Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-034-12 • Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE 96 - -k Date: June 25, 2012 Resolution #: / By-law #: .> " Report#: PSD-034-12 File #'s: COPA 2005-008, PLN 31.5.10, S-C 2005-0003, S-C 2005-0004; ZBA 2005-042 and ZBA 2005-043 Subject: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSED NEIGHBOURHOOD DESIGN PLAN FOR VILLAGE NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD IN NEWCASTLE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW AND FOR APPROVAL OF DRAFT PLANS OF SUBDIVISION APPLICANTS: SMOOTH RUN DEVELOPMENTS (METRUS DEVELOPMENTS INC.) BROOKFIELD HOMES (ONTARIO) LIMITED RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-034-12 be received; 2. THAT Addendums 1, 2 and 3 to Report PSD-067-09 be lifted from the table and received; 3. THAT the North Newcastle Neighbourhood Design Plan be received; 4. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized by By-law, on behalf of the Municipality to execute a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the phasing of parkland referred to in Section 12.4.5 of this report between Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited and the Municipality of Clarington which contains terms and conditions to protect the Municipality's interests satisfactory to the Directors of Planning Services and Engineering Services; 5. THAT subject to the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding referenced above, Council request the Ontario Municipal Board to: a) approve application COPA 2005-008, submitted by Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited,:as Amendment No. 86 to the Clarington Official Plan as contained in Attachment 7 to PSD-034-12; REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 2 b) approve Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-003 submitted by Smooth Run Developments to permit the development of 656 residential units, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 8 to Report PSD-034-12; c) approve Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-004 submitted by Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited to permit the development of 270 residential units, subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 9 to PSD-034-12; d) enact zoning by-law amendment ZBA 2005-042 submitted by Smooth Run Developments to implement the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision as contained in Attachment 10 to Report PSD-034-12; and e) enact zoning by-law amendment ZBA 2005-043 submitted by Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited to implement the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision as contained in Attachment 11 to Report PSD-034-12; 6. THAT a By-law to remove the Holding (H) symbol be forwarded to Council at such time that the applicants have entered into a subdivision agreement; 7. THAT the Durham Region Planning Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) be forwarded a copy of this report and a copy of Council's decision; and 8. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-034-12 and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: [avid/ Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services _ Chief Administrative Officer CS/CP/df/sn/ah/df 18 June 2012 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 3 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Owners: Smooth Run Developments (Metrus Developments Inc.) Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited 1.2 Agent: Sernas Associates 1.3 Proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment: • Amend Table 9-2 by increasing the housing target for North Village Neighbourhood to reflect the following: i) 1050 low density units to 1000 units; ii) 250 medium density units to 400 units; iii) total from 1350 units to 1450 units; and iv) amending all corresponding totals. • Amend Map A-4 —"Land Use Newcastle Village Urban Area" by: i) revising the collector road pattern; ii) enlarging the boundaries for Special Policy Area G; iii) deleting one public elementary school symbol; iv) relocating one public elementary school symbol; v) relocating one separate school symbol; vi) relocating one neighbourhood park symbol; vii) relocating one medium density symbol; viii) adding two medium density symbols; and ix) adding an Environmental Protection Area. • Amend Map B4 —"Transportation — Newcastle Village Urban Area" by revising the collector road pattern. • Amend Map H3 - "Neighbourhood Planning Unit— Newcastle Village Urban Area" by changing the population of the North Village Neighbourhood from 3900 to 4150 (see Attachment 7). 1.4 Plans of Subdivision: • Smooth Run Developments (S-C-2005-0003): 656 unit residential Plan of Subdivision consisting of 326 single detached dwellings, 76 semi detached dwellings, 76 linked dwelling units, 84 townhouse units, and a medium density townhouse block, 1 elementary school, 1 park block, a parkette, a daylighted tributary, two (2) stormwater management ponds, an open space block, a block for a water reservoir and a Future Development Block (Attachment 4). • Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited (S-C-2005-0004,): 270 unit residential Plan of Subdivision, consisting of 139 single detached dwellings units, 62 linked dwellings, 69 townhouse units, a parkette, a walkway, a servicing block and a Future Development Block (Attachment 5). REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 4 1.5 Zoning By-law Amendments: Change the current zoning on both properties from "Agricultural (A-1) Zone" and "Environmental Protection (EP) Zone" to appropriate zones to permit the proposed developments. 1.6 Site Area: Smooth Run Developments 73.84 hectares Brookfield Homes 34.86 hectares TOTAL 108.70 hectares 2. LOCATION 2.1 The subject properties are located north of the Canadian Pacific Railway (St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway), east of North Street and Regional Road 17 and Highway 35/115, south of Concession Road 3 and west of Arthur Street, being Part Lots 27 & 28, Concession 2, and Former Township of Clarke (see Attachment 1). 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 On August 24, 2005 Staff received an application to amend the Clarington Official Plan submitted jointly by Smooth Run Developments (Metrus Developments Inc.) and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited. An application for a Neighbourhood Design Plan was also submitted jointly by both parties. 3.2 Smooth Run Developments (Smooth Run) and Brookfield Homes (Brookfield) have each submitted separate applications for proposed draft plans of subdivision as well as zoning by-law amendments for their respective lands. A statutory Public Meeting was held on January 9, 2006. The applications were referred back to staff for further processing, the completion of the Neighbourhood Design Plan process and a Financial Impact Analysis. The Financial Impact Analysis was undertaken by Hemson Consulting for the Municipality of Clarington and included a review of these two applications as well as four other major development proposals in other areas of the Municipality. 3.3 On May 28, 2008, both Smooth Run and Brookfield submitted revised proposed draft plans of subdivision and corresponding rezoning applications for only the lands in the south west corner of the combined overall site, where the applicants believed that servicing would be available for only 250 units, referred to as Phase 1. 3.4 On July 28, 2008, a revised Official Plan Amendment was received, as well as two revised proposed draft plans of subdivision and rezoning applications based on the entire site. The total number of residential units was 1567. 3.5 On August 7, 2008 the Municipality received a Notice of Appeal submitted by the solicitor for Smooth Run and Brookfield, regarding the Official Plan Amendment, proposed Draft Plans of Subdivision and applications for Zoning By-law amendment. The appeals were filed under Sections 22 (7), 51(34) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, for failure of Council to make a decision in respect of these development applications. The REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 5 appeals were detailed in Report PSD-092-08, considered by Committee on September 8, 2008. 3.6 A second Statutory Public Meeting, based on the July 28, 2008 submissions was held on September 22, 2008. The applications were referred back to staff for further processing, the completion of the Neighbourh000d Design Plan (NDP) process and resolution of issues. 3.7 On December 10, 2008, a Prehearing Conference before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) was held. At that time, the Municipality and applicant's solicitor agreed to continue to work on resolving the various issues, regarding financial, phasing and environmental concerns. A second pre-hearing conference was held on March 26, 2009 at which time a third pre-hearing conference was set for July 9, 2009 to establish the issues for the actual OMB hearing. A date for the OMB hearing was also set for October 5, 2009 for 21 days. The transportation issues involving the realignment of Regional Road 17 were resolved through mediation held March 6, 2009 involving the Region of Durham, Ministry of Transportation and the appellants. The details of the mediated resolution are contained in Section 12.1 of this report. 3.8 On May 6, 2009, a fourth submission was received. The total number of units for both subdivisions was 1030 units. As a result of unsuccessful negotiations regarding the restoration and naturalization of a buried tributary on the Smooth Run property, staff prepared Report PSD-067-09 for Committee's consideration at their meeting of June 22, 2009. The report, contained in Attachment 2, recommended the Municipality take the position that the NDP and related development applications incorporate a restored (daylighting) naturalized channel for the north tributary of the Foster Creek. At the General Purpose and Administration meeting, the motion to approve the recommendations in the report was lost and a new motion was brought forward recommending that both the north and south tributaries be daylighted. The motion was passed. At the subsequent Council meeting of June 29, 2009, Council tabled PSD-067-09 to September 14, 2009 (Addendum 1). The motion to support daylighting of both tributaries was never adopted by Council. As such, only the daylighting of the northerly tributary was advanced by Staff, consistent with the recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Study. Addendum 1 to Report PSD-067-09 was tabled until October 26, 2009; it was further tabled to January 2010 (Addendum 2) and then again on April 2010 and July 2010 (Addendum 3) (Report PSD-067-09 and the various Addendums on Attachment 2). At the December 20, 2010 meeting Council passed a resolution that PSD-067-09 be tabled until such time as the Director of Planning Services deemed it suitable to report back on the Official Plan Amendment, Draft Plans of Subdivision and their related rezoning and the NDP. The recommendations in PSD-067-09 are being recommended for approval within the context of this report. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 6 Committee's resolution to daylight both tributaries will be discussed in Section 12.2 of this report. 3.9 During this time, Metrus requested staff to focus efforts in resolving the issues with their Draft Plan of Subdivision in the Brookhill Neighbourhood, which was also subject to an appeal to the OMB. All issues were resolved in the fall of 2011 and the first phase was registered in December 2011. 3.10 In the fall of 2009, the applicant presented staff with a concept that proposed to relocate and daylight a portion of the northern tributary. This concept was formalized in a revised plan which was submitted in May 2010 as the fifth submission. In addition to a daylighted channel, an Open Space Block was introduced which resulted from the relocation of the west stormwater management pond. 3.11 On April 2, 2011, the sixth submissions to each proposal were submitted. It included a reservoir site requested by the Region of Durham, lots for traditional semi-detached units and reoriented lots. The sixth submissions are the basis for the approval of the NDP and Official Plan Amendment, Proposed Draft Plans, Conditions of Draft Approval and Zoning By-law amendments. The breakdown of dwelling by unit type is noted below: Sixth Submission (March 2011) Dwelling Type Brookfield Smooth Run 9.8 m link 62 76 19.6 m semi - 76 11.6 m single 95 170 13.1 m single 44 88 15 m single - 36 18 m single - 32 6.6 m street townhouse 34 - 7.6 m street townhouse 35 84 Medium density block - 94 TOTAL units per draft plan 270 656 TOTAL UNITS 926 3.12 Supporting Documentation 3.12.1 The applicants provided various studies with the first submission of the proposed draft Plans of Subdivision. These studies have subsequently been revised to reflect subsequent submissions. The following documents will be summarized in Section 8 of this report. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 7 • Phase 1 — Environmental Site Assessment for Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited, dated August 2004; • Phase 1 — Environmental Site Assessment for Smooth Run Developments, dated August 2004; • Noise Impact Study for Smooth Run Developments, latest revision dated April 2010; • Noise Impact Study for Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited latest revision dated April 2010; • Functional Servicing Study for Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited, latest revision dated April 2011; and • Transportation Study for Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited, dated May 2008. 4. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES 4.1 The lands within the North Village Neighbourhood slope from north to south and are cultivated with soybean and corn crops. Two tributaries flow from the lands east of Arthur Street towards the railway tracks both overland and by means of tile drains. In 2009, the lands were regraded in the vicinity of the piped tributary by the farmer who rents the lands. The lands owned by Smooth Run Developments are currently vacant. The lands owned by Brookfield Homes support existing barns. A 4.0 hectare parcel, supporting a single detached dwelling and accessory buildings front onto Regional Road 17. A 0.39 hectare parcel supporting a single detached dwelling and accessory buildings is located on Arthur Street. The Region of Durham owns a 0.58 hectare parcel for a reservoir. 4.2 Surrounding Land Uses: North - Rural residential, a cemetery, agricultural crop and livestock barns once used for a hog operation. South - CP Railway and beyond that, established residential neighbourhood in the Village of Newcastle East - Rural residential, trailer park and agricultural crops West - Rural residential, a church, commercial uses and Highway 35/115 5. PROVINCIAL POLICY 5.1 Provincial Policy Statement 5.1.1 The applications were reviewed in the context of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement. • New development shall occur adjacent to built up areas and shall have compact form, a mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 8 • Planning authorities are required to provide for a range of housing types and densities with a ten year supply of lands which are designated and a three year supply of zoned and serviced lands within draft approved and registered plans. New housing is to be directed to locations where infrastructure and public services are or will be available. A full range of housing types and densities shall be provided to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. • Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space policies, states that healthy active communities should be promoted by planning public streets and spaces that are safe and facilitate pedestrian and non-motorized movement. A full range of publicly accessible built and natural setting for recreation including facilities, parks, open space and trails should also be considered. • Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities, states that infrastructure and public services facilities shall be provided in a coordinated efficient and cost effective manner. Planning for these shall be integrated with planning for growth so that they are available to meet current and projected needs. The use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized where feasible before considering developing new infrastructure and public service facilities. • Natural Heritage policies states that natural features and area shall be protected for the long term. The diversity and connectivity of natural features and the long- term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or where possible improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. 5.1.2 The applications are generally consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement as they are proposing a mix of low and medium density housing types. A greater variety of housing types could be provided to meet the future needs of residents. The subject lands are within the Urban Area boundary of Newcastle Village and adjacent to existing built up areas and will make use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities. The proposals provide for recreation through the parks and open space. Natural heritage features will be restored and linkages through the open space and park blocks will be provided. 5.2 Provincial Growth Plan 5.2.1 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas. Growth is to be accommodated by building compact, transit-supportive communities in designated greenfield areas and by reducing dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed use, pedestrian- friendly environments. Growth shall also be directed to areas that offer municipal water and wastewater systems. Municipalities should establish an urban open space system within built up areas which may include communal courtyards and public parks. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 9 5.2.2 The North Village Neighbourhood is in a Greenfield Area as defined by the Provincial Growth Plan. Designated Greenfield Areas of each upper and single tier municipality will be planned to achieve a minimum density of 50 residents and jobs per hectare. This provision is not intended to be applied to each individual draft plan. The two proposed draft plans achieve approximately 41 persons per gross ha. The proposed Official Plan Amendments do increase the density in this neighbourhood from that currently contained in the Official Plan and bring both proposals closer to the 50 persons per ha. In addition, there will be future employment in the neighbourhood with the development of the elementary school and home occupation uses. 6. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES 6.1 Durham Regional Official Plan 6.1.1 The subject lands are designated as "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes. 6.1.2 Development applications in designated Living Areas shall achieve the following: • A compact urban form; • The use of good urban design principles; • A mix of appropriate uses; • Linkages for pedestrians and cyclists which link communities internally and externally and to public transit; • A grid pattern of arterial and collector roads where necessary to support transit supportive road pattern; • A Greenland system that compliments and enhances the Urban System; and • The balance between energy efficiency and cost. The application conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan policies. 6.2 Clarington Official Plan 6.2.1 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Urban Residential" and "Future Urban Residential" subject to the policies of "Special Policy Area G". The use of lands within the "Urban Residential" designation shall be predominately for housing. Two (2) public elementary schools, one (1) separate elementary and one (1) separate secondary school, two (2) medium density areas and two (2) neighbourhood parks are also designated over the neighbourhood. 6.2.2 The lands north of the northerly collector road (Streets "A" and "C" on Attachments 4 & 5) are designated within the "Special Policy Area G". This area is potentially affected by the hog operation located immediately north of the urban boundary and the surrounding planning area. The area of influence as defined in the Minimum Distance Separation Formula is designated "Future Urban Residential Area". Until such time as the hog operation or similar agricultural operation ceases including removal of the barns, the area of influence shall remain designated "Future Urban Residential". There are also REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 10 lands designated "Urban Residential" in "Special Policy Area G". As a condition of development, a warning clause must be included in all purchase and sale agreements indicating potential impacts from agricultural operations including noise and odour. These lands may also be affected by the hog operation. One public elementary school symbol, one separate secondary school symbol and a Neighbourhood Park symbol are also identified within "Special Policy Area G." 6.2.3 Regional Road 17 is designated as a Type 'B' Arterial. Type `B' Arterials are designed to move significant volumes of traffic from one part of the Municipality to another. Arthur Street and Concession Road 3 are Type `C' Arterials which are designed to move lower volumes of traffic over shorter distances. In addition, two east-west collector roads are identified as well as a north-south collector within the neighbourhood itself. 6.2.4 The lands within the North Village Neighbourhood have a population allocation of 3900 and a housing target of 1350, being 1050 low density units, 250 medium density units and 50 units for intensification. The amendment proposes an increase in the population to 4150 and the housing target to 1450 units. 6.2.5 The Clarington Official Plan requires the preparation of Neighbourhood Design Plan (NDP) prior to the consideration and approval of a plan of subdivision. An NDP was prepared in consultation with the Municipality and other agencies. It does not require the approval of Council but does require approval from the Directors of Planning Services and Engineering Services. 6.2.6 The Clarington Official Plan may require that a Financial Impact Analysis be undertaken for major development proposals. Where such an analysis demonstrates that the development will have adverse effect on the Municipality's finances, then the development will be considered premature and contrary to the intent of the Official Plan. A Financial Impact Analysis was prepared in February 2008. Council adopted the recommendations therein. This will be discussed further in Section 12.4 of this report. 6.2.7 Prior to municipal approval of any draft plan of subdivision, the Municipality is to prepare a subwatershed plan in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Conservation Authority and other agencies. The Foster Creek Subwatershed study was completed in 2001 and received by Council. 6.2.8 Council Approved Amendment No. 77 The proposed Official Plan Amendment, draft plans and rezoning applications have been reviewed in the context of Amendment No. 77, approved by Council, in March 2012. The proposed development complies with the new Urban Design Policies contained in Amendment No. 77. The neighbourhood is edged with arterial roads which provide for easy traffic movement including transit. Internally a grid of short streets allow convenient circulation for walking, cycling and connection to transit routes. The daylighting of the tributary gives consideration to the natural features and terrain. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 11 The conditions of draft approval require the Owners to provide a Community Theme Plan which will detail street lights, fencing, entrance features and landscaping to provide an attractive streetscape. An Environmental Sustainability Plan is also being required in the conditions of draft approval. This plan will detail how the Owners/builders will promote energy efficiency and water conservation, enhanced indoor air quality, use of non-toxic and recycled building products, landscaping and tree planting programs and low energy appliances. 7. ZONING BY-LAW 7.1 The majority of both properties are zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-1)" in Zoning By- law 84-63, as amended. A small portion zoned "Environmental Protection (EP) Zone" is located on the south-east quadrant of the Smooth Run draft plan. Zoning by-law amendments are required in order to implement both proposed plans of subdivision. 8. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND STUDIES 8.1 Phase 1 - Environmental Site Assessment The Site Screening Questionnaire prepared by Brookfield indicated that an orchard was situated on the site and as such, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required. Soil sampling was conducted to determine the presence of arsenic and free cyanide on the site. The soil sampling and analysis determined that lands are within the acceptable levels according to the Ministry of Environment's guidelines. A Phase 1 ESA was submitted by Smooth Run. The site has been used historically for agricultural purposes. The neighbouring properties consist mainly of farm fields and houses. No issues of environmental concerns were identified with regard to the historical or present use of the subject site or surrounding land. No further environmental investigations were recommended. 