60
Phase 2 Summary Report 12Page 61
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan13
4.0 Baseline Parameters
1
2
3
The baseline parameters were developed to create a set
of minimum requirements that all of the alternatives must
meet. They are rooted in the Clarington Official Plan and
the Priority Green Standard. The categories include:
DENSITY
• Internal neighbourhood: Minimum density 13 units
per net hectare (upnh), heights 1-3 storeys, detached,
semis, limited townhouses
• Edge of neighbourhood: Minimum density 19 upnh,
heights 1-3 storeys, detached, semis, townhouses,
limited apartments
• Locate more intensive development adjacent to
arterials
• Must contribute to achievement of overall greenfield
density target of 50 people jobs/ha (Growth Plan 2020
target)
HOUSING
• Variety of housing types for all ages including young
singles and older adults
• Mixed use development encouraged in the
Neighbourhood Centre
• A minimum of 1.5 ha of land to be conveyed to the
Municipality for affordable housing
• Provide for additional dwelling units (ADUs) to create
rental options
INTERNAL STREET NETWORK
• Preference given to grid street system recognizing
topographic and environmental constraints
• Short to medium block lengths
• Cul-de-sacs are not permitted
• ROWs to include space for boulevards, street trees
• Minimize reverse lot frontages
• No private lanes in low density
Page 62
Phase 2 Summary Report 14
4
5
6
Source: Google Streetview.
REGIONAL ROAD 17
• Intersection spacing: 525 m for major intersections,
some mid-block T-intersections permitted (for
discussion)
• Cross section design will include a multi-use path
(MUP)
• Provide connection to northwest corner of
neighbourhood
• Maintain access for uses on existing RR17
CONCESSION ROAD 3 / ARTHUR STREET
• Intersection spacing: 300 m for major intersections,
some mid-block T-intersections permitted
• Driveways are not permitted on Type C arterials
• Concession Road 3 will continue to accommodate
agricultural vehicles
WATER RESERVOIR
• Location has been finalized – Regional EA is complete
and design in ongoing
• Driveway access off Arthur Street
• Reservoir to be framed by the rear of residential lots
• Site security to ensure safety of water supply
Page 63
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan15
PARKLAND
• The Municipality’s overall per capita parkland standard
is 1.8 hectares per 1,000 persons
• Opportunity to provide surplus parkland to address
deficiency of 2.92 ha in Approved Area
• Locate parkland adjacent to school
SCHOOL8
9
Source: Google Streetview, 2018
Source: Community Design Group., 2021
Source: Hendrick Farm by Landlab Inc.
7
• Elementary School: 6 acres (2.5 ha)
• Located adjacent to park/other community facilities
• Located on Collector Road
• Located >90 m [300 ft] from roads with a speed limit
greater than 65 km/hr
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
• Connect to bike lanes/sidewalks in Approved Area
• Bike lanes and pedestrian paths connect to amenities
• Multi-use path on arterial roads
• Sidewalks on both sides of local roads where
warranted
• Design and construct streets in accordance with the
complete streets principles outlined in the OP
Page 64
Phase 2 Summary Report 16
10
11
Source: Canada Lands Company Ltd.
Source: Community Design Group, 2021
12
Source: Google Streetview, 2018
ADJACENT AREAS WITHIN BOUNDARY
• Provide connections to plan for Approved Area
• Consider future connections to Context Area
SUSTAINABILITY
• Promote the integration of active transportation
• Implement Clarington Priority Green secondary plan
objectives
• Promotes the efficient use of land
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE
• 2-4 storeys
• Primarily mixed use development
• Target max. floor area of 300 m2 for commercial units
• Overall max. floor area of 4,608 m2 of commercial space
• Potential commercial uses include: café, restaurant,
experience-based services
• Public square
Page 65
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan17
5.0 Alternative Land Use Plans
5.1 Assumptions
Three land use alternatives are included to illustrate
possible outcomes for the design and layout of North
Village. Although all of the alternatives are based on
the vision and principles and must achieve the baseline
parameters, they all have different distributions of housing
types, uses, and public space. They also have slightly
different road network configurations.
In order to analyze the performance of each alternative,
and to provide a high-level estimate of the potential future
population and jobs, the consultant team applied several
basic assumptions for the unit mix, densities, and persons
per unit that are the same for each alternative. These
assumptions were based on data from other secondary
plans in Clarington and the GTA. These unit mixes are
conceptual and subject to change as the project moves
forward. Known land areas and job counts for planned
uses were also consistently applied across the three
alternatives.
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES
Category Unit Mix Density Range Persons Per Unit
based on Clarington DC
Study, 2020
Low Density 60% single detached
20% semi-detached
20% street townhouses
Min: 13
Upper: 25
3.02
Low Density Plus (*)50% detached &
semi detached
40% townhouses
10% triplex/fourplex
Min: 19
Upper: 40
2.85
Medium Density 60% townhouses
20% triplex/fourplex
20% apartment
Min: 40
Upper: 120
2.33
Mixed Use
(Neighbourhood Centre)
100% mixed use buildings &
apartments
Min: 40
Upper: 120
1.42
(*) The Low density plus category is not intended to be a designation on the ultimate Secondary Plan land use schedule. It
is used in the Alternatives to demonstrate variation in the low density built form and provide a transition from areas of
lower intensity to areas of higher intensity.
Page 66
Phase 2 Summary Report 18
OTHER LAND USES
• Water Reservoir: 2.36 ha
• School: minimum 2.5 ha (subject to School Board)
• Highway Commercial (existing McDonald’s): 0.76 ha
• Mixed Use (Neighbourhood Centre): Assume 35,000 sf
(3,251 sm) GFA feasible in a main street format, other
lands to be developed as residential or complementary
institutional/public uses
GROSS TO NET CONVERSION
• 75% efficiency to account for local roads
• Area of arterial & collector roads, road widenings,
school & parks calculated and subtracted first
JOBS
• Mixed Use Commercial: 35 square metres/job (source:
Durham Region Intensification Study)
• Elementary School: 600 students, 30 jobs (source:
Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB, via email)
• Highway Commercial (McDonalds): assume 10 full-
time equivalents (FTE)
• Not applying a factor for people who are self-
employed or have a home-based business
5.2 Land Use Alternatives
We received feedback from the public at the second
Public Information Centre that informed the land use
alternatives. For example, we received roughly an equal
number of responses from people who wanted one or two
large parks, versus people who wanted a larger number of
small parks. We were able to develop scenarios that show
both configurations.
We also heard that people value the “village” feel of
Newcastle, and that it is important that North Village
residents are able to meet their needs locally. Testing out
different configurations for the Neighbourhood Centre
was important, as well as ensuring that it is in a location
that lots of people can easily walk to.
PIC #2 particpants also told us that more housing
options of all types are needed in Newcastle. We wanted
to explore a range of scenarios for density and dwelling
types. The three alternatives were thus developed and
shared with the Steering Committee for feedback.