8.2 Noise Impact Studies Sernas Associates prepared individual Noise Impact Studies for Smooth Run and Brookfield in August 2005 and revised reports were submitted in 2008 and 2011. The studies address noise generated from vehicular traffic on Concession Road 3 to the north, Arthur Street to the east, Regional Road 17 and Highway 35/115 to the west, and train traffic from the railway to the south. The reports recommend noise abatement measures to meet the noise levels acceptable to the Region of Durham, Municipality of Clarington, CP Railway and the Ministry of Environment. Noise fencing 1.8 metres high will be required along locations of Arthur Street and Concession Road 3. Noise fencing and berms totaling 2.2 metres to 2.8 metres high are required along Regional Road 17, where these lots will also be influenced by noise from Highway 35/115. Where residential units are located adjacent to the railway, a 2.2 metre high noise barrier is proposed comprising noise fence and earthen berm. The reports recommend that REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 12 detailed noise impact studies be submitted to identify noise mitigation measures and warning clauses to be included in the subdivision agreements once the final grading plans and the building plans are available. 8.3 Functional Servicin Stud tudy Sernas Associates prepared a Functional Servicing Study for both sites. The report was revised in July 2008 and April 2011. Approximately 109 hectares outside of the urban Area and east of Arthur Street drain through the North Village Neighbourhood through two existing culverts under Arthur Street. The minor system flows from the neighbourhood will discharge to the two proposed stormwater management ponds located the immediately north of the railway. Major system flows (overland flow) from the neighbourhood will be conveyed to the stormwater management ponds via the public road allowances, with the exception of a small area at the north end of the plan which drains onto Concession Road 3. A flow inlet structure will be required on Regional Road 17 to intercept and direct the overland flow into the west stormwater management pond. The two stormwater management facilities are designed to meet water quality and quantity targets outlined in the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study (March 2001). The northerly extension of the sanitary sewer on Regional Road 17 will provide a sanitary sewer services for the neighbourhood. Watermain supply to the neighbourhood will require expansion of the existing Zone 1 reservoir and the installation of the permanent Zone 2 pumping station. A section of feedermain will be required on Arthur Street to supply pressure and flow to the internal water distribution system to meet the ultimate build out. 8.4 Transportation Study Sernas Transtech prepared a Transportation Study for both sites. The report was submitted in September 2007 and was revised in May 2008 and was prepared on the basis of the development of the entire neighbourhood, as such a revised Transportation Study was not required for the submissions of 2011. In May 2008, the report stated that the development traffic can be satisfactorily accommodated on the road network with the following road improvements: • Add a centre two-way left turn lane on North Street (Regional Road 17) along the frontage of the development to accommodate existing and future left turning traffic and should be implemented for each phase as the development progresses from south to north. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 13 • Before the completion of 260 units, remove the stop sign from the eastbound and westbound approaches at the intersection of North Street and Concession Road 3 which is currently under all—way stop control. • When the development reaches 600 units, improvements are required at the intersection of Concession Road 3/North Street and Highway 35/115, including additional lanes on exit ramps of Highway 35/115 and North Street. • When the development reaches the final 300 units, realign North Street by shifting it 300 metes to the east along Concession Road 3. This alignment will require that: ❖ Concession Road 3 be widened to four lanes between existing North Street and the realigned North Street; and ❖ A cul-de-sac on North Street just south of the McDonalds be constructed to provide access to the McDonalds and the church to the south. The geometrics at the intersection of Concession Road 3/North Street will require revisions. • Reconfigure the intersection of Concession Road 3 and Highway 35/115 (southbound ramps on the west side) to accommodate southbound traffic patterns when the development reaches full build out. • Urbanize the frontage of the development on North Street, Arthur Street and Concession Road 3, including curb and gutter, sidewalks and illumination as the development progresses. • Prior to the development reaching 600 units, add gates to the level crossing of Arthur Street and CP Railway. • Arthur Street requires no widening based upon future traffic volumes. • Concession Road 3, east of the recommended realignment of North Street requires no widening based on future volumes. 9. PUBLIC MEETING AND SUBMISSIONS 9.1 The first Public Meeting was held in January 2006 and a second Public Meeting was held on September 22, 2008 for the revised application received in August 2008. In addition, a Public Information Centre for the Neighbourhood Design Plan was held on September 11, 2008. 9.2 Concerns and comments from area residents from both public meetings and the information centre are summarized below. • The development is not in keeping with the historic character of Newcastle Village; • There are too many homes; • The form of development is too dense; • The number and size of parks should be increased; • The development will have an impact on wells in the area; REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 14 • The development will impact on existing water and sewer services in Newcastle Village; • The development will increase traffic volumes on major roads in Newcastle Village; • What improvements will be made to Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street to accommodate the increase in traffic; • An overpass or safety arms at the level crossing of Arthur Street is required; • When will sidewalks be installed on Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street to accommodate pedestrians' movements to the Village core; • What accommodations will be made to mitigate the effects of construction traffic on the existing area residents; • There are no provisions for a full time fire department, police department, churches and adequate playing fields for children and adults; • Diminishing agricultural lands; and • Daylighting of the two buried tributaries is being ignored. 9.3 In addition to those shared concerns noted above, the owners of 220 Arthur Street are concerned that the development will adversely affect the setting of their historic home and that development will impact the stream traversing a portion of their property. The owners have requested that the lots sizes in the vicinity of their home be increased as well as an evergreen tree buffer planted around their property. In addition, the stream should remain in the same location and in the physical condition as it is currently on their property. 9.4 Residents on Concession Road 3 and a business on Regional Road 17 expressed concerns with the realignment of Regional Road 17 as it effects their driveway locations. This issue and all concerns from area residents will be discussed in Section 12.5 of this report. 10. AGENCY COMMENTS 10.1 This sixth submission of the revised Neighbourhood Design Plan development applications for the Official Plan Amendment, draft Plans of Subdivision and rezonings were circulated to various agencies for comment. 10.2 Enbridge Gas, Bell Canada and Rogers Cable Communications Inc. have offered no objection. 10.3 The Region of Durham 10.3.1 The Region of Durham has provided comments on the revised Official Plan Amendment with respect to the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and their Provincial Plan Review Responsibilities. 10.3.2 The subject lands are designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be for housing purposes incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenures. The Region has no objection to REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 15 the proposed amendment. The Region does suggest that the Municipality consider re- designating Concession Road 3 as a Type 'B' Arterial between any realigned Regional Road 17 and Highway 35/115. This would maintain a continuous Type `B' Arterial Road connection to Highway 35/115, as provided by Regional Road 17 on its existing alignment and would protect the Right-of-Way width appropriate for the improvements that may be required as part of the Regional Road 17 realignment. The alignment of Regional Road 17 south of Concession Road 3 is to be determined through a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study. 10.3.3 In their letter of June 2009, the Region states that the subject draft plans are located within the future Zone 2 Pressure District of the Newcastle Water Supply System. Servicing this area will require the construction of a reservoir, feedermains, a pumping station and expansion of the Newcastle Water Supply Plant (WSP). The existing WSP is sufficient to service approximately 11,000 persons. The current serviced population is approximately 9,000 persons. The remaining draft approved developments will utilize the remaining plant capacity during the next 5-10 years. The Region of Durham has identified an expansion of the Newcastle WSP in the Capital Budget and Forecast with design in 2013-2014 and expansion to take place in 2015 subject to budget approvals. 10.3.4 The Zone 2 infrastructure has been identified in the Development Charges By-Law Background study. Where applicable, feedermains are being included for installation as part of Subdivision servicing. The remainder of the required infrastructure shall be installed through the Region's Capital Works program. These remaining works are forecasted between 2011 to 2020. 10.3.5 The Wilmot Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) has a sufficient capacity to service approximately 10,000 persons. The current serviced population is approximately 8,400 persons. The remaining draft approved developments will utilize the majority of the plant capacity during the next 5-10 years. The Region of Durham has identified an expansion of the Wilmot WPCP in the Capital Budget and Forecast. The proposed development area contributes to the Foster Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer System. Sanitary servicing of these lands will also require the construction of a 675 mm trunk sanitary sewer along the Foster Creek alignment, from Hwy 401 to the WPCP. The construction of this work is forecasted between 2014 to 2015. 10.3.6 The development will also require the extension of a trunk sewer (600mm — 750mm) on North Street from Wilmot Street to the north side of the CPR. These works have not been identified in the Region of Durham Capital Works program since growth projections could be achieved within other lands south of the CPR within the Zone 1 Water Pressure District. 10.3.7 Development should not be considered within the Future Development Block of the Brookfield plan until a Class EA study has been completed to determine the future alignment of Regional Road 17. The realignment will require a minimum right-of-way (ROW) width of 30 m. All other aspects of the road cross-section, intersection/ entrance locations, lane configurations, etc. will be determined through the Class EA study and subsequent detailed design. The realignment is to be constructed by the developer prior to, or in conjunction, with the Future Development Block. Ownership of REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 16 the realigned portion of Regional Road 17 is to be transferred to the Region following completion of the road realignment. 10.3.8 The Region will require the developers to construct left and right turn auxiliary lanes for the Regional Road 17/Street 'A' intersection and to urbanize the east side of Regional Road 17 over the entire frontage of the subdivisions. These improvements are to be designed to accommodate the future extension of the auxiliary lanes and urbanization to the north on Regional Road 17. 10.3.9 All of the Regional road improvements are to be designed and constructed to Regional standards at 100% developer cost. 10.3.10 Traffic impacts are to be monitored at completion of each stage of the development in order to confirm the scope and timing of road network improvements required to accommodate the next and subsequent stages. 10.3.11 The storm sewer system for the development is to be designed to accept the road drainage from Regional Road 17, through the full extent of the North Village Neighbourhood Plan. The Region will enter into a cost-sharing agreement with the developer to pay for the over-sizing of the storm sewer system required to accommodate the Regional Road 17 drainage. 10.3.12 The Region is concerned about the proposed high school location on Regional Road 17 at Concession Road 3 due to the operational and safety problems associated with vehicular and pedestrian access from a major arterial road. 10.3.13 Durham Transit provides service on Regional Road 17. Concession Road 3 and Arthur Street will be designated for future transit routes. One north-south and one east-west collector road should be designated for future transit stops 10.4 Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority 10.4.1 The Functional Servicing Report prepared by Sernas Associates, was reviewed. The stormwater management scheme presented in the report has demonstrated that the site can be serviced in terms of both quality and quantity treatment, as required by current MOE guidelines. 10.4.2 GRCA reviewed the revised draft plan which shows the daylighted triburary. GRCA requires the channel to be restored and naturalized. The GRCA provided a number of conditions of draft approval, among them a condition requiring the developer to undertake an inventory of the two downstream tributaries from the railway to the main channel of the Foster Creek. The inventory shall describe current channel morphology and culvert conditions including a photographic record of redevelopment conditions. GRCA provided conditions of draft approval for both sites. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 17 10.4.3 The Municipality did receive a preliminary design of the naturalized daylighted channel. It has been reviewed by the GRCA and deemed satisfactory. 10.5 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board 10.5.1 The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, has advised that these applications would generate approximately 368 elementary students to Newcastle Public School and a further 49 secondary students to Clarke High School. 10.5.2 The proposed location of the Public Elementary School (Block 428) in the Smooth Run Draft Plan is acceptable. The Board provided conditions of draft approval which require the subdivider to enter into an option agreement with the Board prior to the registration of a subdivision agreement with the Municipality for second phase of development. Prior to the execution of the option agreement the subdivider must provide a stormwater management report, soils study, a Record of Site Condition and grading and servicing plans. The subdivider must also grade the site, add topsoil and sod as well as install a 1.8 metre high chain link fence on the perimeter of Block 428 where it abuts proposed residential lands. 10.6 Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board 10.6.1 The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board has advised that the secondary school site located on the Brookfield Homes lands is no longer required by the Board. The anticipated secondary enrolment for this development will be approximately 30-60 students which can be accommodated within the current capacity at St. Stephen's Secondary School in Bowmanville. 10.7 Canadian Pacific Railway 10.7.1 The Canadian Pacific Railway (St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway) provided comments on the first submission applications. CPR has standard comments related to residential development adjacent to their property, as such comments on subsequent submissions did not change. CPR advises that the proposed developments abut the principle main line. The Railway is not in favour of residential developments adjacent to their right-of- way, as the land use is not compatible with railway operations. However, a standard list of conditions of approval were provided which includes, appropriate noise attenuation and adding warning clauses in the purchase and sale agreements regarding noise and vibrations and fencing adjacent to the railway property. 10.8 The Ministry of Transportation 10.8.1 The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) reviewed the applications in accordance with the requirements for controlled access highway policies and criteria and the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA). The Ministry has no objection in principle to the proposed Official Plan Amendment, proposed Draft Plans and rezoning Application, and provided standard comments with respect to permits for building/structures and signs within the prescribed distance of the permit control area. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 18 10.8.2 MTO acknowledges that Draft Plan S-C-2005-003 Smooth Run Developments, falls outside of the MTO Permit control area and portions of Draft Plan S-C-2005-004, Brookfield Homes are within MTO's permit control area. Both Draft Plans of Subdivision make up the North Village Neighbourhood, and therefore were required to submit traffic and drainage reports to consider the impacts on Highway 35/115 of the entire North Village development. 10.8.3 MTO has raised concerns with the intersection of Highway 35/115 and Concession Road 3. MTO is of the opinion that the existing infrastructure can accommodate the increase in traffic generated from the first phase of development, approximately 260 units, without the need for substantial improvements. However, approval of Phase 1 or Stage 1 does not constitute approval of the entire site/neighbourhood plan. Future phases would require a more detailed investigation/analysis. The applicants have provided transportation studies to MTO which propose alternative options to mitigate any traffic concerns, in the future. 10.8.4 The introduction of increased traffic would more than likely require the signalization of both ramp terminals of King Avenue (Durham Highway 2) and Highway 35/115 by 2016. This may require the widening of the King Avenue overpass to accommodate left turn lane and storage for the westbound to southbound movement. 10.8.5 MTO advises the Municipality and the owner that the cost for all improvements including design, construction, utility relocation and property acquisition to the Highway 35/115 and Concession Road 3 interchange, made necessary by this development will be assumed entirely by the owner, at no cost to MTO. 10.8.6 As a condition of Draft Approval the owners shall submit to the Ministry of Transportation for their review and approval, a Traffic Impact Study to assess the impacts of the development on the Highway 35/115. The owner shall submit to the Ministry of Transportation for their review and approval, a Stormwater Management Report indicating the intended treatment of the calculated runoff. Finally, the owners shall enter into a legal agreement with the Ministry of Transportation, whereby the owners agrees to assume financial responsibility for all highway improvements to the Highway 35/115 and Concession Road 3 interchange, as a direct result of this development. 11. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 11.1 Emergency and Fire Services The Clarington Emergency & Fire Services had concerns with an increase in call volumes as a result of this subdivision. In May 2012, the location for a new Fire Station was approved by Council. It is expected that construction will commence in the fall 2012 and will be operational in 2014. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 19 11.2 Engineering Services 11.2.1 The Clarington Engineering Services provided comments for both draft plans. The following provides a summary of the comments. Appropriate conditions have been added to the conditions of draft approval for both draft plans. 11.2.2 The existing municipal roadways situated in this portion of the Newcastle Urban Area have not yet been constructed to an urban standard and related infrastructure such as storm sewers and stormwater drainage systems do not exist and are not contemplated in the foreseeable future. Full build out of the subject lands cannot occur until improvements to municipal infrastructure such as the urbanization of existing roads, the installation of pedestrian sidewalks, streetlights and storm drainage systems has taken place. The phasing scheme and the timing for actual development within any part of the subject lands will be dependent upon the completion of necessary and related municipal infrastructure improvements. The number of residential units that will be permitted will be made solely at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. 11.2.3 Monitoring of potential traffic infiltration both into and through the Foster Creek North Subdivision via Grady Drive will be required. External road improvements, and traffic control measures or other municipal infrastructure improvements may be necessary depending on the amount of infiltration that actually occurs. Subsequent to the initial phase of development within the subject neighbourhood, a further Traffic Study will be required to determine the timing for upgrades and improvements to the intersection of Arthur Street and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The potential improvements shall include but not be limited to crossing barriers or a grade separation. 11.2.4 No phase of this development can proceed until such time as the Municipality has approved the expenditure of funds for the provision of the reconstruction of Arthur Street from the CPR tracks to Concession Road 3 and Concession Road 3 from Arthur St. to Hwy. 35/115 to an urban standard including storm sewers, water, sanitary, full urban road section, street trees, parks, sidewalks and street illumination as well as any other external works. Alternatively, other financial arrangements can be made at the sole discretion of and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and Director of Finance in order to provide for individual phases of this development to proceed. 11.2.5 Development of the park within this development is not identified in the Municipality's 10 year capital works forecast. As a result should the Owner wish to develop in advance of Council approving the expenditure of funds for this park, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost (100%) of constructing the Park on Block 428 (S-C-2005- 003). Park construction shall commence at the issuance of the 151St building permit within Phase 1 and shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 200th building permit or one year anniversary of the issuance of the 151St building permit, whichever occurs first. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 20 11.2.6 The Stormwater Implementation Management Report must demonstrate that the blocks are adequately sized and location of the stormwater management facility. The report shall demonstrate that the lands ultimately designed for a stormwater management pond shall be designed as an amenity to the community with sufficiently flat side slopes (5:1 or flatter) so that fencing is not required. 12. DISCUSSION 12.1 Proposed Official Plan Amendment 12.1.1 North Portion of the Neighbourhood The proposed Official Plan Amendment shows an enlarged area for "Special Policy Area G". This is as a result of the mediated solution by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for the realignment of Regional Road 17. The realignment of Regional Road 17 is required as a result of concerns raised by the Ministry of Transportation regarding the proximity of the Highway 35/115 off ramp to the intersection of Regional Road 17 and Concession Road 3. MTO is concerned that traffic will back up on the exit ramp as vehicles wait to move through the stop condition at the intersection of Concession Road 3 and Regional Road 17. There are also concerns with turning movements into commercial sites on Highway 35/115. The lands associated with realignment, approximately 19 hectares, have been set aside so that an Environmental Assessment (EA) can determine the exact alignment. These lands have been identified as a "Future Development Block" in the Brookfield Draft Plan and have resulted in a "Future Development Block" in the Smooth Run Draft Plan as there are shared land uses between the two draft plans. The actual new alignment of Regional Road 17 will be determined through the EA and therefore is not shown on the Official Plan Amendment schedules. This position is supported by the Region. 