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Evaluation Framework
Evaluation
Criteria
Principle +
Indicator
Evaluation
Score
Page 67
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan19
5.3 Land Use Alternative 1
GREEN CORRIDORS + COMMUNITY COURTYARDS
Alternative 1 is defined by key green corridors through the
neighbourhood, including RR17 and Street A, which create a
welcoming and comfortable environment for all road users.
These link to destinations that integrate the neighbourhood
with the approved area to the south. The plan is also
defined by a distributed network of smaller open spaces
that function as a local gathering space, or courtyard,
framed by surrounding development. Measured over
the entirety of the Project Area, this alternative would
result in a density range of 40-120 units per hectare, and
approximately 54-132 residents per net hectare and 121 jobs
total (Appendix A).
Regional
R
o
a
d 1
7 Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
r
e
e
t
A Street BStreet CBoundaries
Study Area
Project Area
Context Area
Existing Context
Contours
Woods
Property Line
Existing Building
Existing Building of
Cultural Significance
Public Realm
Arterial Road
Collector Road with Bike
Lanes
Local Street
Potential Rear Lane
Green Boulevard /
Enhanced Median
Promenade
Green Link
Gateways
Park
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential Plus
Medium Density Residential
Neighbourhood Centre /
Mixed Use
Highway Commercial
School
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
Page 68
Phase 2 Summary Report 20
KEY DESIGN FEATURES
1 Engage RR17 and surrounding
boundary roads
Building frontages along RR17
address and engage the street
while preserving privacy and
beautifying the street through
landscaping.
2 Main roads as green corridors
High-quality landscaping and
plantings create a comfortable and
safe street for pedestrians, cyclists,
and vehicles.
5
Distribute and link smaller
parks to create “community
courtyards”
Small interconnected parks
are distributed throughout the
plan area to create community
gathering spaces, reminiscent of
courtyards, within approx. 200m of
every household.
Design central park as
community destination and
anchor to the main street
High-quality landscaping and
plantings create a comfortable and
safe street for pedestrians, cyclists,
and vehicles.
3
Small-scale, central,
commercial main street and
“heart”
A commercial main street is
designed to create new spaces for
local businesses and a destination
and heart for community life.
4
Source: Google Streetview, 2018 Source: Flickr Nick Falbo, 2018 Source: David Reimers, 2021
Source: Neighbourhood Guide, 2022
Source: Leyland Alliance, 2016
Page 69
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan21
5.4 Land Use Alternative 2
FOUR CORNERS + GREEN CORRIDORS
Land Use Alternative 2 uses a central hub and green
corridors as its organizing elements and locations of greater
activity and density. Importantly, RR17 is animated by
creating a pedestrian-focused area around the four corners
of the neighbourhood centre, which helps to animate and
urbanize the street.
Measured over the entirety of the Project Area, this
alternative would result in a density range of 40-120 units
per hectare, and approximately 59-148 residents per net
hectare and 121 jobs total (Appendix A).
Regional
Roa
d 17
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
r
e
e
t
A
Street
B
Street C
1
2
3
4
4
4
Boundaries
Study Area
Project Area
Context Area
Existing Context
Contours
Woods
Property Line
Existing Building
Existing Building of
Cultural Significance
Public Realm
Arterial Road
Collector Road with Bike Lanes
Local Street
Potential Rear Lane
Green Boulevard /
Enhanced Median
Promenade
Green Link
Gateways
Park
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential Plus
Medium Density Residential
Neighbourhood Centre /
Mixed Use
Highway Commercial
School
5
Page 70
Phase 2 Summary Report 22
KEY DESIGN FEATURES
1 Animate and enliven RR17
Along RR17 a pedestrian friendly
promenade is planned that will create
more activity and engagement along
the street. This is complemented
by buildings and homes that will be
oriented to face the street.
2 Create a prominent “four corners” neighbourhood centre
The neighbourhood centre is placed along the intersection of RR17 and the
main roads into the plan area, which afford maximum visibility and access for
businesses located there. This in turn becomes a unique defining feature of
the neighbourhood.
3 Locate school as key civic
feature
The school is centrally located
along the main road (Street A) so
that it is a highly visible landmark
and source of civic pride. Its
proximity to the neighbourhood
centre and medium density
housing makes it more convenient
to access.
4 Maximizes density around the
neighbourhood centre and
school
Locating a greater density of
housing and a range of building
types around the neighbourhood
centre and school supports those
uses and provides convenient
access.
5 Highway buffer zone
A linear green space that
incorporates a trail connection is
planned as a buffer to the highway
for future residential uses.
Source: Project for Public Spaces, 2020
Source: Benjamin Benschneider, 2010 Source: Mr.List.Co, 2022 Source: City of Asheville, 2020
Source: Sloker Group, 2021
Page 71
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan23
5.5 Land Use Alternative 3
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE + PROMENADE
Land Use Alternative 3 provides a central hub of activity
and density, organized around the neighbourhood centre
and a linear promenade and park that are the focal point
for community life. These are complemented by several
distinct nodes for activity and interconnected linear parks,
or “green fingers”.
Measured over the entirety of the Project Area, this
alternative would result in a density range of 40-120 units
per hectare. It would also result in approximately 61-157
residents per net hectare and 121 jobs total (Appendix A).
Regional
Roa
d 17Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
r
e
e
t
C
Street
B
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
4St
r
e
e
t
A
Boundaries
Study Area
Project Area
Context Area
Existing Context
Contours
Woods
Property Line
Existing Building
Existing Building of
Cultural Significance
Public Realm
Arterial Road
Collector Road with Bike Lanes
Local Street
Potential Rear Lane
Green Boulevard /
Enhanced Median
Promenade
Green Link
Gateways
Park
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential Plus
Medium Density Residential
Neighbourhood Centre /
Mixed Use
Highway Commercial
School
5
Page 72
Phase 2 Summary Report 24
KEY DESIGN FEATURES
1 Elongate parks to create “green
fingers” and maximize access
Longer and slightly narrower parks
are placed to maximize the number
of households that have access and
frontage to them.
2 Integrate the neighbourhood centre and park to create a unique
promenade for the community
The neighbourhod centre is set beside a linear park and designed as
a promenade and focal point for the community. The commercial and
recreational uses are complementary and allow for a variety of activities to
co-mingle.
3 Maximize density around open
spaces and neighbourhood
centre
In general, the greatest density
within the project area is organized
around important destinations and
amenities, like the neighbourhood
centre and parks, to ease access.
4 Make the school a focal point
of the community with a
prominent location
Siting the school as the end of the
promenade creates a unique view
and landmark in the community
and emphasizes its civic
importance.
5 Engage RR17 and surrounding
boundary roads
Buildings are oriented to front onto
RR17 and surrounding boundary
roads, in addition to local roads,
to help animate and enliven these
spaces and provide a welcoming
impression of the community.