12.1.2 Collector Road Alignments The proposed Official Plan Amendment shows changes to the Collector Road pattern on Maps A4 and B4. The alignment of the north-south collector is slightly realigned by providing a curve to relax the grid-iron road pattern. The remaining east-west collector road is shifted south. Staff have no objection to the realignment of the north-south collector only to the intersection of the most northerly east-west collector situated in Draft Plans. The land uses and street patterns north of this collector, shown as Future Development Blocks in both draft plans, are undetermined at this time. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 21 12.1.3 Location of Schools and Parks The proposed Official Plan Amendment deletes one public elementary school, and relocates one public elementary school and one separate elementary school. The one public elementary school, located in the north portion of the neighbourhood has been deleted at the request of the public school board. The second public elementary school has been relocated more central to the North Village Neighbourhood, north of the most southerly east west collector adjacent to the park. The Catholic School Board has requested that the one separate elementary school site remain within Special Policy Area G. The Catholic School Board has also indicated that the secondary school site is not required. The proposed Official Plan Amendment does not remove the school block site at this time, since the land uses and population allocation cannot be determined until the EA has been completed, fixing the alignment for Regional Road 17. 12.1.4 Population and Housing Targets The proposed Official Plan Amendment changes to the population target for North Village Newcastle Neighbourhood from 3900 to 4150, and increases the housing units from 1350 to 1450. The number of low density units decreases from 1050 to 1000, while the medium density units increase from 250 to 400. Staff support the increase in population for the North Village Neighbourhood. The density for this portion of the neighbourhood is approximately 28 units per residential net hectare. 12.2 Restored Tributaries and Natural Corridors Over the years, the property has been tile drained with some of the flow contained within a pipe. The subject lands are located within the Foster Creek Subwatershed. The Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study was prepared in March 2001 by the consulting firms of Gartner Lee Limited and Greenland International Consulting Inc. (now AECOM). The study identified resource management objectives for aquatic and terrestrial habitat, surface and groundwater functions, soil and land resources and wildlife corridors and linkages. The report recommends, among other things, that a portion of a buried tributary north of the railway in the vicinity of Arthur Street be uncovered and a 100 metre wide corridor be established to connect to the Wilmot Creek and the Foster Creek valleys. The establishment or restoration of native trees and ground cover in the corridor will facilitate wildlife movement. The subwatershed study and its recommendations, including restoring (daylighting) the northern watercourse, were received by Council in June 2001. After many discussions with the owners, GRCA and municipal staff, agreement on a "modified" restored channel, adjacent to the stormwater management plan was achieved. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 22 The restored channel and the stormwater management features together form an adequate east-west corridor. The restored channel will contribute to creating connectivity within the watershed, as well as conveyance of nutrients and habitat for invertebrates. It will be planted with native species that over time will produce a tree canopy which will maintain cool water temperatures. The modified daylighted channel meets the objectives of the subwatershed study. 12.3 Neighbourhood Design Plan 12.3.1 A Neighbourhood Design Plan (NDP) was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Sernas Associates and shows proposed land uses for the North Village Neighbourhood, save and except the northerly one third of the neighbourhood, where land has been set aside for the re-alignment of Regional Road 17 (see Attachment 3). The NDP is a development master plan showing the land uses and servicing for the neighbourhood. The NDP includes road alignments, sidewalks, and trails, lotting patterns, school and park locations, open space system, a phasing plan, the daylighted channel and the stormwater management facilities. 12.3.2 The park and elementary school are centrally located in this portion of the neighbourhood and are the focus of the neighbourhood. They are accessible on three sides by two local roads and one collector road. Short blocks make this community convenient for pedestrian movements throughout the neighbourhood. Sidewalks are provided along Regional Road 17 and will provide pedestrian connections to the downtown. Trails are identified within the open space block and adjacent to the stormwater management ponds. Bike lanes are also provided along the north-south collector street to connect to the trails in the open space areas to the south. The portion neighbourhood does not have a commercial site. However, the Official Plan does allow for convenience commercial establishments through approval of rezoning application. Home occupations, in keeping with the zoning by-law, are also permitted. 12.4 Draft Plans of Subdivision 12.4.1 Phasing of Development The servicing and road infrastructure required to support development in this neighbourhood is identified in the Municipality's Development Charges Background Study for sometime between 2015 and 2031. A Financial Impact Analysis was prepared in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan to ascertain impacts on Municipality finances related to advancing this development and others, prior to 2015. The results of the Financial Impact Analysis concluded that the Municipality's current policies and practices are appropriate. The report recommended that development proceed by phases and that each phase of registration of a draft approved plan of subdivision would require a separate subdivision agreement so as to ensure that growth could be linked to the capital budget process. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 23 At the present time, development of the North Village Neighbourhood does not align with the Municipality's infrastructure financing and timing assumptions as contained in the Development Charges Background Study which anticipated development not to occur until 2015 or beyond. Works that are required to be completed to support the growth associated with the development include the following: i) Installation of street lighting and sidewalks on Regional Road 17; ii) Reconstruction of Arthur Street and Concession Road 3; iii) Improvements of the Arthur Street level railway crossing; iv) Development of the neighbourhood parks; and v) A new fire station. Through negotiations, Brookfield and Smooth Run have agreed to construct some of the infrastructure works to address the impact of allowing phase one containing approximately 250 units to proceed at this time. Brookfield and Smooth Run have agreed to financially be responsible for the installation of the street lighting and sidewalks on Regional Road 17 and construction of the neighbourhood park, with the exception of the water-play equipment. Water and hydro will be provided to the site. The Municipality would install the water-play equipment at a future date as development charges funding permits. The timing of the reconstruction of Concession Road 3 will be reviewed through the processing of the applications of the Future Development Blocks. Development adjacent to, and road connections to Arthur Street will be in the later phases, being Phase 5, 6, 7 and 8 (see Attachment 6). Reconstruction of Arthur Street and improvements to the level crossing will occur as development proceeds in the later phases and as warranted through the various updated traffic studies required by the Engineering Services Department. In May 2012, the location for the Fire Station was approved, with construction to commence in the fall 2012 and to be operational in 2014. The Fire Station is no longer an issue with regard to the prematurity of development of the subject proposals. 12.4.2 Lapsing of Draft Approval Given that there are servicing constraints beyond approximately 250 units, staff are recommending that the conditions of draft approval have an expiry of six (6) years to be fully registered, not the typical three (3) years required where development is considered infill to the urban areas and servicing is readily available. 12.4.3 Housing Mix and Typologies The Clarington Official Plan requires a variety of housing densities and housing forms for each neighbourhood to achieve a desirable housing mix. Medium Density blocks are encouraged to locate near arterial and collector roads to support transit routes, as prescribed in the Official Plan and the Provincial Growth Plan. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 24 The two draft plans of subdivisions, submitted in April 2011, total 926 residential units. The low density units total approximately 73%, singles, semi-detached and linked units and the balance, 27%, is made up of street townhouse units and block townhouse units. The draft plans provide a variety of lot sizes from 18 m frontage singles down to 9.6 m frontage units for the linked units. It would have been preferable to have a greater variety of residential units with, for example, seniors' apartments or a retirement residence. A similar density could have been achieved with some higher density blocks allowing for larger lots for ground- related units. Although specifically not identified on the draft plans of subdivision, the Zoning By-law provides for a dual zone in some areas which would allow for the lots as proposed in the draft plans, or alternatively limited apartments and/or a senior retirement residence. If in the future the developer chooses to utilize this zoning, it would move the proposal closer to the Regional overall average of 50 residents and jobs/hectare. 12.4.4 Region of Durham - Water Reservoir The Region of Durham has identified the need for a water reservoir in the general location of Arthur Street and Concession Road 3. Approximately 2.70 hectares immediately north of the existing reservoir has been set aside in the Smooth Run Draft Plan to accommodate this facility should the preferred location, on the east side of Arthur Street, not be acquired by the Region of Durham. Should the Region not require the reservoir, the use of these lands will be reviewed in the context of the land uses in the Future Development Block. 12.4.5 Parkland The Official Plan establishes a standard of 0.8 hectares per 1000 residents for the development of Neighbourhood Parks. The Planning Act requires a developer to provide 5% of the land proposed for development or one (1) hectare per 300 dwelling units, whichever is greater for parkland purposes. The locations and sizes of the parks were examined in the context of the neighbourhood design plan rather than on an individual draft plan basis. Within the two proposed plans of subdivision a 2.02 ha neighbourhood park and two parkettes are proposed for a total of 2.76 ha of parkland Based on 0.8 ha per 1000 people 2.14 ha of parkland are required to achieve the Official Plan policies. However, 5 percent of the phase I lands would require 3.4 ha of parkland. The developer could compensate the difference by a payment of cash in lieu of parkland, however a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been negotiated with the developers, whereby the shortfall in Phase I will be provided with parkland in the Future Development Blocks, or cash payment made at that time. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 25 12.5 Concerns From Area Residents 12.5.1 The concerns from area residents have been categorized to simplify the discussion. The development is not in keeping with historic character of Newcastle Village. There are too many homes. The form of development is too dense. The development contains smaller frontage lots but very limited medium density and no high density units. The lot sizes for single detached units are larger then what has been approved in Courtice and Bowmanville. The design vision for this community is based on a grid pattern of streets, with a centralized school and park block. The developers advise that the house designs are similar to those approved in Brookhill neighbourhood, which are simple in form and inspired by small Ontario towns. The number and size of the parks should be increased. This issue was addressed in Section 12.4.5. In addition to the required parkland dedication, the developer is required to provide an area dedicated for the daylighted channel, open space block and two stormwater management ponds. These will all provide for passive recreational opportunities for the area residents. The development will have an impact on wells in the area. Municipal piped water is available to half way between the CPR line and Concession Road 3 on Regional Road 17. The Region of Durham collects funds through Development Charges to extend water should well interference be reported and substantiated. Through conditions of approval the developer will be responsible for connecting the home to the municipal water in the event there is impact on existing wells. The development will impact existing water and sewer services in Newcastle Village. The Region of Durham provides the forecast for improving the water pollution control plant and water supply plant. Plant expansions and trunk services will be extended as Development Charges funding permits but regardless, service to existing residents will not be affected. The development will increase traffic volumes on major roads in Newcastle Village. A traffic study was completed which recommends certain road improvements but indicates a good level of service at all intersections in the area including the North Street/King Avenue and North Street/Grady Drive intersections. In the area of Highway 115/35 and Regional Road 17 recommendations have been made for intersection improvement as future phases develop. These improvements will be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Transportation and Region of Durham. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 26 What improvements will be made to Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street to accommodate the increase in traffic? Regional Road 17 is under the Region's jurisdiction and will be the subject of review through the Environmental Assessment. The reconstruction of Arthur Street is included in the Municipality's Development Charges (DC) Background Study. Reconstruction of Arthur Street to an urban standard will occur as future phases connect to Arthur Street. An overpass or safety arms at the level crossing of Arthur Street are required. Improvements to the level crossing on Arthur Street are included in the Municipality's DC Background Study. Improvements will be constructed when future phases of the development connect to Arthur Street. When will sidewalks be installed on Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street to accommodate pedestrian movements to the Village core? Sidewalks connecting the subject development to the downtown are required during the first phase of the development on Regional Road 17. Sidewalks on Arthur Street will occur during future phases as the development connects to Arthur Street and when the street is reconstructed. What accommodations will be made to mitigate the effects of construction traffic on the existing area residents? Municipal Staff monitors the construction of roads and houses as the development proceeds. Should there be issues with respect to construction traffic, dust or muddy roads, the Engineering Services Department will work with the developer to rectify the problems. There are no provisions for a full time fire department, police department, churches and adequate playing fields for children and adults; A new fire station has been accommodated for in the Capital Budget and a new location on Highway 2 west of Rudell Road has been approved and should be operational by late 2013 to early 2014. Police protection services are under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham. The Region's Planning Department provides comments with respect to the regional services. Police protection in Newcastle Village was not raised as an issue in the Region's comments on the draft plans. Locations for churches are not identified in the Clarington Official Plan, or Neighbourhood Design Plans unless they are pre-existing. There are a number of existing places of worship in Newcastle Village. Some sites for future places of worship are outside of these two draft plans. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 27 As noted above, the proposed developments will provide for both a Neighbourhood Park and parkettes as well as open space blocks for different forms of recreational activity. Diminishing agricultural land. Although the subject properties are currently being cultivated, the lands have been identified in the Clarington Official Plan for urban residential development since 1996. Daylighting of the two buried tributaries is being ignored. The Foster Creek Subwatershed Study recommended that only the northerly buried tributary be daylighted and restored as a naturalized channel. This was discussed in Section 12.2. 12.5.2 The owners of 220 Arthur Street are concerned with the form of development and the impact this development will have on the setting of their historic home. In addition, the owners are concerned that the development will impact a stream traversing a portion of their property. Staff met with the homeowner to review the current submission prior to finalizing this report. The homeowner is still opposed to the development. His concerns are as follows: • The development is too dense; • The 18 metre lot sizes (closest to his home) are too small; • The 1.2 metre interior side yard setbacks for the 18 metre lots are not enough and the homes will look like row housing; • Coniferous trees should be planted all around his property, not just on the north property boundary; and • The unburied tributary on his property is of great concern and his riparian rights are to be maintained. The resident also had questions regarding site grading, timing for improvement to Arthur Street including the level crossing, sewer and water supply and timing of development. 12.5.3 The resident has raised concerns with development of the site since the first public meeting in 2006. At that time, staff advised him that these lands have been designated for Urban Residential development in the Official Plan since 1996. The overall density of the development meets with objectives of the Clarington Official Plan and Regional Official Plan. Staff have worked with the developer to address many of the concerns. The Draft Plan has been revised by the relocation of the daylighted channel which provides a greater buffer between development and his north property boundary by 40 metres. The lot sizes for the closest portion of the development have been increased to 18 REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 28 metres. In the Zoning By-law, the rear yard setback is 8.5 metres, rather than 7.5 metres and the interior side yard setback is 1.2 metres, standard for most new development in Newcastle Village. The Conditions of Draft Approval for Smooth Run require a double row of coniferous trees, 2.0 metres in height to be planted on the homeowner's north property boundary. The lands to the west and south are designated for a stormwater management pond and will be owned by the Municipality. A coniferous tree buffer can be considered as part of the landscaping plan for the SWM ponds. The unburied tributary on the homeowner's property will remain untouched. It will enter and exit the property where it does today. However, through the review of the detail design, staff may require the north headwall to be replaced and a new headwall be installed where the tributary outlets to the south. The headwalls will be built on municipal property. Regardless, riparian rights should not be affected. 12.6 Tax Status The Finance Department advises that the taxes for both the subject properties have been paid in full. 13. CONCURRENCE This report has been reviewed by the Solicitor, the Director of Engineering Services and the Director of Finance. 14. CONCLUSIONS 14.1 The applications have been reviewed in consideration of the comments received from area residents, the circulated agencies, the Regional and Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The Owners have agreed to the Conditions of Draft Approval. In consideration of the comments contained in this report and subject to the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, Staff respectfully recommend that Council request the Ontario Municipal Board to approve Amendment No. 86 to the Clarington Official Plan, approve the proposed draft plans of subdivision subject to the Conditions of Draft Approval as contained in this report on Attachments 8 & 9 and approve the Zoning By-law amendments. REPORT NO.: PSD-034-12 PAGE 29 CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: X Promoting economic development Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington X Promoting green initiatives X Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — Report PSD-067-09 with Addendums 1, 2 and 3 Attachment 3 — Neighbourhood Design Plan Attachment 4 — Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision — Smooth Run Attachment 5 — Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision — Brookfield Homes Attachment 6 — Phasing Plan Attachment 7 — Proposed Official Plan Amendment Attachment 8 — Conditions of Draft Approval — Smooth Run Attachment 9 — Conditions of Draft Approval — Brookfield Homes Attachment 10 — Zoning By-law Amendment — Smooth Run Attachment 11 — Zoning by-law Amendment — Brookfield Homes Attachment 12 — By-law Approving Proposed Official Plan Amendment Attachment 13 — By-law Authorizing Execution of Memorandum of Understanding List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: May be obtained through the Clerk's Department i jA mm �i++oi♦♦i♦i�♦i♦♦i♦i+i++oio♦♦♦♦++♦+♦o♦+♦Qo+i� ��♦+v♦i♦♦i+♦i+oi+♦♦♦ ♦+♦♦++o+o♦+♦♦'o♦+i♦+i♦+i++i•+i+♦+ i♦♦i+� ►+♦+ +♦ ♦+♦+♦♦+♦+♦♦♦+oi+♦i+♦i+♦i♦♦i♦♦,o' ►p,♦+♦♦+,♦+ +♦++i+i♦oi+♦i+oi+♦+♦+♦+♦+♦♦+++r�++i'.-♦+♦+ oi�i♦�♦i♦♦i+��♦♦ice♦i�io♦�i�io+♦♦io+iii♦�♦iii♦+ice+♦poi♦+i+♦i+i�io�♦i�i�o♦i+i�♦+♦+♦��o�o♦�i`''c o♦i�o♦+i��i�♦i♦i�o♦i�oi+i� +♦+♦+♦♦ ++i+♦+♦+♦♦a+♦♦♦+oo♦o ♦ ♦ o+♦+♦♦♦♦♦oo♦ o ♦ ♦♦�+D♦+♦♦�o♦�♦♦,s♦o+o • ♦♦ ►♦op♦,o♦♦�,sr,++,+p♦+o ♦,+,+,D♦+♦,+♦♦+♦♦♦+♦♦♦♦♦♦�++♦♦oi+�♦♦+♦o'►♦♦♦♦♦�►+••♦♦+'i♦♦+♦�i+oi••� o'+oo+♦++♦i+♦s+♦i+i♦♦+i+�+3�i♦♦i+oi�♦�i♦i�o���♦+♦��♦i,�i+�♦�♦s+�oWE,I,N�♦�♦♦+�♦♦moo♦�` ♦i++`'i i�♦�♦♦♦+♦i♦♦i'+♦� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ O ♦ ♦ ♦ • D♦ ♦ o♦♦♦i�♦o+.+o♦++♦+++++.0♦+♦♦++♦++♦+♦♦o♦♦o++o♦♦o+♦s+oo♦♦♦♦�o+�oQoivi+♦i+o♦Ooi+♦♦♦+♦♦+o♦++♦♦�;;♦��,4i� �•♦+i,♦o♦♦�,♦, �,�o,+o�+♦,+o♦++i,+♦ ♦+♦,++,♦♦♦+o,+♦,♦o♦+o♦o+♦+♦+♦♦O♦+o♦♦o♦♦♦,♦o,+o,♦,♦o,Arm ♦♦♦o♦,♦♦,♦♦����.♦0♦♦�00♦♦,♦♦,♦� i�♦i+�i+�i�♦ +♦♦' ♦+♦+o�+oi+�i�oi�io�+i��i�i♦�i�i+♦oi♦�♦iLVIN i�♦i��i�+♦♦o+��♦♦i+��♦♦i+� ♦i�♦i+��♦♦♦�o♦+* \ +♦♦♦+♦♦+♦,+♦♦+♦+p,♦v�♦+♦♦+♦+,+,♦,o+,♦+o♦+,♦++♦+♦♦+,♦+,♦oo♦♦♦o,♦♦oo♦♦♦♦♦�♦♦,♦+♦♦+,o ♦+,♦+,o+♦�♦♦+♦♦♦ ��� � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ No". ANY120YANYIN MR IMMY W,MY, ►♦ OR RON♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�♦,♦♦♦♦ ♦M-0 NOW♦ ♦ ♦ A ►♦i♦+io+i♦+io+io+i♦♦i♦+io♦,v low i♦�♦i♦vi��i�i♦�i��♦♦�i��i�� 'oil NO 110,ITIM,♦ ♦♦♦+♦+♦o� ■ a •♦♦♦♦♦+♦♦•♦♦+♦♦♦+♦♦�� �I o,♦,+♦,+ IN IN♦v+o+♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦o♦ ♦ice+��+•�♦.�+.�+:�� t��w1i111111 ` Wi 1'IIIII�"' fir' Attachment 2 To Report PSD-034-12 PLANNING SERVICES Leading the Way REPORT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, June 22, 20091( > �r ,% Report#: PSD-067-09 File 's: COPA 2005-008, By-law#: PLN 31.5.10, ZBA 2005-042, ZBA 2005-043, S-C 2005-0003 and S-C 2005-0004 Subject: STATUS REPORT: APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY SMOOTH RUN DEVELOPMENTS INC. (METROS DEVELOPMENTS INC.) BROOKFIELD HOMES (ONTARIO) LIMITED ON APPLICATIONS IN THE VILLAGE NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD IN NEWCASTLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-067-09 be received; 2. THAT the Municipality advise Smooth Run Developments Inc. and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited that it is the Municipality's position that the North Village Neighbourhood Design Plan and the related official plan amendment and development applications must incorporate a restored and naturalized northerly tributary of the Foster Creek within the Newcastle Village North Neighbourhood; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. r�✓ Submitted by: Reviewed by: Davi . Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Direr or of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer CS/CP/DJC/df 18 June 2009 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Owners: Smooth Run Developments Inc. (Metrus Developments Inc.) Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited 1.2 Agent: Sernas Associates 1.3 Proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment (May 2009): Amend Map E3 to increase the population of the North Village Neighbourhood from 3,900 to 5,100 and related changes to the population table. ® Amend Table '9-2 by increasing the housing target for North Village Neighbourhood to reflect the following: i) 1,050 low density units to 1,275 units ii) 250 medium density units to 420 units iii) total from 1,350 units to 1,750 units; and iv) amending all corresponding totals. ® By amending Section 16,9 -- Special Policy Area G North Newcastle Village to, among other things, reflect the proposal to redesignate the lands currently designated Future Urban Residential Area for urban residential uses. ® Amend Map A-4 —"Land Use Newcastle Village Urban Area" by: i) re-aligning Regional Road 17 (Type 'B' Arterial); ii), revising the collector road pattern; iii) deleting a public elementary school symbol; iv) relocating two elementary school symbols; v) relocating two neighbourhood park symbols; vi) relocating two medium density symbols and adding three more medium density symbols; and vii) deleting the "Future Urban Residential" designation within Special Policy Area G. ® Amend Map B4 -"Transportation — Newcastle Village Urban Area" by realigning Regional Road 17 (Type 'B' Arterial) and revising the collector road pattern. 1.4 Draft Plans of Subdivision (May 2009): ® Smooth Run Developments: 737unit residential Plan of Subdivision consisting of 304 single detached dwellings, 323 semi/link dwellings, 110 townhouse units, and part blocks for residential units, one (1) elementary school, (1) park block, a parkette, two (2) stormwater management facilities and a Future Development Block. REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 3 Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited: 293 unit residential Plan of Subdivision, consisting of 120 single detached dwelling units, 93 semi/link dwellings, 80 townhouse units, and part blocks for residential units, a parkette, and a Future Development Block. 1.5 Zoning By-law Amendments: Change the current zoning on both properties from "Agricultural (A-1) Zone" to an appropriate zone to permit the proposed developments. 1.6. Site Area: Smooth Run Developments 73.84 hectares Brookfield Homes 34.86 hectares TOTAL 108.70 hectares (269 acres) 1.7 The subject properties are located north of the Canadian Pacific Railway (St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway), east of North Street (Regional Road 17) and Highway 35/115, south of Concession Road 3 and west of Arthur Street, being Part Lots 27 & 28, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On August 24, 2005 Staff received an application to amend the Clarington Official Plan submitted from Smooth Run Developments Inc. (Smooth Run), a company of Metrus Developments Inc: and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited (Brookfield). A Neighbourhood Design Plan was also submitted by both parties. 2.2 Smooth Run and Brookfield have each submitted separate applications for draft plans of subdivision as well as rezonings. A statutory Public Meeting was held on January 9 t 2006. The applications were referred back to staff for further processing, the completion of the Neighbourhood Design Plan process and a Financial Impact Analysis, The Financial Impact Study was undertaken by Hemson Consulting for the Municipality of Clarington and included a _review of these applications as well as various major development proposals in other areas of the Municipality. The conclusions and recommendations of the Financial Impact Analysis were presented at the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting of February 25, 2008, through Report FD- 007-08. 2.3 On May 28, 2008, both Smooth Run and Brookfield submitted revised draft plans of subdivision and corresponding rezoning applications for only the lands in the south-west corner of the combined overall site, where the applicants believed that servicing would be available for approximately 250 units, referred to as Phase 1. 2.4 On July 28, 2008, a revised Official Plan Amendment was received, as well as a third revision to the two draft plans of subdivision and rezoning applications based on the entire site. The total number of residential units was 1,567. REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 4 2.5 On August 7, 2008 the Municipality received a Notice of Appeal submitted by the solicitor for Smooth Run and Brookfield, regarding the Official Plan Amendment, proposed Draft Plans of Subdivision and applications for Zoning By-law amendment. The appeals were filed under Sections 22 (7), 51(34) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, for the Municipality's failure to make a decision in respect of these development applications. The appeals were the subject of Report PSD-092-08, considered by Committee on September 8, 2008, 2.6 A second statutory Public Meeting, based on the July 28, 2008 submissions was held on September 22, 2008. The applications were referred back to staff for further processing and the completion of the Neighbourhood Design Plan process and resolution of issues. 2.7 On December 10, 2008, a Prehearing Conference before the Ontario Municipal Board was held. At that time, the Municipality and applicant's solicitor agreed to continue to work on resolving the various issues, regarding financial impacts, phasing and environmental concerns. A second pre-hearing conference was held on March 261H 2009 at which time a third pre-hearing conference was set for July 9th, 2009 to establish the issues for the actual OMB hearing. A date for the OMB hearing was also set for October 5th, 2009 for 21 days. The re-alignment of Regional Road 17 involved the Region, the Ministry of Transportation and the developers. It was resolved through mediation held March 6th, 2009. 2.8 On May 6th, 2009 the proponents made a fourth submission of the plans of subdivision. This submission is currently in circulation for comments from review agencies (Attachment 2). 2.9 Since the appeal, there have been on-going "without prejudice" discussions with the proponent to resolve the large number of issues related to this proposal. Given the size of the proposed development, comprising virtually an entire neighbourhood, and given the anticipated time to build-out, there have been numerous issues under discussion with the applicant, involving the long term needs of various government agencies and the Municipality. This development was also highlighted in the Study of the Financial Impact of New Developments in Clarington. While it appears that a number of issues might be resolved by agreement, there is an issue of central importance to the developers and the Planning Services Department which remains at an impasse. The purpose of this report is to refer to Council for consideration. 3.0 RESTORATION OF THE FOSTER CREEK TRIBUTARY 3.1 The subject lands are located within the Foster Creek Subwatershed. The Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study was finalized in March 2001 by the consulting firms of Gartner Lee Limited (now AECOM) and Greenland International Consulting Inc. The study identified resource management objectives for aquatic and terrestrial habitat, surface and groundwater functions, soil and land resources and wildlife corridors and REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 5 linkages, The report identified the northerly tributary as a wetland and identified a significant wetland/forest feature (Site 14) east of Arthur Street. It recommended, among other things, that: • a portion of a "buried" tributary/wetland north of the railway in the vicinity of Arthur Street be uncovered and restored; and • a 100 metre wide corridor be established to connect the Graham Creek and the Foster Creek valleys. The establishment or restoration of native trees and ground cover in the corridor will facilitate wildlife movement and connections between significant environmental features (Attachment 3). The subwatershed study and its recommendations were received by Council in June 2001. 3.2 The two tributaries in the North Village neighbourhood have been severely affected by tile drainage and farm practices over the years. In the view of the Municipality's consultant, the tiling of the northerly tributary has been somewhat ineffective and a meadow marsh community has developed in the depression which includes the buried watercourse. The watercourse conveys water overland as well as through the tiles. The alternatives that are under discussion to date are as follows: • The Developer's Proposal: The construction of a new bypass pipes within the road system of the subdivision to convey the water from outside the Plan of Subdivision (east of Arthur Street) to bypass the stormwater ponds and discharge immediately north of the railway tracks into the existing culverts and tributaries; or • The Staff Proposal: To restore the northerly existing tributary appropriately designed as a functioning naturalized corridor. 3.3 This matter has been the subject of some discussion since the applications were submitted. The developers have provided opinions from two environmental consultants. Stantec Consulting Ltd. and LGL Limited examined the ecological benefits of daylighting a piped tributary in the subwatershed of Foster Creek, and the benefits of a naturalized corridor adjacent to the CRP railway connecting the Foster Creek and Graham Creek (See Attachments 4, 5 and 6). The proponents are proposing two large stormwater management ponds at the south end of the neighbourhood and in their view, the ponds would provide an east-west wildlife corridor. Our consultant's view is that this existing configuration does not fulfill the function of a terrestrial wildlife corridor. The developer's consultants have advised that there does not appear to be sufficient local population of animal and bird species to warrant a 100 metre wildlife corridor. The stormwater management feature is an adequate facility to provide east-west conveyance of wildlife. In addition, this feature would create a road safety issue. With respect to the daylighting of the tributary their consultants concluded it may result in REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 6 deleterious impacts on the watercourse including temperature increase and sediment load. In their opinion there is no apparent fisheries benefit. Their estimated cost of daylighting the tributary is estimated to approach $1 million dollars. 3.4 Given the proponents continuing objection to the restoration of the tributary or to provide an alternate proposal to meet the objectives of the Subwatershed Study and with a Municipal Board hearing imminent, staff requested the original authors of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Report to review the opinions provided by the applicant's consultants (See Attachment 7). Gartner Lee, now part of AECOM, continues to support the overriding vision in the original report "to maintain and enhance the health and quality of the Foster Creek Subwatershed and its ecosystem." Natural heritage features in the Foster Creek Subwatershed area are in short supply. The valleys of the Wilmot and Graham Creeks are more robust and offer higher potential for natural heritage functions than Foster Creek due to intense agricultural practices. Overland connections between watersheds could enhance natural heritage functions. In this instance the east—west railway corridors serve as an anchor for a corridor. With the appropriate wildlife underpasses and fencing, road kill and road safety issues can be mitigated. With respect to daylighting and restoration of the partially buried tributary, AECOM re- confirmed that daylighting the tributary would contribute to creating connectivity within the watershed, as well as conveyance of nutrients and provides habitat for benthic invertebrates. AECOM advises that daylighting would be no more costly than the engineering and construction required to collect the water and deliver it downstream, through a third pipe. The daylighted tributary can be planted with native species to produce a tree canopy which.will maintain water temperature levels. 3.5 Planning Staff and GRCA staff have repeatedly requested the developers to amend the proposed Official Plans, Neighbourhood Plans and Draft Plan to include the daylighting and restoration of the tributary and the wildlife corridor. This has not occurred. 3.6 In response to the most recent submission of the subdivision plans, GRCA staff noted that "the lot layout presented in the most recent draft plan continues to ignore the recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study. The plan fails to incorporate either of the opportunities presented in the report, one being the restoration of a buried tributary and the other a wildlife corridor along the southern boundary of the property. GRCA staff have been involved in numerous meetings and reviewed several pieces of correspondence from the applicant's consultants regarding the merits of both of these recommendations". GRCA staff remains "of the opinion that a properly restored and naturalized stream channel is the preferred alternative to the current proposal, a piped watercourse. In addition, they are of the opinion that provided wildlife fatality due to increased traffic volumes can be mitigated, a wildlife corridor would serve to enhance the function of a connected .natural heritage system". REPORT NO.: PS®-067-09 PAGE 7 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING POLICIES 4.1 Provincial, Regional and Clarington planning policies support the concept of planning for the diversity and connectivity of natural features so that the long terms ecological functions and biodiversity of natural heritage systems is maintained, restored or improved. From a policy perspective, "islands" of sensitive features are no longer sufficient, but connectivity is critical. 4.2 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) Section 2.1 Natural Heritage, states that natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term. The diversity and connectivity of natural features and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or where possible improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. Natural heritage systems is defined as: "a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, linked by natural corridors which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species and ecosystems. These systems can include lands that have been restored and areas with the potential to be restored to a natural state." . Surface Water feature is defined as: "refers to water-related features on the earth's surface including headwaters, rivers stream channels, inland lakes, seepage areas, recharge/discharge areas, springs, wetlands, and associated riparian lands that can be defined by their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics". Wetlands are defined as: "means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to,or at the surface. In either case, the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens". Section 2.2 Water, requires planning authorities to protect, improve and restore the quality and quantity of water by using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning. Other related policies are: Section 1.5, Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space policies, states that healthy active communities should be promoted by planning public streets and spaces that are safe and facilitate pedestrian and non-motorized movement. A full range of publicly accessible built and natural setting for recreation including facilities, parks, open space and trails should also be considered. REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 8 Section 1.8, Energy and Air Quality, states that planning authorities shall support energy efficiency and improved air quality through various means in the planning and development process. 4.3 Provincial Growth Plan The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is to be read in conjunction with the PPS. Section 4.2.1 of the Growth Plan states that Planning Authorities are encouraged to identify natural heritage features and areas that complement, link or enhance natural systems 4.4 Durham Region Official Plan 4.4.1 A goal of the Regional Official Plan is to preserve, conserve, and enhance the Region's natural environment for its valuable ecological functions. The development of a connected and functional natural system comprised of the Greenlands System (identified in the Regional Official Plan) and additional linkages and corridors as identified in area municipal official plan is encouraged. 4.4.2 The Environmental policies of the Durham Region Official Plan, under the 'Woodlands' section state: The Region will in cooperation with the area municipalities, conservation authorities and other agencies having jurisdiction, participate in managing the woodlands in the Region by establishing an overall woodland cover target of a minimum 30% of Durham's total land area. 4.4.3 In addition the 'Water Resources' policies- state that during the process of assessing development, streams and adjoining lands are to be retained in, or rehabilitated to, a natural state, for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat and to minimize alterations to natural drainage systems and sediments entering a watercourse. 4.5 Clarinpton Official Plan 4.5.1 A goal of the Plan is to enhance. natural heritage systems and ecological integrity. An objective is to enhance ecological processes, biodiversity and connections within the natural heritage system. 4.5.2 The Plan states that in order to ensure corridor functions are maintained, and where possible improved or restored, every application for development or site alteration shall indentify planning, design, and construction practices that ensure no buildings or other site alternation impede the movements of plants and animals among natural heritage features, hydrologically sensitive features and adjacent lands. 4.5.3 The Plan notes that there are a number of natural heritage features which cannot be shown on the official plan schedules due to either inadequate information or the nature of the feature. The Plan notes that these features are also important to the integrity of the natural heritage system. Furthermore, the municipality is to prepare a subwatershed REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 9 plan prior to the development of any plan of subdivision, with part of the purpose being to identify the natural features and systems to be preserved, enhanced or restored. The Foster Creek Subwatershed study was completed in 2001 and the recommendations were received by Council in principle. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESTORED .TRIBUTARY AND/OR WILDLIFE CORRIDOR TO THE SUBDIVISION DESIGN 5.1 The Village North Neighbourhood area has been affected by aggressive farm practices and, outside of the tributary, has only farm hedgerows. As a whole, this makes the lands extremely efficient to develop but lacking in any natural character for its residents. AECOM noted that the Foster Creek Watershed, as a whole, even taking into account of all restoration opportunities could achieve 4% forest cover. Even in the last few weeks, the site has been disturbed with a .portion of the tributary area being regraded and planted with a cover crop. The restoration of this tributary provides an opportunity for improving the forest cover in the watershed and natural open space area for residents of the neighbourhood. 5.2 The subdivision design to date has involved the planning for two large stormwater ponds.at the south end of the development and the future construction of two by-pass pipes to convey water from outside of the neighbourhood around or under the stormwater ponds to be discharged southerly near the railway. The development proposal requires,extensive regrading, in part as the proponent wants to minimize costs by attempting to maintain a cut and fill balance on the site. Thus the substantial quantity of soil excavated for the stormwater ponds is to be moved to other parts of the site. In addition, lands requiring regarding to accommodate the proposed servicing scheme and deal with some steep grades. Retaining and restoring of the northerly tributary wily require re-engineering of the project as currently proposed, potentially including the relocation of the stormwater ponds. 5.3 The restoration of the tributary would require a corridor approximately 30 m wide. This would yield a loss of approximately 1.6 ha from the site. This is equivalent to approximately 35-40 units, assuming the densities currently proposed for the site. 5.4 If the wildlife corridor was to be incorporated along the railway, both our consultant and GRCA indicated that it could be less than 100 m as originally proposed. The impact of the corridor would be the relocation of the ponds northerly and the loss of more than 50 lots. 6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The restoration of the northerly tributary is the preferred option, if only one is to be implemented. It provides a number of environmental benefits including: REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 10 ® Enhanced ecosystem function including the creation of wildlife habitat and habitat for benthic invertebrates and the contribution of nutrients for downstream fish habitat, a reduction in flashy floods, removal of waterborne pollutants, and array of ecosystem services associated with riparian and forest vegetation; ® Increased forest cover in the Foster Creek watershed; ® Enhanced connectivity with the significant swamp forest, thicket and meadow marsh referred to as Site 14 to the east of Arthur Street; and ® Open space opportunity for residents of the neighbourhood. 6.2 The costs of engineering and constructing the by-pass pipe solution have not been provided and the costs of the restoration of the existing watercourse would appear to be exaggerated. Utilizing Stantec's cost estimate but applied to a more accurate length following the existing watercourse, the estimated cost is $800,000 but could be much less since with limited flows there is no need for intensive design and engineering. The cost of the by-pass pipe also requires engineering the solution, constructing the pipe and.excavating the tile drain. Our consultants indicate that many of the costs overlap with and may not be much cheaper than daylighting through natural channel design. The major concern relates to the loss of some residential units. 6.3 Our consultant has noted that there is always more than one solution to improve ecosystem integrity. Alternative means of achieving the goals of the Official Plan and the Subwatershed Plan could be explored through further discussion following Council's decision on the matter. 6.4 Since this matter is before the Ontario Municipal Board, Committee may want to discuss some legal aspects related to the appeal and the Municipality's position. The Solicitor will be present and a legal update can be considered in closed session. Attachments; Attachment 1 - Neighbourhood Design Plan Attachment 2 — Fourth Submission of Draft Plan of Subdivisions Attachment 3 — Extract of Subwatershed Study Attachment 4— Stantec Consulting Ltd. — Opinion Letter Attachment 5 — LGL Limited — Opinion Letter, February 15, 2008 Attachment 6 — LGL Limited — Opinion Letter, June 13, 2008 Attachment 7 —AECOM — Peer Review Letter I REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 11 List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Bryce Jordan, Sernas Associates Smooth Run Developments Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited Hugh Allin Steve Wilson Cory Geddes Robert Macdonald Robert Fassen Helen Jones Rev. Robert Brouwer Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Robert Craunstown. Jerry Reffosco Joanne Raymond Steve Holliday Doug Rombough Attachment 1 To Report PSD-067-09 SITE STATISTICS I Li_1.-------___ I Sc I�PFROA&}1 L I I i .{gpl� —. __________________�I.L__L s ? y _7 i r T--r'�—=� -- _1_J I i i J G=+=7i E=+ x=7 =2=J t 6 L-.�.-a 1--+-1 I I• I +-1 r-+-i I I I r J I' Tl+iT rinlr l T rin nllTl , lTirini-I T C 1 I rALFYi'r'AYtLH ! 1 �� /IIIIIIIIIIIIIiI IIIJIIIIII , ! I �( , T LIJI LIJJ1LL11LLJ �11LJLLJ I• , � /�j -lT nTr nT n-s____rn-rr n-srn rl' 1 f �. ��' � r IIIIIIiliil l IIIIIIIIIIII I ______ ! ! RESERVED FORNO$TKSTREEj�/ ''1 I H 'F'I-I-I�H F-H-I+I-HtHi--1� r / I RE•AEIONMENTEA I I I I I I I i � � ��� �1L11 LU1LI11___JJ 11U11L11U� I -lrnrn-l-rrnrn 1 , I H+FI1 _ I H+H++I 1-1 I�H i' i L -I.1.111111.1LLLLLJ 1 / /� � % ; i I L_LLLLIJ1ll_J L.LL LI11LU11L11'� i I r ! r�-----i 1 1 ---- -a I t i l l l l l l F� I I I I I I 1 1 1 111 � i• , / �s nTrri-rrrrr�--I r- I-----{ WITI,f I I i I I I I 1 I I I .�I I '� ( I ( I }' II I11I Ilii , LEGEND RESIDEMIAL i L----� 1 1 1 1 1 1 III I I �111�=r----== Fl � rdt—� L.LUJ 11 LU-I u11_ V'W'fu 1 onaoeo t J L______ J f L LJ11LU1 Li_J 1 1� rlTTrI-I-ITrI'l rlTr, �-rn Tn-r r-1 r-� � �- TnTTrrri-r-r I � [1�+� 1{- ' IIIIIilll111 1111 111111111 i � .� ,�J I IIIIIIIIIiIi i O ��1� '41 7 I I - eum.uuou.ua 1 — - _ - I lh j / 1 f t l t_ E i i f - I evvlt: et nuays miw.vn o lanus — --r-- sswoow«vus _ 111 I CIVICUSES rz� TRANPORTATION NETWORK t �- r^—� PEDESTRIAN N O� - _ I ••••• m.*wsurwwvoas II � II � rc FF d 1 ADDroved for Iho purywu of maYfnq II i i f I SedlonUbi f fr the Pin o,q Ad.Ion Vndel l - � n acl..sr71z // / ���� ••-•�� yq��� 4 is ; «....,s s I ����.s�`�� Iwr xr..n raaraam I 1 I,�-i� �I ��'�,- Ir..+.®�r L__, i inhl tv tv;fli hE�l•n i I " - --------- 1 -, t PHASE I and PHASE II PLAN 1 �T1 North Village Neighbourhood ` NP-8 REIAS10,14 TO DRAFT FUIN S-C-2005-003 N 0') PART V TS 27 & 20 4, 0 CONCESSIM 2 r I MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON a) (CEOMAP100 TOMIMIP Of Cl­klm FM�JML., C) -k MLLAGS OF NEWCASTLE) E (o REVU11L MVMa•� CfDUMIAU U) A 0 CL y FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. BLOCK 496: _w5 v Y ._U. (20AI4 hL 4 4.5 aj SMOOTH RUN °,�`�,�.,- �'.,V,. , �l '`',`� `� 'it/ :( ( I moa rw,W U'a to w„�n r.al ^�li+l l\I t ' ll •, ,,\.���`,\�, �; ``'•` �i{ s t r ��7 7�7 7 POSSIB t i< 4 J X, qr 4 01 461 I'l, "Lh, X� L ki J1 IL 4' A "it T .•,i A -IT -T:, t PARK + I A, j. A T hi T. tz�-�UA W11�UENX N rACIU, N' R ,41\ V IA T f"f'T NORTH VILLAGE-SMOOTHRUN PAY 21WOO Sys M.Oii DP-4 RE`SM TO DRAFT PLAN -004 — ---------- - MUNICIPALITY OF �Mq CLARINGTOM ------- — — ....... OF XE� F-="%ILUGE OF HMASTLE) A? "WORAL 141.0PILITY OF WRIM /* (9 ` , �1: ��,. LeP ;xls \ - j / J�/r •'`i� ra��r w+o use r�, '( ��\U� \ 7 � /� \ '� .'ter...-��..�� �,�,,,.,..,, \`'�,'j .0 1rll�� � 11\\\ , l` ` r i ``L�\\ �.`\:\�\ \�, � lrn �,�ate:e,w,,, , �, it � `. >..• ,, � -�w� �� �-�\'I I` `'\ `1'` „„. . v„ Wknll z .1N U I jI Vk L z A I_TTI J� J U.J. It a' V.. v Alyk m-WIl. MAN W. %ERNA--5 ASSOCtAXE5 R -1 A "k�) A NORTH'V"ILLAGE -BROOKFIELD � � ,,, s�••'� ($l �Y �.,. .-:�"-. ��/ ••• \\\�\IP it ,��\, �`\ 1 r ���..�.�1�'�"��•���n1I,�����\1\�\111111111111{IIIIIVIVIIIIIIIIIIIV/� �` ��,�k _ `i yp�' �\\i�s �'f+✓,'�' 11\1\\3"+:.�-1 as lllllt+ ��� • ,����i \���W\\0`\�ri tt. aP+ll\�.+ol p ♦ � ��ir flp OAP�QrM�I��a,� /�i� \•��O�l\\1\\\\1P i �1°•i��''�y;i/+'�� ;e�L.t\\\1\.iii\ii S f -•{�i��i iii e\c\ OWN sk `•:+�,1 lllitr f• w�•♦:�ipi�}tUO\ \ \ �.... wwapmv Foster Creek Watershed Greenlands System Limits of Foster Creek Sub Watershed Study Area Natural core Area MENEcological Restoration Area and Linkages Corridors, Connections ;and Minor Core Areas Wooded.y� 1pi%%' nla�lutiur. t ✓,:Y i lNd p^ -. Areas i ;sir,. •- Attachment 4 361 Stantec Southgate Ding Ltd, To Report PSD-067-09 361 Southgate Drive Guelph ON N1G 3M5 TeL(519)836.6050 Fax:(519)836.2493 stantec.com Stan October 11, 2006 File No. 16096b242 Carlos Salizar, Planner Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville Ontario ' Dear Mr. Salizar: Reference: North'Village Neighborhood Plan Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2 Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington At the request of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes we have completed a review of the,recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study(Gartner Lee Limited and Greenlands International Consulting Inc. March 2001) as they apply to the North Viliage'Neighborhood Plan(the Subject Lands). This review was discussed at meetings earlier this year with Town Planning staff and members of the Ganaraska'Region Conservation Authority. Located north of the Village of Newcastle, the Subject Lands are bordered by the CPR railroad tracks to the south,Arthur Street to the east, Concession 3 to the north and Regional Road 17 to the west, and are owned by Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (the proponents).. The Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study recommends that a substantial portion of the southern Subject Lands be set aside as part of a Greenlands System, to allow for the re- opening or"dayiighting"of a buried tributary to Foster Creek,the naturalization of agricultural land and the creation of an ecological corridor between Foster Creek and Graham Creek wastersheds. The recommendation is not detailed but it appears from Figures that that the intent would be to open the tributary through the entire North Village Neighborhood from the CPR tracks to Arthur Street(see pages 99-100 and Figures 11 and 13 in the subwatershed planning studyj. Stantec October 11,2006 Page 2 of 7 Reference: North Village Neighborhood As was discussed at the meeting with Town and GRCA staff earlier this year,the proponents' had some questions about this recommendation to"reopen"the northern tributary across the Subject Lands to connect the CPR railroad tracks with Site 14 west of Arthur Street. Specifically the questions with regard to this recommendation include: 1. What are the specific ecological watershed functions to be performed by the recommended measures? 2. What are the relative costs and benefits associated with the recommendation? 3. Is there an alternative approach that could provide substantially the same benefits at lower cost? The information below represents our answers to these questions. 1. Ecological watershed functions potentially addressed by re-opening the Northerly Tributary. The subwatershed planning study apparently does not provide substantial ecological data from the eastern tributaries of Foster Creek that cross under the CPR tracks and through the existing village of Newcastle. Figure 10 in the subwatershed planning study indicates that flow and surface water sampling stations were established (SW6, SW9 ands SW10); along with Fisheries Habitat(H9) and Benthic Invertebrate (136) stations. However, the version of the plan made available to me does not contain data for the water quality(Table 9), benthic stations(Table 10 and Appendix C-3), or fish habitat(Table 11). Natural vegetation on the North Village Neighborhood lands is limited. Figure 11 in the subwatershed planning study indicates that Site 15, made up of Polygon 62, is a meadow marsh dominated by reed canary grass. Field work by Stantec Consulting Ltd, conducted in 2006 indicates that this location is a grassed water-way constructed through a farm field,and that is occupied by a range of common grasses. There are wetter areas near the culverts and where grading has created small depressions, but the majority of the site is anthropogenic and does not represent a wetland community. The continuation of the grassed waterway upstream of Arthur Street(polygon 63)is similar to the grassed waterway on the North Village Neighborhood lands, and appears to be more appropriately characterized in the subwatershed planning study as cultural meadow. Site 14, which is east of Arthur Street is listed in the subwatershed planning study as a significant site(page 57) and"a connection between the CPR railroad across to site 14"(page 58) is recognized as a possibility,although it is noted"existing farm buildings that will be affected and therefore will be difficult to achieve." Under the wildlife habitat discussion (pages 63 to 66) core habitats are identified at the mouth and headwaters of Foster Creek and it is concluded that the focus should be on maintenance and enhancement of these features with a second priority being maintaining the corridor of the main branch of Foster's Creek that links these two features. Stantec October 11,2006 Page 3 of 7 Reference: North Village Neighborhood Site 14 is identified as being linked to the forest areas in Graham Creek and playing an important role in bird habitat functions in that watershed. The stated benefit of linking this area to the railroad corridor is to provide a"circular route"for wildlife movement, although, which wildlife species and how this route would enhance their habitat;are not specified. There is no mention in the subwatershed study of aquatic habitat benefits or stream hydrology benefits that might arise from re-opening or"daylighting".of the stream, This is despite the fact that the vast majority of creek daylighting projects undertaken are founded primiarily on stream hydrology and aquatic habitat benefits. Based on the limited information summarized above the ecological benefits of the recommendation to reopen the northern-most of the two eastern tributaries would appear to be limited to a third level wildlife habitat function vaguely described as a "circular route"or"multiple opportunities for wildlife movement". Given that daylighting streams can be an extremely expensive undertaking this seems like insufficient justification of the recommendation. To further investigate the potential benefits of re-opening the stream, aquatic habitat data was collected by Stantec Consulting Ltd. in July of 2006, for the area downstream of the North Village Neighborhood The following is a summary of those 2006 observations. Eastern Tributary of Foster Creek The area upstream of Arthur Street and the proposed new channel site is currently under agricultural production (Photo A), over moderately hilly topography.The area downstream of Arthur Street proposed for daylighting is currently an agricultural grassed waterway with no defined channel due to the presence of a pipe that directs flow to the main stream channel further down the watershed. Examination of the stream channel where it daylights approximately 10 metres northeast of the railway tracks on the southern edge of the property revealed a small defined channel approximately 15 cm wide, with a depth of 5 cm or less(Photo B). The water temperature was ' measured at 15 degrees, many degrees below ambient air temperature, reflecting the long residence time in the pipe under grassed waterway as well as possible groundwater contributions. Photo A--Agriculture upstream of Arthur Street t' � ro � < .��.-\� � '^4�y\ _* r!i\^y'.: \rte. - • i • ' i i -\ Lei tv;a � h � '•, ;;' -•- • i • •- - ,may �• J i,'Q 7 Ilk Alr Lei rj�� ,; �" g' ��.�':r/ `, �` \ c •' �.'` t �.5. :•ems- ,.� � .+ti. .y � ...•'• --Ors - =� 1' - ':�C'r` — �• I• •. - ' F` �� �: ---•tip+--�.�-. # �, � '3 '�1•/� � SI �� }.. ap'Yt1�' �' A-vl�a�� .�tl�54�Y �"r.i � r �A k ?,r N•'i. t:•S�r � 1 r �; �� r-t� r �--y�'F a�! �7 5£�'°- -r'j s} ry:. � �u '1 y`i 1.3�"r{• �/ t a .- �-.h•�' Stantec October 11,2006 Page 5 of 7 Reference: North Village Neighborhood Overall, the tributary downstream of the area proposed for daylighting provides low quality fisheries habitat due to the number of alterations, as well as the diffuse, shallow channel features. Creating an open channel upstream of this reach will not add significant value to the existing habitat, as fish passage is limited under regular low flow conditions. To the extent that the re-opening may result in some water quality changes compared to the piped flow, such as temperature increase and sediment load, the quality of habitat downstream could even degrade slightly. In summary, the watershed ecological functions that the proposed re-opening of the tributary and the naturalization of agricultural lands could enhance include: • Wildlife movement between the Foster and Graham Creek corridors for unspecified wildlife species.. ® An increase in the amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed. ® An increase in the total amount of natural vegetation cover. 2. The relative costs and benefits associated with the recommendation Published experience in Canada and the United States(see for example Daylighting: New Life for buried streams. Richard Pinkham, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2000) indicates that the cost of daylighting streams can range from less than$100 per foot to upwards of$1000 per foot, not including lands costs. Lower cost efforts tend to be characterized by volunteer labour, in kind contributions and simple stream systems with minimal grading required. From the Functional Servicing Plan for the North Village Neighbourhood plan it appears that approximately 600 m of stream could be subject to daylighting.Assuming that this is a reasonably simple system and applying a cost of$1600 per metre (roughly$500 per foot)the total cost could easily approach $1,000,000, excluding the cost of the land. Based on Figure 13 in the subwatershed planning study more than 10 hectares of otherwise developable land would be lost on the North Village site alone, and a similar amount of land would be lost for future development east of Arthur Street. Reduction in developable area adds to per unit costs for Infrastructure and drives Lip the cost of servicing and maintaining Clarington's urban fabric affecting tax rates, house prices etc. Taking into account these types of indirect costs the total dollar cost of the proposed daylighting will be several millions of dollars spread out across landowners, the residents and the Municipality. Costs of this magnitude can be justified if the resulting environmental benefits are similarly large and significant.The challenge is that often environmental benefits do not have a clear dollar value associated with them, and it can often be difficult to balance the costs and benefits. However a qualitative assessment of the relative value of the environmental benefits is often possible. In the review above the following potential benefits were identified: • Enhanced wildlife movement between the Foster and Graham Creek corridors for unspecified wildlife species. • An increase in the amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed. • An increase in the total amount of natural vegetation cover. Stantec October 11,2006 Page 6 of 7 Reference: North Village Neighborhood These potential benefits, while important at a local scale,will not result in not major impacts on the ecology of the subwatershed. On a relative basis it seems clear that the limited benefits do not justify the high costs. This is particularly true if similar, or even greater, watershed scale benefits could be achieved at lower costs. This is the issue addressed below. 3. Alternative approaches to achieve similar benefits at lower cost. Enhance wildlife movement between the Foster and Graham Creek corridors - - - - As noted on page 61,the majority of birds wildlife listed in the subwatershed study are adapted to"field, forest edge and urban fringe habitats"The same could be said of the mammal species encountered as the full range from short-tailed shrew to deer are known to frequent urban, semi-urban and agricultural landscapes. These species will readily move through semi- naturalized low maintenance vegetation found along linear features such as railroad tracks and through low maintenance areas of stormwater management ponds,parks, and open spaces. The south end of the proposed North Village Neighborhood includes all these uses backing on to the CPR railroad tracks. With some minor modifications a minimum 30 m strip of these low intensity low maintenance uses could be incorporated into the plan.This would provide an adequate mid-watershed movement corridor between Foster and Graham Creeks. Given that the corridor must cross Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street, it is, and will remain, a compromised corridor. To make.a portion of the corridor 100 to 400 metres wide would not compensate for the constraints posed by the road crossings, and would not add substantially to the function of the area. Increase the amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed. Overall, the tributary downstream of the area proposed for daylighting is moderately low quality habitat. Creating an open channel upstream of this reach will not add significant value to fish habitat In Foster Creek, and will only increase the amount of low to moderate quality.habitat.A better approach would be to substantially improve the quality of existing habitat in the main branch of Foster Creek. Several examples of projects that would greatly exceed the benefit of the proposed day-lighting at much lower cost can be drawn from the subwatershed study discussion (see page numbers from subwatershed study below for details): • Increase buffering and riparian plantings in agricultural areas(page 46); • Removal of debris and barriers throughout the main branch; • Increased habitat diversity in upper reaches(page 49); • Carp exclusion in the lower reaches of foster Creek(page 49). Additional examples of lower cost higher benefit fish habitat enhancement could be developed in conjuction with the Conservation Authority Staff and other interested parties. One ecological function not addressed by the proposal to daylight the eastern tributary is the fact that the pipe underlying the grassed water way contributes relatively cool baseflow to Foster Creek just upstream of the CPR tracks. This function should be preserved in the servicing of the proposed development. Stantec October 11,2006 Page 7 of 7 Reference: North Village Neighborhood A bypass pipe should be included in the servicing concept to take the relatively cool and clean external flows from upstream of Arthur Street and bypass the stormwater management facilities associated with the proposed development, discharging downstream of the SWM outlets. This will prevent the external flows from being warmed in proposed Pond E. Increase the total amount of natural vegetatlon cover. Approximately 10 ha of development land would be set aside for naturalization under the approach recommended In the subwatershed study. This area would be in the middle of the watershed isolated by Regional Roads railroads lines and adjacent urban development.A much greater ecological benefit could be realized if the natural core areas at the confluence with Wilmot Creek and in the headwaters were enhanced.Approximately one hectare of relatively natural habitat, in the form of a 30 metre wide corridor along the CPR tracks would provide the urban corridor required for the species encountered in the area between Foster and Graham Creeks, and the time effort and plant material that would have gone into the other nine hectares of corridor could be better invested in enhancing the core natural areas and Improving riparian habitat along the main branch of Foster Creek. In summary, we have concluded that the costs of the proposed daylighting of the eastern tributary far outweigh the ecological benefits of the proposal. Much greater ecological benefits could be realized from enhancement of the core natural areas and fish habitat improvement works on the main branch of Foster Creek.A simple bypass of external water flows around North Village Neighborhood and provision of a 30 metre wide semi-natural corridor along the CPR tracks is the optimum balance point between costs and benefits. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULT NG LTD. David Charlton, M.Sc., P.Ag. Senior Principal, Environmental Management Tel:(519)836-6050 Fax: (519)836-2493 dcharlton@stantec,.com _ Attachment 5 - To Report PSD-0.67-09 LIMITED environmental research associates 22 Fisher Street, PO Box 280 ' Tel: 905=833-121,11-4 Fax: 9005-833-1255 Email: kingcity@lgi.com - URL: www.lgl.com February 15, 2008 Carlos Salazar, Planner The Municipality Of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario Reference: North Village Neighbourhood Plan Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2 Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited(LGL) was retained by Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes in July 2007 to provide advice respecting selected recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study, as they pertain to the (Newcastle) North Village Neighbourhood Plan area. Specifically, LGL was asked to provide opinion on: 1. the necessity for a wildlife conveyance corridor of 100 metres is width to be developed abutting the CPR R.O.W.; and 2. the advisability of"daylighting"a buried (farm-tiled)tributary. Corollary to the daylighting issue is the matter of the study-recommended step to develop a wildlife conveyance feature centred on the re-developed watercourse, which would connect the previously noted 100 metre wide (enhanced rail R.OX) corridor with the watercourse; crossing at Arthur Street, In preparation of this letter, we visited the subject lands and adjacent areas (July- December,2007) conferred with municipal and Conservation Authority staff (site meeting of December 14, 2007),.and reviewed the Subwatershed Study, relevant file correspondence, and planning figures as prepared by MBTW and Somas Associates,, in addition, LGL has reviewed literature sources that address the aforementioned wildlife issues. Of particular relevance are the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study (Planning Study), and a letter dated October 11, 2006 from Stantec to the Municipality of Clarington,Attention Carlos Salazar, Planning (attached). The former provides a vision for a greenway framework comprising cultural, naturalizing and remnant natural features, enhancements to such features, and new connecting corridors. This Planning Study also recommends exposing farm-tiled groundwater flows; Page'7 Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited North Village Nelghbourhood Plan February2008 and in the case of the subject lands, creating a vegetated watercourse corridor between the enhanced CPR R.O.W. and Arthur Street. The Stantec letter of October 11, 2006 discusses the Planning Study in the context of landowner concerns, relating to the daylighting issue of the buried tributary (noted above) and the enhancement of the Rail R.O.W. corridor, and discusses the costs and benefits of the planning recommendation and recommends alternative approaches to those offered in the Planning Study. The two principal issues addressed by LGL are discussed as follows: 1. the necessity for a 100 metre wide naturalization at the interface of the CPR R.O.W. and the North Village Neighbourhood Plan Area, principally to enhance the conveyance of animals between the Foster and Graham Creek watersheds,. The Planning Study Basis for the development of the greenway framework in general, and the above-noted enhancement in particular, is grounded in the science of landscape ecology and is built upon the premise that enhancing and connecting islands and corridors of green always provides a net benefit to plants and animals. Page 64 of the Planning Study identifies four terms used in the scientific discussion of connectivity and wildlife habitat. The introduction of these terms implies that any size criteria that are at variance with those will not qualify as a productive/sustainable feature. Additionally, it presumes that urban/ex- urban animals cannot and do not successfully enlist the services of anthropogenic features to travel between vegetated units within and/or adjacent to the Guilt environment. Based on our knowledge of the literature and on our professional experience, it is fair to say that neither premise is accurate. Although the Planning Study provides a list of wildlife species encountered within the study area, there is no detailed body of data. This is not unusual for this level of study; however, given the sweeping nature of the greenlands recommendations it would have been helpful. Of particular use would have been data respecting animal numbers in the areas proposed for enhancement. In the absence of this information, LGL undertook such focused studies to confirm the character of wildlife usage within�and adjacent to the rail R.O.W. and also in the main branch corridors of Graham and Foster Creek watersheds. The results of this work confirmed the presence of a wide'variety of species (3 amphibians, 49 birds, 24 mammals, 4 reptiles), albeit in moderate to low numbers,with less diversity and lower numbers within the railway lands (2 amphibians, 31 birds, 15 mammals;2 reptiles), The above numbers exclude migrant birds. The majority of these species are urban tolerant and would be habituated to human presence, Urban subsidized species (gray squirrel, house mouse, Norway rat, raccoon and striped skunk) were prominent in numbers as were predatorial species such as deer mouse,coyote, red fox, American crow, blue jay,and common grackle (gray squirrel, raccoon and striped skunk also fit the second category). Virtually all of these species may be expected to persist through the development period and remain (or increase) in post development years. All of the above noted animals currently appear to be navigating Page 2 Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited North Village Negghbourhood Plan February 2008 effortlessly within and between the watersheds utilizing cultural pathways, including the rail R.O.W. Although the provision of new green space outside of and paralleling the R.O.W.would benefit this situation, there is no apparent biological requirement for this change to maintain the current condition and there does not appear to be a significant,enough local population to Warrant the size of a greenspace dedication as proposed in the Planning Study. Additionally, unless any green enhancement of lands abutting the rail R.O.W. is fenced to exclude humans and companion animals, the disturbance factor will result in wildlife selecting the railway lands over the designed greenspace due to the familiarity and isolation of the former. The principal benefit of new greenspace would be to buffer the raii_corridor for wildlife and to provide additional conveyance opportunities between watersheds for selected nocturnal moving species. A significant downside to attracting increased numbers of animals to transit between watersheds, regardless of the width of any future greenway, is the crossings they will have to make of Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street, both of which will carry significantly more traffic at build-out. Enticing greater numbers of relatively slow moving ground-based animals into traffic corridors is not sound urban wildlife management and can result in significant road safety issues for drivers, A setback width of 20—25 metres for the stormwater management feature (i.e. the"permanent pool') from the CPR property boundary is adequate'to facilitate east/west conveyance of wildlife, and will suitably buffer wildlife pathway functions within the railway lands. Wherever possible, the area between the rail lands and the ponds (including the"park block") should be planted in coniferous species (white spruce, red and white cedar and white pine) with occasional tall deciduous tree accents (burr and red oak). The interface zones of the greenway feature with Regional Road 17 and Arthur Street (15—20 metres) should be vegetated only in herbaceous cover; these areas should be cut at least twice yearly generally to increase visibility of roadside wildlife and to ensure animals crossing these roads do not break from cover in a manner which creates a road safety issue, The greenway unit should not include trails or other features that encourage residents to consider this area a recreational zone; signage in this regard may be necessary. The greenway corridor should not be separated from the stormwater management.area by fencing. 