Source: Centre for Architecture, 2021
Source: Google Streetview, 2018 Source: Perkins&Will, 2022 Source: Google Streetview, 2018
Source: Leyland Alliance, 2016
Page 73
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan25
6.0 Evaluation of Alternatives
This evaluation framework allows for the performance of
each alternative to be compared relative to one another.
It is based around objectives that build upon the Guiding
Principles, and indicators that provide a qualitative or
quantitative measure for identifying the level to which the
objective is achieved.
The alternative that best achieves the objective is
assigned a score of 3, the second best performing
alternative is assigned a score of 2, and the least well
performing alternative is assigned a score of 1 for that
objective. Where all three alternatives perform equally, a
score of 0 is assigned to all three.
The scores for each objective are totaled by Guiding
Principle, and then across all five principles to produce a
total score. Neither for the individual objective score nor
the aggregate Guiding Principle scores are weighted.
Based on the evaluation which is detailed on the
following pages, Alternative 3 distinguished itself with
the highest score. Alternative 3 scored highest on the
following guiding principles: Liveable Neighbourhood,
Beautiful and Inviting Neighbourhood, and Resilient
Neighbourhood. Alternative 1 scored an equal number of
points on the indicators related to a Unique Newcastle
Neighbourhood, while Alternative 2 scored the highest on
the indicators related to a Connected Neighbourhood.
TOTAL SCORES
The Emerging Plan will not simply be selecting the one
alternative with the higher score, but rather will draw
the best from each alternative to develop an Emerging
Plan, incoproating feedback feceived from the Steering
Committee and the public. The following pages provide a
summary evaluation that will help guide which elements
should be drawn from each alternative to inform the
Emerging Plan. The detailed evaluation is appended to
this report (Appendix B) and includes the rationale for the
individual objective scores.
Evaluation Framework
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Evaluation
Criteria
Principle +
Indicator
Alternative 3
Evaluation
Score
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Total Score
Across All Four
Principles
29 26 34
Page 74
Phase 2 Summary Report 26
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1: A LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOOD
#Objective Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
1
Meet Minimum
residential
densities
Meets or exceeds minimum
residential densities (17
upnh) and allows for a broad
density range that will enable
flexibility as the Plan is
implemented
Estimated:
Min: 22 upnh
Upper: 55 upnh
Estimated:
Min: 24 upnh
Upper: 61 upnh
Estimated:
Min: 25 upnh
Upper: 65 upnh
1 2 3
2 Provide a variety
of housing types
Meets or exceeds a minimum
threshold of 70% low density
to 30% medium density (net
developable area) while also
distributing medium density
forms throughout the plan
68% low density,
32% medium density
or mixed use
Medium density
distributed
along RR17 and
neighbourhood
centre
62% low density,
38% medium density
or mixed use
Medium density
concentrated around
neighbourhood
centre, and at core
of neighbourhood
along collectors
56% low density,
44% medium density
or mixed use
Medium density
distributed in a
radial pattern
framing open
spaces
2 1 3
3 Complete
community
Potential jobs within the
Neighbourhood Centre
Estimated # of jobs:
121
Estimated # of jobs:
121
Estimated # of jobs:
121
0 0 0
4
Mitigate
potential
conflicts with
agricultural
operations
Provides buffering in the
form of window streets, trails,
and/or green space along the
perimeter of the plan area
where facing agricultural
uses
Predominantly
a window street
condition with some
side yards
Vegetated buffer/
boulevard
Predominantly
a window street
condition with some
side yards
Vegetated buffer/
boulevard
Predominantly
a window street
condition with some
side yards, and
additional green
spaces
Vegetated buffer/
boulevard
1 1 2
Subtotal 4 4 8
Page 75
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan27
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 2: A CONNECTED NEIGHBOURHOOD
#Objective Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
5
Walkability
Percentage of residential
dwellings within 400 metres
to a minimum of three
amenities
Min: 20%
Upper: 22%
Min: 24%
Upper: 28%
Min: 18%
Upper: 18%
2 3 1
6 Meets an average maximum
block length of 250m or less
125 m 124 m 136 m
2 3 1
7
Maximize the
number of
pedestrian
connections to
arterial roads
Number of through-streets
and/or non motorized right-
of-ways (trails) intersecting
or terminating at arterial
roads, providing permeability
into the plan area
20 22 20
1 2 1
8 Provide a variety
of route options
Meets or exceeds a minimum
intersection density of 0.5
intersections / hectare
1.32 intersections / ha 1.25 intersections / ha 1.46 intersections / ha
2 1 3
9
Provide a
connected
cycling network
Percentage of residential
dwellings within 200 metres
of cycling routes that
connect to the network
100%100%100%
0 0 0
Subtotal 7 9 6
Page 76
Phase 2 Summary Report 28
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 3: A BEAUTIFUL AND INVITING NEIGHBOURHOOD
#Objective Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
10
Maintain views
and vistas
of visible
landmarks,
including Natural
Heritage System
features
Number of visual /spatial
connections to surrounding
agricultural areas
17 19 15
2 3 1
11
Building
frontages
oriented to the
street
Meets or exceeds a standard
of 70% of arterial roads being
addressed with building
frontages (as opposed to
back lotting or side lotting)
85%82%86%
2 1 3
12
Distribute parks
throughout the
Plan Area for
accessibility to
residents
Meets or exceeds a standard
of 80% of dwellings within
200 metres of a park
99%100%100%
0 0 0
13
Provide an
adequate
amount of
parkland and
open space
Meets or exceeds a parkland
dedication standard of 1 ha.
of parkland per 300 units
Estimated parkland:
Min.: 2.67ha/
300units
Upper: 1.06ha/
300units
Estimated parkland:
Min.: 2.32ha/
300units
Upper: 0.90ha/
300units
Estimated parkland:
Min.: 2.92ha/
300units
Upper: 1.10ha/
300units
2 1 3
Subtotal 6 5 7
Page 77
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan29
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 4: A UNIQUE NEWCASTLE NEIGHBOURHOOD
#Objective Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
14
Neighbourhood
Centres are
“gathering
places” and
shall incorporate
public squares.
Public squares
will have the
right of public
access and will
be designed as a
high quality and
interactive urban
environment
Meets or exceeds a standard
of 40% of residential
dwellings within 200 m
walking distance of the
Neighbourhood Centre
49%50%59%
1 1 2
15
Visual
connections to
destinations and
amenities
Number of visual/spatial
connections from boundary
roads to neighbourhood
destinations
14 9 8
3 1 2
Subtotal 4 2 4
Page 78
Phase 2 Summary Report 30
GUIDING PRINCIPLE 5: A RESILIENT NEIGHBOURHOOD
#Objective Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
16
Promote the
integration of
transit and active
transportation
modes
Meets or exceeds a standard
of 40% of People and Jobs
within 200 metres of transit
stops
Min: 71%,
Upper: 69%
Min: 64%,
Upper: 64%
Min: 69%,
Upper: 68%
3 1 2
17
Use of green
infrastructure,
lot level controls,
and Low Impact
Development
techniques
Percentage of open spaces
that overlay with natural low
points and drainage areas (i.e.
favourable candidate sites for
LIDs)
10%9%11%
2 1 3
18
Promote
ecological
diversity and
limit the urban
heat island effect
through tree
plantings
Proportion of post
development tree cover based
on estimated # of street trees
/ hectare and % of canopy
% canopy (streets)
= 20%
estimated # trees in
parks = 273
% canopy (streets)
= 22%
estimated # trees in
parks = 261
% canopy (streets)
= 19%
estimated # trees in
parks = 325
1 2 3
19
Maximize
passive
solar energy
opportunities
Percentage of street length
aligned within 25 degrees
of geographic east-west to
maximize solar gains
19%19%17%
2 2 1
Subtotal 8 6 9
Total 29 26 34
Page 79
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan31
7.0 Conclusion & Next Steps
The technical assessment and evaluation of the
alternatives combined with the comments received from
the Steering Committee and the public will inform the
development of a draft Emerging Land Use Plan that will
integrate the best features of the three Alternatives.
The Emerging Land Use Plan will be used as the basis
for developing the ultimate land use schedule to the
Secondary Plan, as well as the demonstration plan in
Phase 3 of the project.
The Emerging Land Use Plan will also be informed by the
conclusions of the technical studies being undertaken as
part of the Environmental Assessment process for RR17.
After the Emerging Plan is presented to the Steering
Committee and the Public for additional feedback,
the Consultant Team will prepare the final planning
instruments and supporting documents including:
• Secondary Plan policies and schedule
• Demonstration Plan
• Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
• Zoning By-law
• Master Servicing Report
• Transportation Master Plan
• EA Monitoring Report
These documents will be presented at a Statutory Open
House and Public Meeting, currently anticipated to take
place in early 2023.
Page 80
Phase 2 Summary Report 32Page 81
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan33
Appendix A
Land Budgets
Page 82
Phase 2 Summary Report 34Page 83
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan35
LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 1
Land Use
Area (sqm)Area (ha)EfficiencyNet Dev Area (ha)Density
Range
(units/ha)
Residential Commercial Community /
Institutional
Min Upper Units Residents GFA
(sqm)
Jobs Area
(sqm)
Jobs
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Arterial/Collector Roads 67,277 6.73 N/A N/A
Road Widenings 13,439 1.34 N/A N/A
Parks 50,510 5.05 N/A N/A
Water Reservoir 23,668 2.37 N/A N/A
Elementary School 27,205 2.72 N/A N/A 30
Low-Density Residential 145,626 14.56 75%10.92 13 25 142 273 429 825
Low-Density Residential +92,182 9.22 75%6.91 19 40 131 277 374 788
Medium Density Residential 70,634 7.06 75%5.30 40 120 212 636 496 1,487
Highway Commercial 10,428 1.04 N/A 1.04 10
Mixed Use 27,376 2.74 75%2.05 40 120 82 246 117 351 3,251 81
Totals 528,345 52.83 26.2 567 1,432 1,416 3,452 3,251 91 30
DENSITY
(units/people per net ha)22 55 54 132
LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 2
Land Use
Area (sqm)Area (ha)EfficiencyNet Dev Area (ha)Density
Range
(units/ha)
Residential Commercial Community /
Institutional
Min Upper Units Residents GFA
(sqm)
Jobs Area
(sqm)
Jobs
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Arterial/Collector Roads 66,018 6.60 N/A N/A
Road Widenings 13,439 1.34 N/A N/A
Parks 48,255 4.83 N/A N/A
Water Reservoir 23,668 2.37 N/A N/A
Elementary School 25,882 2.59 N/A N/A 30
Low-Density Residential 104,337 10.43 75%7.83 13 25 102 196 307 591
Low-Density Residential +117,700 11.77 75%8.83 19 40 168 353 478 1007
Medium Density Residential 99,452 9.95 75%7.46 40 120 298 895 698 2094
Highway Commercial 10,428 1.04 N/A 1.04 10
Mixed Use 19,166 1.92 75%1.44 40 120 57 172 82 246 3,251 81
Totals 528,345 26.6 625 1,616 1,565 3,937 3,251 91 30
DENSITY
(units/people per net ha)24 61 59 148
Page 84
Phase 2 Summary Report 36
LAND USE ALTERNATIVE 3
Land Use
Area (sqm)Area (ha)EfficiencyNet Dev Area (ha)Density
Range
(units/ha)
Residential Commercial Community /
Institutional
Min Upper Units Residents GFA
(sqm)
Jobs Area
(sqm)
Jobs
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Arterial/Collector Roads 72,928 7.29 N/A N/A
Road Widenings 13,439 1.34 N/A N/A
Parks 60,126 6.01 N/A N/A
Water Reservoir 23,668 2.37 N/A N/A
Elementary School 26,723 2.67 N/A N/A 30
Low-Density Residential 106,349 10.63 75%7.98 13 25 104 199 313 602
Low-Density Residential +82,555 8.26 75%6.19 19 40 118 248 335 706
Medium Density Residential 113,970 11.40 75%8.55 40 120 342 1,026 800 2,400
Highway Commercial 10,428 1.04 N/A 1.04
Mixed Use 18,159 1.82 75%1.36 40 120 54 163 78 233 3,251 81
Totals 528,345 25.1 618 1,666 1,526 3,941 3,251 91 30
DENSITY
(units/people per net ha)25 66 61 157
Page 85
Page 86
Newcastle North Village Secondary Plan
Engagement Feedback Report: Public Information Centre #3
August 2022
Attachment 2 to
PDS-007-23
Page 87
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
Page 88
3
Page 89
4
Page 90
•
•
•
•
•
5
Page 91
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
•
•
•
6
Page 92
7
Page 93
8
Do you like the location of the Neighbourhood Centre?
In Alternative 3, the Neighbourhood Centre is located in the southwest quadrant of the neighbourhood and is
adjacent to a park and the school. 25% of respondents liked this location. 22% preferred a more centrally
located main street and “heart”, and 13% preferred a prominent “four corners” intersection along RR17. 10% of
respondents were not sure.
Free text comments
There were a number of respondents who noted that this is their favourite alternative of the 3 presented.
Other comments included a suggestion that collector roads should have bike lanes, and one person who
does not support the realignment of RR17 and thinks it should stay the way it is.
RR17 Realignment Questions
BTE presented the 6 alignment alternatives that had been carried forward from the preliminary evaluation.
The following questions were asked to get input on how the community would like to see the arterial road
network function. Please note that these questions were only asked as part of the live webinar poll, and the
sample size is quite small (7 respondents).
Would you prefer traffic lights or a roundabout at RR17 and Concession Road 3?
Five out of 7 respondents preferred a roundabout over a traffic light and zebra crossing.
Do you like the proposed changes to business access?
Each of the alternatives have impact on how existing businesses are accessed. Four respondents liked the
proposed changes, however 3 said they were not sure.
Do you want to see additional roads or a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3?