2. The advisability of"daylighting" a buried (farm-tiled) tributary. The Planning Study recommends"daylighting"a buried tributary on principle to recover riparian habitat and in the process provide a new wildlife movement corridor connecting northeast across Arthur Street to lands that currently are farmed or idle (plantation) and are not within the urban boundary. Page 3 Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited North Village Neighbourhood Plan February 2008 The issue of exposing the underground flow or maintaining it in an underground pipe for delivery to the creek channel at the rail R.O.W. is discussed by Stantec, who recommend the later. We agree with Stantec on this matter. Specifically, it is Stantec's opinion that the daylighting of the tributary may result in deleterious impacts on the watercourse, including temperature increase and sediment load.. Additionally, Stantec note that the Planning Study does not mention that aquatic habitat benefits or stream hydrology benefits will arise from the daylighting exercise, in spite of the fact that the majority of watercourse daylighting works are grounded principally on precisely these foundations. Notwithstanding these comments, we appreciate that delivery of groundwater in a buried fashion, however cool it may be, will not have a profound impact on the downs tream - - - thermal regime of Foster Creek. However,we, too, are of the opinion that taking the course of action proposed in the Planning Study provides no apparent fisheries benefits and could be detrimental In the long run to down-gradient conditions (foreign substances washed into the watercourse and general warming of groundwater). Secondly, and as recommended by Stantec, we agree that the piped groundwater should not be processed through the stormwater management system. in the event a third pipe option is exercised to collect groundwater within the development envelope, it is acceptable to combine the two sources. Lastly, it is our opinion that the Planning Study recommendation to design a tributary-based greenway between the enhanced rail R.O.W. and Arthur Street, across what is now a farm field, is something to be viewed as an example of urban wildlife mismanagement. Implementation of this plan undoubtedly will result in road traffic wildlife fatalities and significant road safety issues as Arthur Street is upgraded with development. Secondly, encouraging wildlife to loop northeast onto third party lands in the hope that they will all turn southeast and return to the connecting rail corridor, in our opinion, is wishful thinking. in addition, it will increase wildlife numbers, including those species which come in conflict with humans, on lands to the east of Arthur Street,where they may not be appreciated by landowners. The above comments comprise the results of LGL's review of background natural heritage documents, the development proposal,discussions with Town staff, and site- specific investigations. These findings confirm that the Resource Management Objectives of the sub-watershed study generally will be met through development as proposed. Sincerely, J. Robert Nisbet Senior Biologist Page 4 Municipality of Clarington LGL Limited North Village Neighbourhood Plan February 2008 Attachment 6 To Report PSD-067-09 233 Huycke Street Cobourg, Ontario CANADA K9A 5K8 (: 905-372-3261 ®: 905,372-3281 environmental research associates W: rnisbet @lgl.com ®: www.lgl.com Head Office:22 Fisher St,,P,O.Box 280,King City,Ontario CANADA UB 1A6 t:905-833-1244 ®:905.833-1255 ml:kingcity @Igl,com M:www,lgl.com June 13,22-008 Sernas Associates 110 Scotia Court, Unit 41 Whitby, Ontario L1 N 8Y7 Attention: Mr. Bryce Jordan Re: North Village Neighbourhood'Plan, Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2 Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington Policy Implications of the,Foster Creek Sub-Watershed Planning Study Ganaraska Conservation Comment Letter Dated April,1, 2008 Sent from Greg Wells (GRCA) to Lisa Backus(Clarington) Dear Bryce, At your direction, we have reviewed the above noted GRCA letter and herein offer our thoughts respecting the Conservation Authority's recommendations to the Municipality. Our comments are derived through consultation with LGL ecologists and fisheries biologists who have experience in similar land use conversion exercises, and from a review of the research conducted by Stantec (letter of October 11, 2006 to the Municipality). LGL refers to the Stantec letter In our correspondence of February 15, 2008. The following comments are offered in order of page and paragraph position from the GRCA letter. 1. Page one, Paragraph one: the first sentence refers to implementation of the measures and recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study (Study) as a pre-requisite for development. Whereas this may be the intent of the Authority and the Municipality, in practice, Implementation of all such measures and recommendations appears fragmentary and discretionary if the application in hand is an accurate example. We draw attention to the matter of day-lighting "buried tributaries." The Study notes that"eastern tributaries have been buried north .of the CPR tracks" (Section 6.7.1, bullet(a)) and recommends in Section 6.7.2 (bullet(a))to "bring the buried tributaries above ground" as an impact mitigation measure." Three such "tributaries" are found within the subject lands, yet only a portion of one of the three sub-terranian channels is requested by the Authority to be day-lighted. Using this example alone it is clear that implementation of the Study measures and recommendations in regard for development is approached neither in a compulsory nor a comprehensive fashion by the Authority and/or the Municipality; instead, flexibility apparently is exercised by one or both bodies. It is this flexibility end discretionary decision-making that Stantec and LGL understood was in place when we made . our respective recommendations to the landowners. 2. Page one, Paragraph One: the last sentence references restoration.of a "buried tributary." The reference might better be worded a buried farm drainage channel for the following reason. We have no historical information regarding the pre-tiling of the surface drainage.period respecting the precise location or configuration of any original channel; although we agree, that current Established in 1971 ONTARIO•BRITISH COLUMBIA•NEWFOUNDLAND-ALASKA-TEXAS-WASHINGTON STATE Page 2 topographic conditions suggest it would be in this general area, at least from sometime in the late 19`h Century, and probably previous to forest clearing and settlement, It is likely that in the initial years after clearing (with the establishment of the roadway)that run-off flowed south along the east side of the roadway, or overtop of it during flood conditions; 1 our opinion, the current location almost certainly is an artifact.of farming practices, not nature; any day-lighting would comprise restoration of a cultural feature or potentlally, the creation of a new surface drainage channel. This opinion is offered, in part, on the basis of our knowledge of 19'" Century farming practices as are documented through the social science discipline of historical geography. 3. Page one, Paragraph two: This wording suggests that in the Authority's mind, the proposed Stormwater Management facility (and park), albeit reduced in width from the Study - recommendation, comprise an enhancement of the existing rail R.O.W. corridor; and that they concede the Study recommendations (including the i00 metre width) need not be implemented, further reinforcing the point made above. Additionally, they agree that development of a wildlife corridor, as recommended,through the Study, will result in an increased occurrence of wildlife fatality. 4. Page one, Paragraph three, sentence one: Mr. Well's notes no GRCA intent to link wildlife movement off-site by day-lighting the farm drainage channel; their purpose being to restore riparian habitat. LGL does not attach any such intent, but rather provides opinion of what will happen by default if the corridor is created. Secondly, whereas it may not be the intent of the GRCA, it was clearly the intent of the Sub-watershed Study authors. Notwithstanding Mr.Well's comments, it is relevant to note that the day-lighting exercise proposed in the Study extends north only to the point where it can conveniently turn due east to link with an off-site woodland. If wildlife connectivity wasn't the intent of the Study, and riparian habitat was, then why didn't the Study suggest continuing the day-lighting through the entire length of the drainage channel,to the point of the culvert crossing at Arthur Street, where the corridor walkway also could link with the sidewalk? 5. Page one, Paragraph three: The third sentence of this paragraph acknowledges that a buried water source will provide better"temperature regimes"than day-lighted conditions, although the latter situation would be "acceptable"due to the cooling effects of riparian plantings. This issue was discussed at the site meeting in December when LGL noted that even with extensive plantings it would take decades before surface water conditions receive significant relief from solar impacts. Mr. Wells and a former GRCA fisheries biologist were present at this meeting and neither of these individuals (nor municipal staff)disagreed with LGL's observation. 6. Page one, Paragraph three, Sentence four: LGL's opinion remains at variance with that of the Authority on this issue. On the basis of fisheries benefits alone, we do not believe the matter can be quantified to the extent that a winning opinion is identified. Both approaches have their benefits and these benefits will be somewhat neutralized as up-gradient flows join the creek course south of the CPR corridor.' However, it is clear to LGL that sedimentation is an issue for the construction period and tale immediate post build-out years if the channel is day-lighted; the same is not the case if flows are conveyed underground, Secondly, we agree that, over time, a naturalized channel design can create benthic invertebrate production and provision of allochthonous material; however, the quality and quantity of such production is dependent upon anthropogenic area use variables, which largely are uncontrollable. These include higher water temperature regimes in the early years, and on-going impacts from adolescents and companion animals, which may be expected to frequent the watercourse banks and channel resulting in contaminant loading of the watercourse. On balance, we believe that in this case, there is no clear fisheries benefit to day- North Village Nelghbourhood Plan,Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concesslon 2 Village of Newcastle, Munlcipality'of Clarington ne Limited POUCy!r'Ocatlons of the Foster Creek Sub-Watershed Planning Study June 93, TA4573 573 Page 3 lighting versus maintenance of the status quo, albeit in a different channel location. Conversely, on the issue of the proposed greenway connection between the daylighted tributary corridor and Arthur Street, LGL sees no such fisheries, aquatic habitat improvement or terrestrial wildlife benefits. 7. Same paragraph, Pages one and two, Sentence five: This issue has been commented on above, and we agree that cooling advantages of an underground delivery would be somewhat compromised when blended with the flows emanating from stormwater management features. However, such adverse affects can and should be minimized through pond design, which ensures an appropriate stratification of the water column, and releases flows which are as cool as possible, therein, this measure is encouraged through the Sub-watershed Study(Page 89, Section 6.6.3(g), reducing the thermal impacts of pond waters on buried flows when they are blended south of the rail corridor. 8. Same paragraph (three), Page two, Sentences six and seven: The issue of"sediment loading" and "foreign substance" introduction is noted above. In addition, we recognize that (non-riparian) "surface flows will be captured and treated by stormwater management facilities prior to re- introduction to the (Foster Creek) system;" however, in open creek blocks through the construction period and beyond, the day-lighted reach will experience higher than average sediment loading than in a piped state, and will receive foreign substances (from above noted and other anthropogenic sources) irrespective of the"filtration capability of a naturalized vegetative buffer." It is LGL's experience that even with the best of mitigative measures,these issues will prevail with the creation of a surface channel, but to a much lesser extent with a piped conveyance feature. 9. Page two, First full paragraph: Notwithstanding the above comments, and consistent with a focus on "aquatic habitat improvements" as noted in the GRCA letter, consideration should be given to any practical development of a day-lighted portion of this "tributary"where it transits public lands and/or the stormwater management block. We trust these comments are of use to you in your on-going discussions with the Authority and the Town. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned for clarification of points addressed in this correspondence. Sincerely, Robert Nisbet Senior Wildlife Biologist LGL Limited c. Carlos Salazar, Municipality of Clarington Cynthia Strike, Municipality of Clarington Lisa Backus, Municipality of Clarington Greg Wells,GRCA Mark Peacock, GRCA Bruce Fischer, Metrus Tom Albani,Metrus Peter Schut, Brookfield Roslyn Houser, Goodmans North Village Nelghbourhood Plan, Part of Lot 27 and 28, Concession 2 LGL Limited Village of Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington June 13,2008 Pof%cY Implications of the Foster Creek Sub.Watershed Planning Study TA4573 Attachment 7 To Report PSD-06709 AECOM AECOM 300—300 Town Centre Boulevard,Markham,ON,Canada UR 5Z6 T906.477,8400 F905,477.1456 www.aecom.com June 19,2009 Project Number: 111885 _ Mr,-Dennis Hefferon -- -- South Tower, Royal Bank Plaza 200 Bay Street prepared at the request of counsel Suite 2600, P.O. Box 185 Toronto,ON MW 2J4 Dear Mr. Hefferon: Re: North Newcastle Neighbourhood — Response to Peer Review of Foster Creek Subwatershed Study Recommendations AECOM has been requested by the Municipality of Clarington to assist with development issues within the Foster Creek Subwatershed. Specifically, we were asked to review comments provided by Stantec Consulting Ltd. and LGL Limited directed 'at two recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study(2001)as follows,: a) Bring the buried tributaries above ground(page 92); b) Corridors at least 900 m in width (total) approximately centred on the main creek valley,plus one of the buried tributaries;and, c) Corridors of at least 900 m in width adjacent to the CPR and CNR rail lines, east of Foster Creek, to provide landscape connectivity among the natural areas associated with the Graham Creek Subwatershed(page 97). AECOM was to provide our opinion with respect to the Stantec and LGL comments. In addition, AECOM was asked to comment on the estimated cost involved in daylighting the tributary, and whether downstream enhancements are reasonable compensation for not undertaking the daylighting. In order to prepare this opinion,the following documents were reviewed: Gartner Lee Limited and Greenlands International Consulting Inc., 2001. Foster Creek Subwatershed Planing Study. Prepared for the Municipality of Clarington. Stantec Consulting Ltd., October 11, 2006. Letter addressed to Carlos Salizar, Planner, Municipality of Clarington at the request of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes. (111885 IJune1&09_fasler_creek peer_revlew,doc) Page 2 prepared at the request of counsel Mr,Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 LGL Limited, February 15, 2008. Letter addressed to Carlos Salizar, Planner, Municipality of . Clarington at the request of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes, Peacock, Mark, 2008. Email addressed to Councillor C. Trim regarding North Village Neighbourhood Telephone conversation. MBTW — Watchorn Group and Sernas, 2008, Neighbourhood Plan, North Village Neighbourhood. A site visit was undertaken on June 15, 2009. Note that no rationale for servicing, stormwater management or other documents that indicate how the Plan intends to manage the unique groundwater conditions on this site, nor maintain flow to the two un-named tributaries was provided as part of the scope of this review. Comments are therefore confined to the content of the two letters and the maintenance of the natural heritage functions on the site without specific reference to the servicing of the Neighbourhood Plan. 1 . Ovevview of the Recommendations (2001 ) The Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study'(FCSPS), completed in 2001, benefited from advice from the Steering Committee and Public Information Centres and includes final editing from the Municipality of Clarington and Ganaraska and Region Conservation Authority. The Vision agreed upon was: "to maintain and enhance the health and quality of the Foster Creek Subwatershed and its ecosystem," These recommendations for the Greenlands System were confirmed as reflecting the achievement of that vision. When the FCSPS is read in its entirety, the point is made that natural heritage is in very short supply in this subwatershed. The valleys of the Wilmot and Graham Creeks are more robust and offer higher potential for natural heritage functions (also known as ecosystem services) than the Foster Creek valley which has been subjected to intense agricultural activities, The comments in this letter are focused on two tributaries to the Foster Creek that arise in the north- eastern corner of the watershed, pass through the Town of Newcastle and merge with the main channel just north of Durham Road 2 (formerly Highway 2). These headwater streams collect groundwater that has infiltrated into the sand veneer in this portion of the watershed, The northern tributary has been modified through agricultural practices but passes into a restored wetland and plantation east of Arthur Street, providing connectivity via hedgerows to Nine-mile swamp, and to Site 14 (discussed below), and to the Graham Creek via weak linkages along hedgerows and the CPR. From Arthur Street to just north of the CPRall, a tile drain conveys most of the flow, There is clear (1��885_IJupei9-09_(¢5lef tfeek_p¢¢t_feVl¢W.do¢) ( AECOM Page 3 prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 evidence of surface water flow early in the season, and the invert was mapped as a wetland in the FCSPS. In early June 2009, much of the invert was ploughed and planted with wheat(in contrast to the corn in the upland area planted earlier in the season).. A vertical drain is clearly evident in the Invert part way down the swale. The overland flows merge with the tiled flow within a small wooded ravine just north of the railroad. The tributary then passes into the Town of Newcastle where the ravine has been incorporated into the residential fabric as a complement to the landscaping and a wildlife refuge. The southern tributary arises in Site 14, is tiled to a wetland (a swamp thicket) adjacent to Arthur Street, then similarly, disappears into tile drainage, to emerge south of the CPR. The presence of watercress (Nasturtium officinale) in both of the tributaries provides evidence of groundwater baseflows. The tributary was flowing at a rate of 1 L/sec on June 15, at Arthur Street, The central issue surrounding these tributaries concerns how best to manage these features within the context of the development proposal in a manner that reflects the Vision of the FCSPS. 'i J Si i'te 14 Based on the natural heritage inventory undertaken in 1999, Site 14,the forest and wetland complex located just east of Arthur Street was notable as it provided habitat for Sharp-shinned Hawk and Black-and-White Warbler. These species are somewhat area sensitive, meaning that their success In breeding and rearing young is proportional to the size of the area in which they breed. Their occurrence was interpreted to be an Indication that the•proximity of Graham Creek to the east and the remnants of Nine-mile Swamp to the north were sufficient influence to attract these species, These species were not recorded elsewhere in the Subwatershed. Site 14 on its own, without the influence of these larger native forests, would be unlikely to attract area sensitive species. In addition, Site 14 supports a colony of Early Coralroot (Corallorhiza trifida), a small, native orchid rarely recorded from Durham Region. The marsh dominated by Variegated Horsetail (Equisetum varlegatum) is also an unusual feature restricted to sandy sites with high water tables. Other rare species are often associated with this type of marsh. It is an important recharge/discharge feature that contributes flow to the southern tributary that flows through the Town of Newcastle. On this basis, Site 14 was considered to be a significant feature that should be built into a connected Greenlands System, consistent with the Vision above, in order to maintain and enhance its unique contribution to the subwatershed. l.ef Wildlife Corridors Principles of Landscape Ecology maintain that connectivity among patches of habitat greatly enhance natural heritage function. It is a case of a connected whole being more than a sum of its parts. The literature suggests that wider corridors provide a greater diversity of functions, and that when (111888_ljuna1M9_wteUreeR_-Peet aYloadoo) ( �� � Page 4 prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 corridors achieve a minimum width of 100 metres, that these functions include the provision of breeding habitat for a wider array of wildlife, and greater potential for plant diversity. There Is no precise threshold that defines exactly where this enhancement of function occurs, and It is related to the amount of natural area, proximity of natural areas to one another, and landforms. On this landscape that is lacking tableland forest outside of the valleylands, it is necessary to restore wide corridors in order to achieve the enhancement reflected in the Vision, Environment Canada (2004) speculates that"in urban environments it might be supposed that wider corridors would be required to provide the some level of function in the face of urban effects, assuming that target attributes might persist at all in an urban matrix". In this case,the agricultural landscape that presents a low barrier to wildlife movement is being replaced by a residential matrix on a landscape framed by higher quality natural features in the Wilmot, Foster and Graham Creek valleys. This Is a good example of a location in which wider corridors are justified. In order to provide sufficient resources for plants and animals making use of the corridor, additional width will reduce edge effects and contribute to breeding and productive potential. Hence the recommendation for 100 metres for all corridors, with emphasis on the creation of an east-west connection between watersheds. In principle, overland connections between watersheds enhance natural heritage function in the same way that trail systems and good road patterns enhance human settlements. It Is recognized that the land is a finite resource and therefore natural heritage function is coupled with other suitable infrastructure where possible to achieve multiple objectives. The east-west railroads within the Foster Creek Subwatershed are obvious anchors for east-west wildlife corridors, however they fail to connect to Site 14. 