Some of the alignment alternatives contemplate the creation of new access roads north of Concession Road
3 to facilitate access to Highway 115. Five out of 7 respondents said they support the creation of additional
new roads, while 2 said they were not sure.
Page 94
9
Questions from the Public
Only 5 questions were submitted in the chat. They included:
These principles are great. What mechanism The principles have been created to guide the
ensures that the Municipality doesn't erode them creation of the land use alternatives, the evaluation
in the face of pressure from the developers. We've criteria and the ultimate Secondary Plan and
seen “minor variances" turn small commercial units Zoning By-law. The Project Team will use the
into big chain stores in central Newcastle. How principles as a barometer to evaluate the final
will these principles be guarded? products and ensure that they are consistent and
will implement the objectives of the project.
Are the percentages of the 3 densities the same in No, they are similar but not exactly the same.
all 3 Alternatives? Please review the land use tables accompanying
the Alternatives in the presentation deck in
Appendix A.
Approximately how many residents will be living in The estimated total potential population ranges
this plan? from 1,416 to 3,941 depending on the densities
(units per hectare) attributed to each land use
category.
Can you explain what “Highway Commercial" The Highway Commercial designation relates to
means please? the existing McDonald’s property at the corner of
Highway 115 and Concession Road 3. This use is
not anticipated to change in future.
I have a retirement lot at the junction of The lot in question is outside of the Secondary
Concession Road 3, can it be moved? Plan area. The property owner may at any time
submit an application to the Region’s Land Division
Committee.
Conclusion
Between the live poll results, the participant questions, and the web survey results, the following emerged as
key priorities for North Village:
• Participants value the “village” feel of Newcastle and the fact that most daily needs can be met
locally. North Village should similarly be a complete community, with an assortment of retail &
service uses that do not compete with the businesses on King Avenue.
• The school is a community priority and key civic feature for the neighbourhood, and it should be
located near the Neighbourhood Centre.
• Participants like parks, trails, and walkable streets, and would like to see more of these. Elongated
parks that also provide off-street active transportation opportunities are desired.
• Respondents preferred medium density residential areas to be more evenly distributed through the
plan area rather than clustered in one location.
This feedback will inform the creation of an Emerging Land Use Plan which will form the basis of the
Secondary Plan, Urban Design Guidelines, and Zoning By-law, as well as the other technical supporting
documentation. The Emerging Land Use Plan will be presented to the public in a fourth PIC event in the fall
of 2022.
Page 95
10
Page 96
North Village Secondary Plan and Regional
Road 17 Realignment Integrated EA Study
Public Information Centre #3
Join us at Public Information Centre #3
to learn about the proposed locations
for shopping, parks, and different forms
of housing. Share your feedback on the
designs, and help shape the future of
north Newcastle.
Register in advance for this meeting
at www.clarington.net/NorthVillage.
For more information, contact Mark Jull
or Lisa Backus at 905-623-3379 or
northvillage@clarington.net.
North Village will be a vibrant
neighbourhood, open to all, at all
stages of their life. Walkable and
welcoming, it will reflect the rich
community spirit of Newcastle.
Integrated Environmental Assessment
As part of the North Village Secondary Plan, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being undertaken for new or modified major roads, including
a proposed realignment of Regional Road 17 to Concession Road 3. These road projects are subject to Schedule ‘C’ of the Municipal Class
EA process. The EA will be completed using the“Integrated Approach”with the Planning Act, an approved process under the Environmental
Assessment. This integrated approach will ensure that North Village Secondary Plan and the Regional Road 17 Realignment are completed
simultaneously, providing the necessary supporting documents, public consultation and alternative options for both projects. The Notice of
Commencement was issued on November 3, 2021. This public information centre is progressing as part of the Integrated Class EA process.
Information is being collected in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (2009). With the exception of personal information, all comments , concerns and issues will become part of the public record.
Wednesday, June 8, 2022, at 6:30 p.m.
Join us online or by phone.
To obtain this information in an alternate format, call
905-623-3379 ext. 2131, TTY: 1-844-790-1599.
Page 97
11
Page 98
North Village Secondary Plan
& Integrated Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE #3
June 8, 2022 (virtual meeting)Page 99
1
Land Acknowledgement
The Municipality of Clarington is situated within the traditional
and treaty territory of the Mississaugas and Chippewas of the
Anishinabeg known today as the Williams Treaties First Nations.
Our work on these lands acknowledges their resilience and
their longstanding contributions to the area now known as the
Municipality of Clarington.
Page 100
2
Agenda
Introductions & Overview
Vision & Guiding Principles
Baseline Parameters
Alternative Land Use Plans
Evaluation of the Land Use Plans
RR17 EA Update
Discussion & Next Steps
Page 101
3
Introductions & Overview
Page 102
4
Introductions
The Municipality
Mark Jull
Senior Planner
Community Planning
& Design
Lisa Backus
Acting Manager
Community Planning
& Design
The Consultant Team
Karen Richardson
Manager
Development
Engineering
Shonda Wang
Principal
MSc, BSW, MCIP, RPP
Project Director
Michael Matthys
Associate
MSc.Pl, B.A
Senior Planner
Kelly Graham
Senior Planner
MPl, BA, RPP
Project Manager
SvN Architects + Planners
Kim Behrouzian
Planner
MLA, BURPl, RPP
Urban Designer
BT Engineering
RR 17 EA Study,
Transportation Engineering
AECOM
Transportation Planning, Servicing, Integrated EA, Archaeology, Heritage, Agricultural Impact, Retail Market Impact
Urbanism by Design
Urban Design
Footprint
Sustainability
Urban Planning, Urban
Design, Engagement
Consultant Team Lead
Page 103
5
LIVE POLL QUESTIONS
Who is in the “room”?
Page 104
Poll - Who is in the “room”?
1. What is your relationship to Newcastle?
a) Resident
b) Visitor to Newcastle
c) Business owner
d) Worker
e) Interested citizen
2. Why did you make time in your day to join the public
meeting this evening?
a) I am curious about the new neighbourhood
b) I am interested in housing options in the new neighbourhood
c) I am curious about the changes to Regional Road 17
d) I am interested in a new Neighbourhood Centre
e) Other
3. What do you like most about Newcastle?
a) The main street
b) Proximity to local farms
c) Community feel
d) Trails, parks, and waterfront
e) Walkable streets
4. Have you attended any of the Public
Information Sessions about this Study?
a) Yes
b) No
6 Page 105
About the Project
Background
A Secondary Plan will guide the
development of a new neighbourhood.
• The project is guided by the following Council priorities:
• Sustainability and Climate Change
• Affordable Housing
• Urban Design
• Community Engagement
• The project will be carried out in accordance with the Planning
Act and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Process
(MCEA) under the Environmental Assessment Act for new
infrastructure including roads, transit, water, and sewers.
7
Approximate
RR17 Realignment
Page 106
What are we doing?
Secondary Plan
»The Clarington Official Plan contains policies for
managing municipal-wide growth.
»A Secondary Plan contains policies for a specific area.
»The framework may consist of the following elements:
»land use and built form, roads and infrastructure, parks,
community facilities, cultural and natural heritage,
sustainability.
»The final Secondary Plan will also be accompanied by an
implementing Zoning By-Law, as well as Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines.
8 Page 107
What are we doing?
Environmental Assessment
»The Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
(MCEA) is a process for evaluating options for new
infrastructure, including roads, transit, water, and sewers
to support the new residents in the Secondary Plan Area.
»The re-alignment of Regional Road 17 (North Street) is a key
consideration to increase the separation between Regional
Road 17 intersection with Conc. 3 and Highway 35/115 and
in order to accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes
and improve safety.
9 Page 108
Key messages that emerged through the public and
stakeholder engagement so far include:
»We like to walk around the community and on
nearby trails and are concerned about pedestrian
safety on Regional Road 17.
»We could use some seniors housing as well as starter
homes for young families.
»Newcastle needs more amenities and services for
people at various stages of life - a daycare, or seniors
drop-in centre would be great.
»We like the rural character, it is what makes
Newcastle special.
10
What we heard (so far)
Page 109
11
Project Timeline
Phase 1
Initial Public Input +
Technical Analysis
Phase 2
Evaluation Criteria +
Alternative Land Use Plans
Phase 3
Emerging Land Use Plan
Phase 4
Public Meeting Stakeholder Meeting
Public
Information
Centre 3
June 8th
Public
Information
Centre 2
November 18th
Statutory Public Meeting
Date TBD
2021 2022 2023
Fall FallWinter Winter SpringSpringSummer
Draft Secondary Plan
+ Zoning By-Law
We are here
Milestones completed
prior to fall 2021:
Steering Committee
#1, 2, 3 & 4
Public Information
Centre #1 & 2
Public Information
Centre 4 (RR17 EA)
Date TBD
Page 110
12
Why are we here today?
Public Information Centre #3 is focused
on the following new updates:
3
Land Use
Alternatives
Evaluation of the
Land Use Alternatives
PIC #3 Engagement
Feedback on the
Alternatives
NOTE: Feedback from PIC #3 combined
with the Evalution results will inform an
Emerging Land Use Plan.
WE ARE
HERE
Page 111
13
Vision & Guiding Principles
Page 112
14
Vision
North Village is a vibrant
neighbourhood that is
open to all, at all stages
of their life. Walkable and
welcoming, it reflects the
rich community spirit of
Newcastle.
Page 113
15
Guiding Principles
As the North Village Secondary Plan is prepared and implemented the following principles will guide decision-making:
A Liveable
Neighbourhood
A Connected
Neighbourhood
A Resilient
Neighbourhood
A Beautiful
and Inviting
Neighbourhood
A Unique
Newcastle
Neighbourhood
Page 114
16
Baseline Parameters
Page 115
17
Baseline Parameters
The Baseline Parameters are minimum requirements from the Official Plan
that all proposed land use alternatives must achieve. The categories include:
Density 1 5 9
2 6 10
3 7 11
4 8 12
Housing
Internal Street
Network
RR 17
Conc 3 / Arthur St
Water Reservoir
Parkland
School
Active
Transportation
Sustainability
Context Area
Neighbourhood
Centre
Page 116
18
Alternative Land Use Plans
LIVE POLL QUESTIONS
Page 117
19
Assumptions
The Land Use Plan Alternatives
share several basic assumptions
in common, such as area for the
school, water reservoir, and street
connections to the approved
subdivision to the south, among
others.
These include:
• Water Reservoir: 2.36 ha
• School: minimum 2.5 ha (subject to School Board)
• Highway Commercial (existing McDonald’s): 0.76 ha
• Mixed Use (Neighbourhood Centre): Assume 35,000 sf
(3,251 sm) GFA feasible in a main street format, other
lands to be developed as residential or complementary
institutional/public uses
• Regional Road 17 Realignment - subject to the Integrated
Class Environmental Assessment Study (underway)
• Street network in the Approved Area to the southNOTE
Page 118
20
Three Land Use Alternatives
Alternative 1
Region
al
R
o
a
d 1
7
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
r
e
e
t
AStreet BStreet CAlternative 2
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
ree
t
AStreet B
Street C
Alternative 3
Regional
Roa
d 17
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
ree
t
AStreet B
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
Regio
nal
R
oa
d 17
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential +
Medium Density Residential
Parks
Neighbourhood Centre Mixed Use
Highway Commercial
School
Page 119
Land Use Alternative 1
Green Corridors + Community Courtyards
Boundaries
Project Area
Existing Context
Existing Building
Existing Building of
Cultural Significance
Public Realm
Arterial Road
Collector Road with
Bike Lanes
Local Street
Potential Rear Lane
Green Link
Park
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential +
Medium Density Residential
Neighbourhood Centre
Mixed Use
Highway Commercial
School
Region
al
R
o
a
d 1
7
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
r
e
e
t
AStreet BStreet C Engage RR17 and
surrounding boundary
roads
2 Main roads as green
corridors
Distribute and link smaller
parks to create “community
courtyards”
Small-scale, central,
commercial main street and
“heart”
Design central park as
community destination and
anchor to the main street
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
5
Source: Google Streetview, 2018 Source: Flickr Nick Falbo, 2018 Source: David Reimers, 2021
Source: Neighbourhood Guide, 2022 Source: Leyland Alliance, 2016
3
1 3
4 5
Page 120
Poll - Land Use Alternative 1
1. What is your favourite design feature?
a) Engage and beautify RR17
b) Main roads as green corridors
c) Distribute and link smaller parks to create “community courtyards”
d) Small-scale, central, commercial main street and “heart”
e) Central park as community destination and anchor to the main street
f) Other
2. Do you like the location of the school?
a) Yes, I like the location
b) No, I prefer the location be elsewhere
c) I am not sure
22 Page 121
Land Use Alternative 2
Four Corners + Green Corridors
Regional
Roa
d 17
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
ree
t
AStreet B
Street C
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
Boundaries
Existing Context
Existing Building
Existing Building of
Cultural Significance
Public Realm
Arterial Road
Collector Road with
Bike Lanes
Local Street
Potential Rear Lane
Green Link
Park
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential +
Medium Density Residential
Neighbourhood Centre
Mixed Use
Highway Commercial
School
Project Area
Animate and enliven RR17 Create a prominent “four
corners” neighbourhood
centre
Locate school as key civic
feature
Maximize density around the
neighbourhood centre and
school
Highway buffer zone
Source: Project for Public Spaces, 2020 Source: Sloker Group, 2021 Source: Benjamin Benschneider, 2010
Source: Mr.List.Co, 2022 Source: City of Asheville, 2020
1 2 3
4 5
Page 122
Poll - Land Use Alternative 2
1. What is your favourite design feature?
a) Animate and enliven RR17
b) Prominent “four corners” neighbourhood centre
c) Locate school as key civic feature
d) Maximize density around the neighbourhood centre and school
e) Highway buffer zone
f) Other
2. Would you like to see the medium density residential clustered or more evenly distributed
throughout the plan area?