1.3 Un-named Tributaries As described above, the two un-named tributaries arise on the till plain as the sand cap thins to the south. Both of them have been tiled between Arthur Street and the CPR(Le., excavated followed by installation of a perforated pipe and backfilling) in order to allow farmers to cross from one part of the field to the other unimpeded. However,,the tiling of the more northerly tributary has been less ineffective and a meadow marsh community has developed in the depression left over the buried watercourse, This ephemeral watercourse conveys water overland as well as through the tiles in the spring, but dries out in late spring or early summer when it conveys surface water flow alone. Both tributaries connect across the railroad to downstream valley systems that have been incorporated Into the,Newcastle Village fabric. The contribution to the downstream watercourses must be maintained, therefore a discussion in the subwatershed study considered opening both watercourses within the development block and create a pathway of connectivity to the agricultural lands east of Arthur, and ultimately toward Site 14 and Graham Creek valley, In addition to a functional wildlife corridor, habitat that contributes to downstream Canadian fisheries waters would be enhanced in that it would contribute flow as well as conveyance of nutrients and provide habitat for benthic invertebrates. A desktop calculation of potential baseflow from the catchment west of Arthur Street based on broad assumptions, estimates an average annual AECO (I IIw_IJunei" foster wee)_peer_revteWAoo) I Page 5 prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 baseflow' of about 0.5 Usec(plus/minus 0,2 Usec)that is likely to range from 2 Usec in the spring to zero in summer. These flows would be somewhat enhanced by storm runoff and accumulated flows from east of Arthur Street. There are many benefits of the open watercourse over the piped condition Including attenuation of water quantity in storm events and reduction in flashy flows, removal of water- borne pollutants, creation of wildlife habitat, habitat for benthic invertebrates and contribution of nutrients to downstream fish habitat, aesthetics, and an array of ecosystem services associated with the riparian plantings designed to maintain cool water temp_eeatures(i.e.,,reduction of heat sink effect, carbon storage and carbon sequestration.) In order to minimize the loss of development potential while realizing the benefits to natural heritage, only one tributary was recommended for daylighting in association with creating a pathway of connectivity toward Site 14 in spite of the potential to make a case for opening both of the watercourses. Daylighting the watercourse was expected to be no less expensive than the engineering required to collect the water and deliver it to the two watercourses, with the enhanced benefit of creating the wildlife connection, attenuating storm flows and enhancing downstream aquatic habitat, 1A Creating the Corridor The Greenlands System needs to be anchored to the valleylands of the Foster Creek, but In order to respond to the Vision, opportunities to enhance the natural heritage system must be Identified. Given the; 0 Significance of Site 14 and need to connect this feature to the Greenlands System; o Opportunity to create an inter-watershed connector parallel to the railroad; o Need'to maintain water supply to the downstream tributaries; and, 0 Direction to enhance the natural heritage function; the opportunity to connect these features was identified, described in Section 7,1 and illustrated on Figure 13 of the FCSPS(Attachment 1). In order to achieve these objectives, It is anticipated that the corridor be forested in order to provide the ecosystem services in terms of air quality, water quantity control and psychological benefits for the residents. This approach supports the goal of the Official plan"to'create an integrated and continuous system of natural areas"(Section 14.1)and supports the principle of Ecosystem Integrity(Section 3.2). 1.5 PlannIng 'For Sustainable Gornmtinities These recommendations were made eight years ago. In the interval many municipalities have undertaken Integrated Community Sustainability Plans or Environmental Management Plans that establish goals for Environmental, Social/Cultural and Economic Sustainability, The ecosystem services 1, Based on a contributing area of about 22 he and a post development Infiltration of 190 mm/annum, and allowing for 25%leakage to depth (111885_IJuno19-09_fosler creek_peer_revleW.doo) I A t CO M Page 6 prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 that contribute to social and economic sustainability are important and quantifiable. A study undertaken by the Town of Oakville identified an annual environmental benefit of the urban forest to be$2.1 million with a canopy cover of 29%. Various municipalities are seeking to substantially increase canopy cover to benefit from air quality improvements, carbon sequestration, carbon storage, heat island effect mitigation, psychological improvement for residents among many other positive effects for residents. Brantford is undertaking an increase in canopy cover to 40%. The City of Vaughan is targeting 40%justified by the threshold for air quality improvement,water quality improvement and benefits to wildlife habitat. The FCSPS reported that natural cover, including old fields and wetlands, Is close to 20% within Foster Creek, Of that, 9% is forest cover. Brantford estimates the contribution of its street trees to be around 5%therefore if the urban forest both existing and projected is included, 14%forest cover may be obtainable within the Foster Creek Subwatershed post development. Forest cover in York Region and Durham Region (excluding the urban forest) hovers around the 20% mark, more than twice that in the Foster Creek Subwatershed. Even if all of the restoration opportunities identified in the FCSPS on Figure 13 were implemented, the total would still fall below 20%. As a result the community will fail to benefit from the many valuable ecosystem services provided by the forest alone. The recommendation to daylight the tributary north of the railroad and restore the watercourse and a wildlife corridor will help to remedy the shortage In ecosystem services needed by the residents to maintain a healthy community. 'j.6 IS ti ai vri a ry The recommendation of a wildlife corridor that links the three watersheds (Wilmot, Foster, and Graham), enhances connectivity to Site 14 and maintains and 'enhances the ecosystem function of the northern un-named tributary is justified In the context of the Vision for the FCSPS and the goals and principles of the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. This review confirms that there is sufficient merit in terms of enhanced ecosystem function to justify the consequences to the developable envelope In the North Newcastle Neighbourhood. Further, in the context of designing sustainable communities, the existing forest canopy Is less than half of that in York and Durham, and as a consequence, Clarington is not benefiting from the substantial economic and social, as well as environmental outcomes of a more robust natural heritage network, including the urban forest. Restoration efforts should in fact exceed those recommended in the FCSPS in order to achieve thresholds for effective performance of ecosystem services. 2. (1,oiy nient of the Peer ReAmers Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes retained two consultants to provide opinions with respect to the recommendations provided above. (111805_IJune19-09 iosler creeltpeef_revlaW,docj I A ECV M . . . Page 7 � paredo(8loreqUmdofooUDmd Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 2.1 StaRfe: ConsXltirig [td., 2006. Letter addressc,,,d to Carlos �������y` Planner, MuNjciQallitx of ClaYiMghOM at the request of '3[A0oth RUM [}eVel0gonents mid Brookfield Ho00es. The comments provided by Stantec are discussed in the sections identified by the authors as follows. 2.1.1 Eoo\oNicdVVmto[mhedFunotono In general the Gtanteo description of Gubwatemhod Is study gnnanoUy accurate although It exaggerates the extent of the doy|ighting specifically recommended in the FC3PS. We disagree that the vegetation in Polygon 62 is not a wetland. At the time that it was assessed for the FCSPS, there . were hydduuoUo present and the vegetation consisted of more than 50% wetland opoo|oo and by definition that means It Is a wetland and whether It Is anthropogenic Is not relevant. The,Stantec observations of creeks is likely accurate and technically sound and seems to support the Importance of this feature |n contributing to downstream fish habitat. The buried tributary|ocurrently providing this function not Identified in the 2UO1report. Gtanteo further comments that daylighUng the tributary north of the CPR railroad "will not odd significant value to the mdoUng habitat" based solely on fish pooaoyo and further suggests that the quality of downstream habitat could degrade duo to an increase in water temperature and sediment |oad. However,a properly designed natural channel In a post-development scenario should not suffer from an unusual sediment load, and creeks require a certain bnd|nadto remain healthy and viable, The temperature issue can be easily rectified through dense riparian plantings. On Juno 16. 2000. watercress, on indicator ofcold groundwater discharge, was abundant In full sun at the exposed tile drains et Arthur Street and also occurred throughout the Village, In add|Uon, the benefits ofdayUghdng and restoring a natural channel nonnocted to a Dondp|oin include reduced potential for flash flows and runoff velocities that contribute to erosion along the tributary(Brooke 2OQ). Further, air,vegetation, and soil more likely to absorb water-borne pollutants In an open channel as opposed to conveyance in a sewer pipe(City of Redwood 2006). Stanteu correctly identifies the ecological benefits of doyUghUng and associated naturalization of creek side as: , w Wildlife movement between the Footer.and Graham Creek corridors for unspecified wildlife species. » An increase/h the amount of marginal fish habitat/n the watershed, m An Increase i7 the total amount of natural vegetation cover. We note that the connectivity to Wilmot Creek and to Site 14 should be Included in this list, Further, the exponential response of wildlife In terms of potential breeding habitat to the increase in natural cover at this noa|o has not been identified. No conclusion is provided on the intrinsic Importance of these functions nor their value|nan ecosystem services context, AECOM Page 8 prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 2.1.2 Costs and Riienofits The Stantec discussion proceeds to make the case that daylighting the tributary is expensive while falling to place this conclusion into context. We agree with this assessment In that restoration of ecosystem function is often expensive, but needs to be evaluated in terms of the net gain to environmental, social and economic parameters of community planning. Evidence is provided by Stantec from.one American source that seems to suggest that the total cost of restoring the natural watercourse"could easily approach$1,000,000." However, no estimate of the cost of the engineering required to excavate the existing tile drains (it cannot remain in situ), and replace the watercourse with some type of groundwater collection system (foundation drain collector or "third pipe" system) that will maintain flow to the two tributaries south of the railroad. A proposal for an additional by-pass pipe to take water from upstream of Arthur Street around the stormwater management facilities, discharging downstream is mentioned which may or may not be a separate system with additional costs. We are unaware if there is a report available that'details how the development will achieve these engineering requirements, but this will be an expensive undertaking with many costs that overlap with, and may exceed, that of daylighting. It is our experience that when faced with an option to bio-engineer a solution (e.g., natural channel design), as opposed to hard engineering (pipes that will require future maintenance), the costs of bioengineering are comparatively low. In-additlon, the proposed piping project (including routing water from Arthur Street around the SWMP) will have a greater length (following roadways and not topography) and both projects will be undertaken in sloppy soils with a high water table, There will be a greater cost to construct in these saturated soils with corresponding dewatering Issues. A solution that requires less excavation with less interference with groundwater conditions reduces costs. Based on advice from clients who have undertaken natural channel design, estimates for restoration of the northern connector to Arthur Street(Figure 13) range between $1,400 to$2,000 a metre which compares well with Stantec's estimate of $1,600, By our calculation, the total costs translate approximately to $700k to $1,000k based on our experience, or$800k according to Stantec. These estimates are for sophisticated natural channel designs that handle considerable flow. In the case of this project,the flows are low, therefore intensive design and engineering will not be required. This is more of a grading and planting project and therefore the costs are highly unlikely to escalate to seven figures. With respect to the costs associated with the design, and construction of a piped alterative, we are unable to develop an accurate estimate without first obtaining additional information regarding the proposed minor and major drainage systems that would convey the external flows to the downstream reaches of the Foster Creek tributary (i.e., south of the CPR tracks). We believe that a detailed estimate that reflects these costs of a piped alterative should be provided by the developer prior to rejecting the recommendation to daylight the tributary based simply on the notion that it would be prohibitively costly. Stantec also estimates that 10 ha within the North Village site would be lost which appears to be the total of all of the corridor, daylighting and the interior restoration potential shown in green. This figure (11'1885 I,June19-09_foster creeR peer_revievtdoa) I A E CQ M Page s prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 is high as the interior polygon is not part of the recommended Greenlands System, but rather constitutes a restoration opportunity. In extrapolating the costs of the restoration,,no mention is made of the potential to charge more for houses that back on to greenspace, or for houses in neighbourhoods well serviced by natural areas. Natural England's Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (2008) recommends that each home,. at a minimum, should be within 300 m of an accessible natural green space of at least two hectares (ha). In addition, each home should also have access to: 0 At least one accessible 20 ha site within two km; o At least one accessible 100 ha site within five km; o At least one accessible 500 ha site within 10 km; m Natural England also recommends that at least two ha of accessible natural green space be provided for every 1000 population.; and in doing so the value of the properties are enhanced and the communities benefit from the ecosystem services provided by the natural areas. Stantec acknowledges that these services are difficult to calculate; nevertheless they are real and should not be dismissed. Stantec goes on to conclude that the "potential benefits—will not result in not [sic) major impacts on the ecology of the subwatershed"without evaluating what those impacts might be. 2.1,3 Alternative Approaches We do not fully agree that the costs are as high as suggested and that the benefits are as low as stated by Stantec. However, there are many options In ecosystem design to achieve the desired outcome, in this case,the desired outcomes include: - The east-west wildlife corridor from Wilmot Creek to Graham Creek, - Connectivity with Site 14, Maintenance of ecosystem function for the buried tributaries and - A contribution to the increase in forest cover within the Foster Creek Subwatershed to recover lost ecosystem services. Stantec proposes other alternative approaches to ecological enhancements: 1. Alternate proposal to wildlife corridor between Foster and Graham Creek corridors, 2. Increase amount of marginal fish habitat in the watershed. 3, Increase the total amount of natural vegetation cover (by replacing most of 10 ha naturalized areas that would be in North Village Neighbourhood Plan (under FCSPS) with 10 ha elsewhere). It is not clear whether these.are proposed to be undertaken in concert, or whether they are mutually exclusive. (111885_I�une19-O9 luster creek_pzer_review.doo} I AECOM Page 10 prepared at the request of counsel Mc Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 In an effort to evaluate these proposals we have prepared a matrix that provides comment on their ability to satisfy the desired outcomes(Table 1)1 Table 1 Analysis of Alternative Proposals(Stantec) 0,' !T t Lam` N, i � � I � � i 4 t. I l • � 5 * a i.lb.ds; 9 " c kt, r.2f- 's 4 The east-west wildlife- Reduce to 30 m;barriers to Not applicable - - 1 he of relatively natural habitat - corridor from Wilmot movement remain. Creek to Graham Needs to be extended to Wilmot Creek Creek however this Is outside of the Village Neighbourhood. Connectivity with Site No connectivity Not applicable No 14 Maintenance of No Water contribution expected to Not applicable ecosystem function be maintained;thermal regime for the buried cool tributaries Increase In forest Marginal Marginal? Enhance core natural areas and cover riparian habitat along main branch by 9 he but trees are not stipulated. Additional Comment The resulting narrow corridor All of these actions appear to Suggested Isolation is will concentrate wildlife closer to be stewardship Initiatives and exaggerated as wildlife the rail corridor with expected occur on other owners underpasses and fencing can wildlife fatalities and rail noise properties. Carp exclusion is improve permeability. Interference however no very expensive and not Riparian habitat along the main documentation of the recommended. branch may be achieved through significance of this effect is other planning Initiatives. Strategic available. Need to confirm that addition of 9 he to core areas will railroad does not require a contribute important benefits but larger berm. ownership is an issue. A review of the table suggests that if all of these Initiatives were undertaken, that a minimum of wildlife movement would be preserved across the watersheds,water would continue to flow in the tributaries,and natural cover might be increased with the cooperation of non-participating landowners. The disadvantage is that connectivity would not be enhanced for Site 14, the potential to increase breeding habitat for area sensitive forest birds will be lost, the benefits of the rehabilitation of a natural watercourse will not be realized and recovery of threshold ecosystem services for the residents will not be addressed. Most of the stewardship actions suggested occur outside of the North Village Neighbourhood which will require creative implementation plans to ensure that they occur and the timing of the projects relative to the schedule for development could be an issue. A recurring theme that implies that the wildlife community is urban tolerant and therefore does not require management Is erroneous. The wildlife community is not all urban tolerant (e.g., Black-and- white Warbler) and it is for these more sensitive species that ecosystem design has more to offer. Typical planning for natural heritage systems has done little to take into account the management of urban tolerant wildlife communities, To say that they are urban tolerant Is to say that they forage in the garbage cans and feast at feeders. More thought needs to go in to what constitutes sufficient natural area for healthy wildlife populations that are self limiting, and that can support the predators required to create sustainable natural communities. (N1805 IJune1&09 foster creek_paer feVleW.doc) I AE�OI V I ` Page 11 prepared o[the request ofcounsel Mr,Dennis Hefferen June m.moo 2.2 L,GL [i[nftetl, 2008. [ete[ acid rc,.ssSd to Carlos S8llizar, PlaAnei-, Muni( ipa}itv of Glaring-ton at the reqHost of Smooth R!VD DeVolc)prMeDts and Bn0okfie|ci Fl{xrHms,. The LGL letter references thn Stanteo letter then proceeds to provide additional discussion on the same themes. 2.2.1 An|nna| Convmymnum LQL � �oo�on in stating that defining concepts of landscape ecology that Include corridors, core hobbotuonnadomandUnkagao 'impheo@o/enysizoonYona0mtexeatvaribnoowthhhoxowilloot qualify as a p/oduotivalsoohe/na6/u feature" and that "uxban/exuohan animals cannot and do not successfully enlist the services ofanbhxopogomtfeatures" . The reason for defining these terms ioto enlighten the reader with mopnut to how they are used in this report. The science of landscape ecology is-relatively young' and terms are defined differently by different authors. We totally agree that neither of these premises are accurate, and they are not at all Intended by this report, |tisironic that LQL goes untocriticize the FCGPG for lack of detailed data, then goes untoprovide ambiguous data with no opooioa. no dates(although it appears that data were all collected outside of breeding dates according to the statement that the area was visited July to December 2007 and without acceptable prot000|o). The fact that a wide variety of species were recorded |o not otvariance with the FOQPG. The author again evaluates these species In the context of what they are able to tolerate, rather than what constitutes appropriate hobihyt, and how these animals can be expected to be managed Into the future on a landscape with so little cover, where even with the urban forest, the ' cover ia less than o third of recommended thresholds. It Is not clear how the numbers of opooioo mnon]od from portions of the watershed that are not ' specified, aooiobo In the recommendation for the need for a corridor. The Subwatenahod study had sufficient information for this and included ecosystem function well beyond simple lists of species, The suggestion that the wildlife corridor area should be separate from human/pet used areas is appropriate, but that both could be present (wildlife south, people north) In overall 60 to 100 m wide umg. We also agioo that mad omuoinga are an issue however underpasses.and wildlife funnel fencing as mentioned earlier Would in large part oddnmo this issue. Although L8L recommends ' meadows adjacent to roads they are not needed If underpasses and wildlife fencing are implemented. We disagree with LGL in recommending the planting of mainly conifers, especially as VVhUa Spruce and Rod Cedar are not often found naturally in the region. The rationale is not provided. A mix of native species,shrubs and trees native to area iopreferred. ' 2.2.2 Quy|i8htin0 Buried Tributary LQL |ncnnact|ysuggests that Gbsnteu implies there might only ba negative Impacts bowatercourse (temperature increase and sediment |oad), but neglects to mention that Gtunteo more strongly mentions the pcdunUe| benefits, It Is true that the oubwatenohed study does not clearly mention AcCA/M Page 12 prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 aquatic benefits of daylighting. It may well be that most daylighting projects are founded on Improvements to aquatic habitat, but this one is focused on many other ecosystem functions, of which aquatic habitat is only one. AECOM does not understand why LGL considers that increasing the contribution of nutrients to downstream fish habitat, improving water chemistry, maintaining the thermal regime through maintenance of groundwater infiltration, riparian plantings and attenuation of storm flows "provides no apparent fisheries benefits and could be detrimental in the long run to down-gradient conditions". LGL notes that there is potential for "foreign substances [to be] washed Into the watercourse and general warming of groundwater"_both of which can be mitigated. AECOM does not agree that benefits are limited to fish habitat, nor that daylighting the tributary will have a deleterious effect on downstream conditions. The issue of piped groundwater Is dealt with in Section 2.1.2 above. The plan to create corridors and wildlife linkages is not based on any one attribute. Providing a relatively wide corridor that can be shared with residents is a good way to keep the wildlife off of the streets, although we recognize that crossings are inevitable. For that reason, during the development process consultants for the development industry can be expected to make reasonable recommendations to mitigate for road kill and road safety issues in the form of state-of-the-art wildlife underpasses and fencing. A considerable body of science is devoted to increasing the permeability of the landscape for wildlife of all descriptions. The Greenlands System was recommended based on an ecosystem approach that considered the need for many species of wildlife, as well as the maintenance of other ecosystem services. It is not wildlife mismanagement. 