a) I like it clustered together
b) I would like to see it more distributed
c) I am not sure
Page 123
Land Use Alternative 3
Neighbourhood Centre + Promenade
Regional
Roa
d 17
Concession Road 3
Arthur StreetSt
ree
t
AStreet B
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
5
Boundaries
Project Area
Existing Context
Existing Building
Existing Building of
Cultural Significance
Public Realm
Arterial Road
Collector Road with
Bike Lanes
Local Street
Potential Rear Lane
Green Link
Park
Land Uses
Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential +
Medium Density Residential
Neighbourhood Centre
Mixed Use
Highway Commercial
School
Elongate parks to create
“green fingers” and
maximize access
Integrate the neighbourhood
centre and park to create
a unique promenade
Maximize density around open
spaces and neighbourhood
centre
Make the school a focal
point of the community
with a prominent
location
Engage RR17 and
surrounding boundary
roads
Source: Centre for Architecture, 2021 Source: Leyland Alliance, 2016 Source: Google Streetview, 2018
Source: Perkins&Will, 2022 Source: Google Streetview, 2018
2
1
3
5
1 2 3
4 5
Page 124
Poll - Land Use Alternative 3
1. What is your favourite design feature?
a) Elongate parks to create “green fingers” and maximize access
b) Integrate the neighbourhood centre and park to create a unique promenade
c) Maximize density around open spaces and neighbouhood centre
d) Locate school as view terminus of linear neighbourhood centre and promenade
e) Engage RR17 and surrounding boundary roads
f) Other
2. Do you like the location of the Neighbourhood Centre?
a) Yes, I like the location close to the park and school
b) No, I prefer a centrally located commercial main street and “heart”
c) No, I prefer a prominent “four corners” intersection along RR17
d) I am not sure
Page 125
Alternatives show a greater level of
detail than the land use schedule
27
Level of Detail
Land Use Alternative 3
vs.
Land Use Schedule Example
Page 126
28
Evaluation of the
Land Use Plans
Page 127
29
Evaluation Criteria
The Evaluation Criteria have been used to
evaluate the three alternative land use plans
for North Village. The Criteria are not being
used to select a single plan, but rather to
select the best features form each to create
an Emerging Plan.
• Rooted in the NVSP Guiding Principles, the
Clarington OP, and the Clarington Priority Green
Standards for Secondary Plans
• The Alternative that best achieves the objective is
assigned a score of 3, the second best performing
Alternative is assigned a score of 2, and the least
well performing Alternative is assigned a score of 1
for that objective
Evaluation
Criteria
NVSP Guiding
Principles
Clarington
Official Plan
Clarington
Priority
Green
Standards
Page 128
30
Evaluation Criteria
Guiding Principle Summary of Indicators Summary of Evaluation Results
Liveable
The indicators considered
the minimum residential
densities, mix of housing
types, number of employment
opportunities, and mitigating
conflicts with agricultural
opreations.
• Alternative 3 best distributes a mix of density and building
typologies
• Alternative 1, similar to Alternative 3, distributes density in a
balanced way throughout the neighbourhood, though it has less
medium density than Alternative 3
• Alternative 2 concentrates medium density and other non-
detached units in one large cluster in the centre of the plan area
• Alternatives have equal potential to yield a similar number of
jobs
• Alternative 3 provides the most strategies to mitigate conflct
with agricultural operation with linear green spaces that share
an edge with the boundary road, reducing the number of homes
facing and in proximity to agriculatural areas
Subtotal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
4 4 8
Page 129
31
Evaluation Criteria
Guiding Principle Summary of Indicators Summary of Evaluation Results
Connected
The indicators measured the
walkability, the number of
pedestrian connections to
arterial roads, the variety of
circulation options, and the
connectivity of the cycling
network.
• Alternative 2 puts neighbourhood amenities within a short
walking distance of the most people
• Alternative 1 has the shortest average block length and
therefore performs slightly better for walkability
• Alternative 3 has the highest intersection density, providing the
greatest amount of connectivity and variety of travel Alternatives
• All of the Alternatives provide an equal number of homes within
200 metres of connected cycling routes
Subtotal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
7 9 6
Page 130
32
Evaluation Criteria
Guiding Principle Summary of Indicators Summary of Evaluation Results
Beautiful
The indicators measure the
number of views to important
landmarks and natural features,
the percentage of roads
with building frontages, the
distribution of parks, and the
amount of parkland and open
space.
• Alternative 3 provided the greatest proportion of parkland /
300 units
• Alternative 2 provides the greatest number of views to
surrounding landmarks and natural features
• All of the Alternatives provide a good distribution of parks for
good accessibility to residents
Subtotal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
6 5 7
Page 131
33
Evaluation Criteria
Guiding Principle Summary of Indicators Summary of Evaluation Results
Unique
The indicators measure the
percentage of residential homes
within walking distance of the
Neighbourhood Centre, and the
number of visual connections to
destinations and amenities.
• Alternatives 1 and 3 perform equally well on this indicator
because of the concentration of medium density around the NC.
Regardless, the whole SP area is less than 500 metres across,
which means that the vast majority of homes will be within a 5
minute walk of the NC
• Alternative 1 provides the greatest number of visual/spatial
connections into the neighbourhood centre because of the
placement of streets and open spaces
Subtotal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
4 2 4
Page 132
34
Evaluation Criteria
Guiding Principle Summary of Indicators Summary of Evaluation Results
Resilient
The indicators measure the
percentage of people and jobs
in walking distance to transit
stops, the percentage of open
spaces suitable for green
infrastructure, the proportion
of tree cover, and areas with
potential to maximize
solar gains.
• All of the Alternatives provide a high percentage of people and
jobs within walking distance to transit, Alternative 1 provides the
greatest proportion
• Alternative 3 has a slightly greater proportion of open spaces that
intersect with natural drainage areas, and the greatest number of
trees in park spaces based on an average tree assumption from the
City of Toronto
• Alternative 2 performs slightly better than the others in terms of
street tree canopy because it has the greatest linear distance of
public streets. However, it has the lowest number of trees in parks
• All of the Alternatives follow a similar grid pattern and orientation and
therefore share the same potential to maximize solar gains
Subtotal Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
8 6 9
Total 29 26 34
Page 133
35
Regional Road 17
Environmental Assessment
LIVE POLL QUESTIONS
Page 134
Regional Road 17 MCEA
36
WE ARE HERE
Page 135
Alignment Alternatives
• The final Alignment Alternative will be reflected in the Land Use
Plan schedule. The following options are being considered:
• Alternative 1: West
• Alternative 2: Centered
• Alternative 3: East
• The intersection of the realigned Regional Road 17 and
Concession Road 3 will be offset 300 metres east of the existing
intersection, as required by MTO.
• Concession Road 3 connectivity alternatives will also be studied.
For detailed illustrations of the 3 alternatives please visit the
project website at www.clarington.net/NorthVillage
North Street Alternatives are also being considered as part of
the Land Use Plans to ensure that existing residents, businesses,
and community institutions will continue to have access to the
surrounding road network.
37 Page 136
Cross Section Alternatives
• The study will consider three
cross section alternatives
which all include 3 lanes of
traffic (two through lanes and
one left-turn lane).
• Two alternatives include
sidewalks and a multi-use
path.
Regional Road 17 Realignment
Cross Section Alternatives
BTE 21-006
2021-08-18
Scale 1:100
Alternative 1: Rural
Alternative 2A: Urban
with 3.5 m Lanes
Alternative 2B
Urban with 3.5 m
Lanes and
Median
Preliminary
recommendation to
carry forwardü
Preliminary recommendation
not to carry forwardû
Preliminary
recommendation to
carry forwardü
38 Page 137
Alternative Details
Alternative 2A
Realigned North Street with Signals
Alternative 2B
Realigned North Street with Signals
Alternative 2C
Realigned North Street with
Roundabout
39 Page 138
Alternative Details
Alternative 3
Realigned North Street and
reconfiguration of on-ramp
Alternative 4
Realigned North Street and
reconfiguration of on-ramp
40 Page 139
41
Poll - Alternatives
1. Would you prefer traffic lights or roundabouts at RR17 and Concession Road 3?
a) I prefer traffic lights and zebra crossings at the intersection
b) I prefer roundabouts at the intersection
c) I am not sure
2. Do you like the proposed changes to business access?
a) Yes, I like the proposed changes
b) No, I do not like the proposed changes
c) I am not sure
3. Do you want to see addtional roads or a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3?
a) I prefer additional new roads
b) I prefer a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3
c) I am not sure
Page 140
42
Next Steps
Page 141
43
Next Steps
Engagement Summary Report July
Phase 2 Summary Report July
Reports to be published on the project-specific webpage on the
Municipality of Clarington’s website: clarington.net/northvillage
Page 142
44
Upcoming Meetings
Phase 1
Initial Public Input +
Technical Analysis
Phase 2
Evaluation Criteria +
Alternative Land Use Plans
Phase 3
Emerging Land Use Plan
Phase 4
Public Meeting Stakeholder Meeting
Public
Information
Centre 3
June 8th
Public
Information
Centre 2
November 18th
Statutory Public Meeting
Date TBD
2021 2022 2023
Fall FallWinter Winter SpringSpringSummer
Draft Secondary Plan
+ Zoning By-Law
Milestones completed
prior to fall 2021:
Steering Committee
#1, 2, 3 & 4
Public Information
Centre #1 & 2
Public Information
Centre 4 (RR17 EA)
Date TBD
Page 143
45
Discussion
Q A
Page 144
46
THANK YOU
http://www.clarington.net/NorthVillage
northvillage@clarington.net
Page 145
15
Ap pendix C
Page 146
Appendix C: Combined Live Polls & Survey Data
What is your relationship to Newcastle?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
Resident 7 52 59 86%
Worker 1 1 2 3%
Interested Citizen 3 1 4 6%
Visitor 3 3 4%
Business Owner 1 1 1%
TOTAL 11 58 69 100%
Why did you make time in your day to join the public meeting this evening?
Live
Poll
%
I am curious about the new neighbourhood 5 45%
I am curious about the changes to RR17 2 18%
Other 4 36%
TOTAL 11 100%
What do you like most about Newcastle?
Live
Poll
% Survey (reoccuring themes
included):
The main street (King Ave) 1 9% Village/small town feel
Proximity to local farms 5 45% (Almost) complete community
Community feel 2 18% Nature/parks
Trails, parks, and waterfront 2 18% Commuity/people
Other 1 9% Walkability
TOTAL 11 100%
Have you attended any of the PICs about this study?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
Yes 5 14 19 28%
No 6 43 49 72%
TOTAL 11 57 68 100%
Page 147
ALTERNATIVE 1 QUESTIONS
What is your favourite design feature?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
Central park as community
destination and anchor to the main
street
1 16 17 24%
Distribute and link smaller parks to
cre- ate “community courtyards”
0 6 6 8%
Engage and beautify RR17 2 3 5 7%
Main roads as green corridors 2 19 21 30%
Small-scale, central, commercial
main street
6 9 15 21%
Other 7 7 10%
TOTAL 11 60 71 100%
Do you like the location of the school in Alternative 1?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
Yes 4 26 30 43%
No, I prefer the location to be
elsewhere
4 24 28 40%
I am not sure 3 9 12 17%
TOTAL 11 59 70 100%
ALTERNATIVE 2 QUESTIONS
What is your favourite design feature?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
Prominent “four coners”
neighbourhood centre
3 7 10 15%
Highway buffer zone 2 15 17 25%
Locate schhool as key civic feature 4 14 18 26%
Animate and enliven RR17 0 6 6 9%
Maximize density around the
neighbourhood centre and school
0 13 13 19%
Don’t like it 0 4 4 6%
TOTAL 9 59 71 100% Page 148
Would you like to see the medium density residential areas clustered together in one location, or more evenly
distributed throughout the plan area?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
I like it clustered in one location 3 16 19 28%
I would like to see it more distributed 6 36 42 62%
I am not sure 0 7 7 10%
TOTAL 9 59 68 100%
ALTERNATIVE 3 QUESTIONS
What is your favourite design feature?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
Integrate the neighbourhood centre
and park to create a unique
promenade
4 19 23 34%
Elongate parks to create “green
fingers” and maximize access
2 17 19 28%
Locate school as view terminus of
linear neighbourhood centre and
promenade
3 12 15 22%
Engage RR17 and surrounding
boundary roads
5 5 7%
Maximize density around open spaces
and neighbourhood centre
3 3 4%
Don’t like it 3 3 4%
TOTAL 9 59 68 100%
Do you like the location of the Neighbourhood Centre?
Live
Poll
Web
Survey
Combined Combined
%
Yes, I like the location close to the park
and school
5 12 17 25%
No, I prefer a prominent “four corners”
intersection along RR17
1 8 9 13%
No, I prefer a centrally located
commercial main street and “heart”
3 12 15 22%
Not sure 0 7 7 10%
TOTAL 9 59 68 100%
Page 149
RR17 QUESTIONS (POLL ONLY)
Would you prefer traffic lights or roundabouts at RR17 and Concession Road 3?
Live
Poll
%
I prefer roundabouts at the
intersection
5 71%
I prefer traffic lights and zebra
crossings at the intersection
2 29%
TOTAL 7 100%
Do you like the proposed changes to business access?
Live
Poll
%
Yes 4 57%
No 0 0%
Not sure 3 43%
TOTAL 7 100%
Do you want to see additional roads or a reconfiguration of existing Concession Road 3?
Live
Poll
%
Additional new roads 5 71%
Reconfiguration of existing 0 0%
Not sure 2 29%
TOTAL 7 100%
Page 150