2.2.3 North Village Neighbourhood: Neighbourhood Plan (2008) The development plan proposes to locate two stormwater management blocks north of the railroad .alignment. LGL suggests that there will be a setback from the CPR lands of 20 to 25 m but does not provide a rationale for the functionality of this minimal setback. This suggestion is not reflected in the May 2009 drawing,which shows the constructed ponds immediately adjacent to the property line with no provision fora terrestrial wildlife corridor, in this configuration, the ponds will provide little to no cover for wildlife passage, falls to increase natural cover the subwatershed through the creation of a wide wildlife corridor and there is no indication of how water will be delivered to the two downstream catchments. The current plan does not satisfy the objectives or recommendations of the FCSPS. It appears that LGL did not have the current stormwater plan on which to base comments and therefore they are not relevant. AECOM (ill 889 IJunel9-09 foster_creek_peer_revlewdo) Page 13 prepared at the request of counsel Mr.Dennis Hefferen June 19,2009 3N Co. indlu ion After a careful review by a team of senior and intermediate biologists, engineers and senior hydrogeologist,AECOM confirms that the recommendations contained within the FCSPS with respect to landscape connectivity and a preferred treatment of daylighting the buried tributary are justified in the context of the Vision for the Foster Creek Subwatershed. However, there is always more than one solution to improve ecosystem function and Stantec offered some suggestions that are worth considering. At issue is the fact that the key outcomes have not been achieved by their recommended alternative enhancements. The Consultant for the development community should reconsider appropriate methods to achieve the following outcomes: 4 Create an enhanced east-west wildlife corridor from Wilmot Creek to Graham Creek to facilitate wildlife and human movement, ® Enhance connectivity with Site 14, o Enhance ecosystem function for both buried tributaries and the downstream corridors; and, Increase forest cover within the Foster Creek Subwatershed to recover lost ecosystem services based on a defensible rationale. Note that the reforestation of all of the restoration opportunities identified in Figure 13 constitutes only 4% of the watershed. The restoration and maintenance of wide corridors will not only contribute to the forest cover, they will enhance habitat for area sensitive species, increase connectivity with Site 14, and increase the thermal regulation for the buried tributaries. If these outcomes can be achieved in another way the consultants should be encouraged to submit an alternative,design for consideration of the Conservation Authority and the Municipality, Most of the alternatives offered occur outside of the North Village Neighbourhood lands and will require commitments from the Municipality, non-participating landowners and the developer of the North Village Neighbourhood who would contribute funds to buying lands near the core natural areas as compensation for not following Greenlands System. These are significant commitments when compared to finding a solution within the North Village Neighbourhood lands,where the restoration of ecosystem services would benefit that emerging community and complement the existing Town of Newcastle. Regarding the costs for daylighting the tributary, AECOM and Stantec are more or less in agreement that $1600 a metre is reasonable. This significance of this cost cannot be evaluated out of the context of servicing and maintaining ecosystem function across the block. There is no comparison of the cost to engineer the solution,which is expected to exceed that of the naturalization. (117885_IJunet&09_fosler Creek_peer_revleW.doc) AECOM Page 14 Mr.Den n(s Hefferen prepared at the request of counsel June 19,2009 In conclusion, it is our hope that we have responded to your concerns to the best of our ability with the documentation available to us at this time. Please call me to discuss further, Thank you for asking us to provide this service to the Municipality. Sincerely, AECOM Canada Ltd. Dale Leadbeater, B.Sc., B.Ed. Senior Biologist dale,Leadbeater @aecom.com RLfc%ro,riror, Brooke R. Smith,2007, Assessing the Feasibility of Creek Daylighting in San Franciso, Part 1:A synthesis of Lessons Learned from Existing Urban Daylighting Projects City of Redwood, California,General Plan—Conservation Element Environment Canada,2004, How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern(Second Edition) (1'n885_IJune79-09_los(er_creek_peer reVleW,doo) AECOM, Attachment 1 Figure 13. The Greenlands System(Foster Creek Subwatershed Planning Study, 2001) ;�;� �}l t r���li r t �+3` 7,II4t fi \ s~4 !x >t 3 1 '4 ad 7 •-s-3'} }x •"'t 1( -1 K ttr til 3fvi l,ur �y����r ; �4}.r45� w ��lit i +$t ��vp >•.'� ",q.3 Sdif+i+rt��P�f � � a � ,�{� v kkw 4 sgi t , ral t Yea tt v.. fi ?trr�frf' ® 1. iti t1 t 1�f' i p i ty� ;Wj zj trt � r �1- t, �s� ; r '.�t 'a V. it f )u , '.� 1•F � 5 ���} ��}ia i� �1 � �` + r���E' '' •��+ t '�r � �'7( S ha"? t �S t*tfp E 3hsej - _ f'^r{t -.��r�.• � t 3 .:"= ,?� r-�a � �1�4 t 4s f`;� k# � �} t t c3- tf ti- l f ,3 r} �'t'i t �,�vfh't+= i � l�tl.'f �xji<5{ yi1� r• C 4t�{,���f(s,t"�,x, , -''t'{./1 r r ..l r 1+„�I,nyrt I i t},r t` '' 4'. 1}} ,t,1 trU�t µ, d 34 4 }y4•rs{,'��.i.i t.yd j r.- i•. (�3 !*1 i f2 t c i i r S ` 14r t F 9 t (1+ r� t 2 t4 W,$ I n Aik _R tS�l € r jr ifia+ g•�' 4T��`,G/i +1 �# i +� t 1P�{e4� � mt511 , + :, ld{M1L pl i t r ra � � �. t Z• . yla t, i ygYt t rtt�,t Sae t153v ,v f `Fir duly "�.+i i d-L�j E t, •J' 3 t it,� ??" . AA tr` s.� ._ tjj,t L a •41.,>G �i$ �4 �-'rC lr.? x3 /} ,'!•fif)J'� '�� �� 6 7ft Y 9. 9'�YS i+'�W inn of� ,,tt t[.°'� x.<4}tY i+j 4i X541.1 r\ -, G�Yb'•„+ t3t`dtf• 1n�y> St }?CI{ t t ' i #-..t'4 Sj t Y #I 3{1 Iit4 r)\tt'`i PAY- S tExrrt ss€ 'a j'r 1 \ xy 4"rt3-i• + ri r5t fx {'1 ;) ef Jf r,p �`,t 1� � ,arzs� a a t, + 1 Y r ,.ti s ai9 'c 1 l'. t l f `�lv. � f cCj:T 1 t J •. .• 4`k r 4 JI �tS v tiv�3{'}.+ aj ,tf+�, �r t4 $G�' V.� �itl �tl � rtt/(' �� � $� 4{ i 1 4l 4 �i�.sa,4� t x•<'� f � n 1 s 1 1 'J i 4v ra�tr Y>, F r _ ; _R.�JsI+�� ��� � �1�� ��r s p t� 1� a���ti' ,t �It t F'�i `�'��41 �t Stt s••t s (.`+Y 16t31f j :a � a1i1 f� 1Ftt tj'r+r r�Ji#lr '1 i ar n i ktY a k4r grl �t5 Q-; t1. `VS h "+�'�, r �•f ii`F�' S N t, + tt v t3aa }-i 1t i INS F i{rtl�,Nt sef` .ln�v� �v r- rer'S Fl. rt+fC� r x S �' 1s W 3 'J� ix c3v d fi1�j 'r a 4t"tt t `t•t?tri f/� V ..f >1l f#� t"M i`k $ � 3 1• y, y a i 1'° 1'+ 3 �, fi tt<d Y11,11�..x EF .1 r y, x 3�iAS.\t3 C'�{F Y�.�{t?=k �`t `+,r• E q -{i 3 i 2 ce 4 P� r31 ags i 1.jr p,�r3 ��qik� M 7P 3 tii, t-ja 4v�t- rjsP N'(, `'t vnttei51�'ltttcj r `}t. yl'y'�.. r t;T ti ld 7S. 4'' i ev# ,�r s-a 1 ii7 t -37( 4 i 'll nrr} x F- IE��{ ' t to u at t(q� a i.At J -yMt4�qi �4 �-•��'J of > r V. � � sie dal ' X - # t f exdrf r( rle} `a'ff i y +jl ¢l ,1 r�ij 4 y k 5' 4 ii"+ `, ti �y•t"` V} `� '` :U A � i� t (. t;.7 e S 57', S +,\r 1✓ � '���,#t Y si3 �L �K ' 3 1M1 T-1 /`�fa, ld Y(YArl � t 1><� a ar � t xir .J.} @� 'Y� Pti•-�+ $ F � Ia3.121t �qtr iv�r+ Ft v§ �"1�z r 5u.6 v 1 1„h 4+.�j97r „ t #t 3 j lye th "/ tt n rs 4 i 3 ,�4.l�.vr �S��;tj14 iyt i�'91�� i ..i Y e +rY�f ti c f� �nP��•'t�,t vd'' t � -�Sl .,� �$r 3 Fy4;lt{Po' >SaF�. t'i/t i' •J,�`I tp� �.r.iela f��J.t�#+/wtk ,r4l�i �1°�S t� ,}°;, het, Ff' .i 4 y 1. � >,t 4 3 f ,=,e �-5 M Yfikii'•n3�xare�,}tt / r t ;. bs t. wF] k +3� � 1 eSri vY r➢f k� r-'%t5�v r +t /t� o t 11 �'/. {11 k �s ¢, d 1 ?(V{ �' •d'id T'y ih =\ q4r� (111885 IJune19-O9 taller creek peer ovtevtdw) , i Addendum to PSD-067-09 i Unfinished Business • Leading the way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, September 14, 2009 �e5d�u�-'��►'� P� �t`'��a� . Report#: Addendum 1 toi File#'s: COPA 2005-008, By-law #: PSD-067-09 PLN 31.5.10, ZBA 2005-042, ZBA 2005-043, S-C 2005-0003 and S-C 2005-0004 Subject: STATUS REPORT: APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY SMOOTH RUNS DEVELOPMENTS INC. (METRUS DEVELOPMENTS INC.) BROOKFIELD HOMES (ONTARIO) LIMITED ON APPLICATIONS IN THE VILLAGE NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD IN NEWCASTLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Addendum 1 to:report PSD-067-09 be received; 2. THAT report PSD-067-09 be tabled until the October 19th meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee; and 3. THAT all interested :parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. b �IIC6�� i1�,-J Submitted by: Reviewed y: 6a-vikH. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Plonning Services Chief Administrative Officer DJC 10 September 2009 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 REPORT NO.: Addendum to PSD-067-09 PAGE 2 1. At the meeting held on June 29, 2009, Council tabled report PSD-067-09 to September 14, 2009. The report recommended that the Municipality take the position that the Neighbourhood Design Plan and the related development applications must incorporate "a restored, naturalized northerly tributary of the Foster Creek within the Newcastle Village North Neighbourhood". 2. Staff of the Municipality and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority subsequently met with the Smooth Run Developments Inc. and Brookfield Homes Limited to clarify the possibilities for day-lighting and incorporating a naturalized and restored tributary into the subdivision plan. It is my understanding that the developer's engineers are reviewing this matter. 3. At the same meeting, we were advised that the priority for the Metrus Developments (Smooth Run) was the completion and approval of their Brookhill plan of subdivision in Bowmanville. Subsequently, the focus of the efforts on behalf of Metrus Developments has been on resolving the outstanding issues related to the Bowmanville subdivision application, including the external services and the joint development arrangements with other developers in the neighbourhood. As a result no further meetings have been held with respect to the Village North project. 4. The Ontario Municipal Board held a pre-hearing conference on the Village North applications on August 4, 2009. The Board has set a timetable for the appeals of the Village North development proposals as follows: • Pre-Hearing Conference on October 30,2009 • Hearing commencing February 5, 2010 5. In recognition of the efforts to prioritize the Bowmanville development applications, it is recommended that report PSD-067-09 be further tabled until to the October 19th meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee. This recommendation is supported by the developers. List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Bryce Jordan, Sernas Associates Jerry Reffosco Smooth Run Developments Joanne Raymond Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited Steve Holliday Hugh Ailin Doug Rombough Steve Wilson Cory Geddes Robert Macdonald Robert Fassen Helen Jones Rev. Robert Brouwer Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Robert Craunstown. Addendum 2 to PSD-067-09 Unfinished Business Leadiag the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: COUNCIL Date: Monday, January 11, 2010 Report M Addendum 2 to File#'s: COPA 2005-008, By-law M PSD-067-09 PLN 31.5.10, ZBA 2005-042, ZBA 2005-043, S-C 2005-0003 and S-C 2005-0004 Subject: STATUS REPORT: APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY SMOOTH RUN.DEVELOPMENTS INC. (METRUS DEVELOPMENTS INC.) BROOKFIELD HOMES (ONTARIO) LIMITED ON APPLICATIONS IN THE VILLAGE NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD IN NEWCASTLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: 1. THAT Addendum 2 to report PSD-067-09 be received; 2. THAT Report PSD-067-09 be tabled until the April 12, 2010 meeting of Council; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: a David .2Cm*- ro P, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer CP/df 6 January 2010 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 ADDENUM 2 TO REPORT NO.: PSD-067-09 PAGE 2 1. At the meeting held on June 29, 2009, Council tabled report PSD-067-09 to September 14, 2009. The report recommended that the Municipality take the position that the Neighbourhood Design Plan and the related development applications must incorporate a restored, naturalized northerly tributary of the Foster Creek within the Newcastle Village North Neighbourhood". An Addendum report was presented to Committee on September 14 and tabled to October 26 and subsequently further tabled until to the first Council meeting of 2010. 2. In the fall of 2009 the applicant's presented staff a concept that proposed to relocate and daylight a portion of the northern tributary. The concept would continue to pipe the tributary from the point it crosses Arthur Street southerly along the west boundary of Arthur Street to the vicinity of the southern tributary. From this point the northern tributary would be daylighted in an east—west direction to the mid-point of the property where it then runs south to the railway. 3. This concept has not been formalized and an official revision has not been submitted at this time. However, discussions with Metrus Developments confirmed that their priority remains obtaining Final Approval and registration of their subdivision application in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville. They would like municipal staff to focus efforts on this matter prior to dealing with Village North applications. The plan of subdivision in the Brookhill Neighbourhood was presented to the Ontario. Municipal Board on December 2, 2009 at a settlement hearing and draft approved subject to conditions. 4. The Ontario Municipal Board has presently schedule hearing dates for appeals to the North Newcastle Village applications as follows: . Progress report Pre-hearing April 16, 2010 • Hearing May 10 -14, 2010 6. It is recommended that report PSD-067-09 be further tabled until to the Council meeting of April 12, 2010. Staff Contact: Carlo Pellarin List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Doug and Bridgette Rombough Joanne Raymond Rev. Robert Brouwer Mark Veneziano Steve Holliday Rob Franssen Hugh Allin Jason Gibson Anthony Jones Steve Wilson Helen Hudolin Smooth Run Developments Inc. Heather Dowing Brookfield Homes Ontario limited Patricia Simiele Roslyn Houser Robert MacDonald Bryce Jordan Cory Geddes Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Jerry Reffosco Addendum 3 to PSD-067-09 Unfinished Business Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: July 5, 2010 Resolution #: d fQ(4 /0 By-law#: N/A Report#: Addendum 3 to File #'s: COPA 2005-008 PSD-067-09 PLN 31.5.10, ZBA 2005-042, ZBA 2005-043, S-C 2005-0003 and S-C 2005-0004 Subject: STATUS REPORT: APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY SMOOTH RUN DEVELOPMENTS INC. (METRUS DEVELOPMENTS INC.) AND BROOKFIELD HOMES (ONTARIO) LIMITED ON APPLICATIONS IN THE VILLAGE NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD IN NEWCASTLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Addendum 3 to Report PSD-067-09 be received; 2. THAT Addendum 3 to Report PSD-067-09 be tabled until the first full meeting of Council, following the municipal election, to allow staff to continue to work with the applicants to finalize the outstanding issues once the required supporting documentation is received, including preparation of a recommendation on the Official Plan Amendment, Draft Plans of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendments; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in the Addendum 3 to Report to PSD-067-09 and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. ' c Submitted b#AXing Reviewed m , FCSLA, RPP Franklin Wu, irector of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer C P/df 29 June 2010 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 EMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 ADDENDUM 3 TO: REPORT PSD-067-09 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 At a meeting held on June 29, 2009, Council tabled report PSD-067-09 to September 14, 2009. The report recommended that the Municipality take the position that the Neighbourhood Design Plan for the North Newcastle Village neighbourhood and the related development applications must incorporate "a restored, naturalized northerly tributary of the Foster Creek within the Newcastle Village North Neighbourhood". An Addendum report was presented to Committee on September 14 and tabled to October 26, In October, it was further tabled to the first Council meeting of 2010. In January the Report was tabled to April 12, 2010. In April, Council tabled the report to July 12, 2010. At that time the solicitors for both parties had a conference call with the OMB and re- scheduled a pre-hearing conference for Friday September 17, 2010. 1.2 In the fall of 2009 the applicants presented staff with a concept that proposed to relocate and daylight a portion of the northern tributary. The concept would continue to .pipe the tributary from the point it crosses Arthur Street, southerly along the west boundary of Arthur Street to the vicinity of the southern tributary. From this point, the northern tributary would be daylighted in an east-west open channel to the mid-point of the property where it then runs south, still in an open channel, to the railway outletting at existing culverts under the CPR. 1.3 This concept was formalized in a revised plan which was received on Friday May 28, 2010 and circulated to various agencies on Tuesday June 1. 1.4 Discussions with staff from Metrus, Smooth Run Developments,,confirmed that their priority remains obtaining Final approval and registration of their subdivision application in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville, and both Metrus and the Municipality's staff have been working to this end. 2.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 2.1 This latest submission represents the fifth subdivision submission since applications were originally filed. The following charts summarize the May 2009 and the revised May 2010 submissions for Smooth Run Developments (S-C-2005-003) and Brookfield Homes (S-C-2005-004). LAND AREA ha S C-2005-003 S-C=2005-004 t t '12005-003 S C 2005=004 Residential including Part 25.51 10.58 20.62 10.55 Lots School 2.35 N/A 2.4 N/A Park and walkway 3.0 0.56 3.95 0.58 Stormwater Management 7.37 N/A 6.41 N/A Open Space N/A N/A 2.55 N/A Possible Reservoir 2.69 N/A 2.17 N/A Future Development 20.04 18.98 22.85 18.98 Roads, Road Widenings and 12.9 4.74 12.91 4.75 Reserves TOTAL 1 73.86 1 34.86 73.86 1 34.68 ADDENDUM 3 TO: REPORT PSD-067-09 PAGE 3 :tl� s�'.o� 0 N( 51 RESIDENTIAL UNITS including Part Lots and Blocks M: etres of frontage) 9.8 Link Lots 216 62 136 74 11.6 Single 139 56 186 72 12.8 Single 125 N/A N/A N/A 13.1 Sin le N/A 46 82 48 13.4 Single 36 14 N/A N/A 15.0 Single 4 4 '50 4 18.0 Single N/A N/A 28 N/A 9.8 Cap-End Semi-detached 107 31 N/A N/A Street Townhouse Units 1 10 80 1 214 76 TOTAL 737 293 696 274 2.2 As can be seen the unit mix has changed with the revised submissions as has the land area distribution with the introduction'of the new Open Space Block which has resulted from the relocation of the west stormwater management pond. The applicant has not submitted a revised Neighbourhood Design Plan (NDP) consistent with the revised proposed draft plans of subdivision. Based on the policies of the Official Plan a NDP is required for the North Newcastle Neighbourhood prior to approval of applications for draft plan approval. 3.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 3.1 At this time comments remain outstanding from a number of the circulated agencies including; the Region of Durham Works and Planning Departments, and St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway. 3.2 Engineering Services staff has completed their initial review of the revised proposal and advised that the following studies or information are required to review the revised submission: • a revised Transportation Study must be submitted which reflects the current neighbourhood plan; • a revised Functional Servicing Plan is required; • a revised on-street parking plan is required; and • a Stormwater Management Implementation Report providing for the sequential construction of the stormwater management works necessary for the watershed and addressing the impacts of developing this plan of subdivision in the absence of the balance of the watershed. 3.3 Similar to Engineering Service, GRCA staff advised that the following documents are required to complete the review of the revised proposals: ADDENDUM 3 TO: REPORT PSD-067-09 PAGE 4 • a geomorphic assessment and restoration design illustrating that the block is appropriately sized to accommodate a channel designed to natural channel specifications; and • a revised Functional Servicing Report, 4.0 STAFF COMMENTS 4.1 Earlier this year when the pre-hearing was re-scheduled for September 17, 2010, it was envisioned that revised submissions and supporting documentation would be forthcoming shortly. As a result of soil issues resulting from an investigation completed earlier this year, a re-design of the stormwater management pond location was necessary. This delayed the revised submission to the end of May. 4.2 One of staff's key concerns outlined in PSD-067-09 related to daylighting the northerly tributary on the Smooth Run lands as recommended in the Foster Creek Subwatershed Study. The watercourse is currently piped/tile drained from where it enters the property on the west side of Arthur Street to just north of the CPR line. The revised application contains a proposed daylighting channel as described in Section 1.2 of the report. Clarington Planning and Engineering staff together with staff from the GRCA generally concur that the proposed channel identified as Block 436, satisfies the intent of the daylighting requirement for the northerly tributary as contained in the original recommendation of report PSD-067-09. However, the supporting documentation and details on the design of the channel and the width of the block has not been presented for review by Clarington or GRCA staff. 4.3 The revised plans have significantly changed the unit mix for the development. The impacts of the proposed revisions to the unit mix and design have not been thoroughly reviewed and discussed in detail with the applicants. In consideration of the additional information required, the number of issues currently outstanding, staff commitments over the next three months including the preparation for and attendance at a 3 week OMB hearing on a different matter in September and Council's meeting schedule, preparing a recommendation report to approve the various applications prior to the September 17 pre-hearing is not feasible. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 It is recommended that staff continue to work with the applicants to finalize the outstanding issues once the required supporting documentation is received, including preparation of a recommendation on the official plan amendment, draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-law amendments, and that PSD-067-09 be tabled until the first full meeting of Council, following the municipal election, to allow this to happen. Staff Contact: Carlo Pellarin ADDENDUM 3 TO: REPORT PSD-067-09 PAGE 5 List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Smooth Run Developments Inc. Brookfield Homes Ontario Limited Roslyn Houser, Goodmans Bryce Jordan, Sernas Associates Doug and Bridgette Rombough Rev, Robert Brouwer Steve Holliday Hugh Allin Anthony Jones Helen Judolin Heather Dowing Patricia Simiele Robert MacDonald Cory Geddes . Jerry Reffosco Joanne Raymond Mark Veneziano Rob Franssen Jason Gibson Steve Wilson Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Attachment 3 To Report PSD-034-12 1 UNIT YIELD I ❑ 1-1 I j Low Density� tot al -----------CO,N4SSIbNROA93---1------------------- L--L Uhl units 7 _ +.Single Octacheld 19.Dm 3$ 1 -- +Single Detached 15.Om 36 -i-� F� O Single Detached 13.1m ES2 ■Single Detached 11.6m 295 x Semi-Det.19.6. 76 n I Ids i K Single Det.9.8.Linked) 146 {6 / Subtotal 739 31 I / j Medium Density 0 7.6m Cap End TH's 147 6.6m Reverse TH's 34 I o Med Dens Blocks®60uph 97 I � I Subtotal 278 I I I Total Units tot? I � i I / FUTURE RE.ALIGNMENT SUll TO FA 4 FUTURE I IEVELOPMENT P$O RJECT TO FEARVOIR J LEGEND / I I RESIDENTIAL ----1 1B.am SINGLE DETACHED - } 15.am SINCIEDETACHED ----� + I ii! 0 0 0° a .. .c.. .•°° °o - - 0 3.1m SINGLE DEFAMED -----1----� 1 _ ° •• e� 11.6.SINGLE DETACHED 196 SEMI-0ETACHED I I e I � 9.Bm SINGLE DETACHED NKED) .I�., ••I. tl I.. III( •II ° I 0 1.6m CAP END TOWNHOUSES .• — 6.61 ROME TOWNHOUSES I 141 •• II kk ME%ESDTIIUNM G RESIDENCE aph -- 1 • • °I°IqN°lol— IOI'N Mlo PI I%MI° °I°I%°FPI° 1 I ��_ _ � PUBLIC SPACES vd -_ I � PUBLIC ELEMENTARY --- O •• — SCHOOL F-- © © PARRS o f O - SWM MANAGEMENT FACILITY --_..Z -- OPEN SPACE ---� - o /� OO -= ROAD NETWORK a / _ I ' - TYPE'A'ARTERIAL Q _ 1 ® TYPE-8-ARTERIAL I 1 ••••••• a • I•I _ o •••• 1 = NTURE RE-ALIGNMENT f ----- TYPE'C'ART. PROPOSED COLLECTORS s -i y I 1 + • PROPOSED LOCAL ROADS 1 a ° ----� II • d I' '.4 'l. ; _ '!.,• .'11 • - ' .•. o NOISE FENS G p. ° ° I PEDESTRIAN NETWORK - R - PROPOSED LURE LANE N ; ° !. i ...f .I.. II Ir 1 a •••.•• PROPOSED SIDEWALKS s II ') I , I '••.'°•• PROPOSED TRAILS ® ' PEDESTRIAN NODES RESERVOIR -` I ii _ L����y• j � POTENTIAL RESERVOIR ° moons NEIGHBOURHOOD EOUNDARY rte` �. .. _ I / ______�______________._. roved App for the purposes of a ln9 an appllcotion for a plan of sabdlvaian under Section 51 of the Plannln9 Act. T 7 NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN North Village Neighbourhood D43,B a1xE-a PLATE 13 Rm a• Attachment 4 To Report PSD-034-12 II I RE\........ .........,mow. S-C-2005-003 CART OF Lors 27 & 2e _!-———————-- J— AcRicuwRAC CONCESSION 2 1 .—J -------_ L------------- ---J- _ s1R_OhB� _ MUNICIPALITY OF — -- CLARINGTON _ t II J� I I FORMERLY VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE) REGN)NA. MUNICPAITY OF DURHAM �p FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ') ( BLOCK 426 (21.10 ho-52.1 J I( l I--- sam, Lwm 1 i I =TH SUN 4 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ! :'pimm 9LOCH 9csmaa-& __—————— ——umuu o a 1o°IXO�twho nm.c��� 0 0 ••• r.o o svA fAd1r u 1 wa,t'A' 4 ----a=^•_3i(t 1»waw i _ _ _I_—��, 1I I , E. _ � r 0 •� • O O O Y I.Mr w III - `��" •z I; II av o-y t o at I �, - I„ gip• •�-ll..�.. _ I ,_ .... .,w y i --1�I = I I = IIr�II a�� r..°J� t�a°�I �! Ir�t �:— * >tr >a•+• �: I I! r -- st`ri";t nq r i E C - r�trt'E' -Sdee H.,0 0 .o . Stravt'F' 9 —{I� - � �o as €I`• i ,8» ,«H. .h •H i% I ! �.ITIT IT j I I — T1�L1J L J _ ` (soz h.-flo a<) L— u MEN u,u�..�?,w• w ,} .p ,(, T � I'm',. • L 7m. ,} ,,, ,�«e.(,TT �&i 9.. ,p ,} i}�,�,:.. «' w`�r •�,L,°• °u°,»>o,°o ! sxa urHAauFHr FAW1Y (289 h. 9.8 ) ••2.n �' WCANi III mafI o°ai! I . I tl n���a. �o� •ajja� male- »a!"�� ° �� 1 S1CeeLC I0� > __________ w w, w n l_____— (255 ho e.3.G) . : , O�wtb CxaR'Ah•—,;glib tuinCA1E PAPotEi1E/DAttwNTNO I `.. ! _ N5(\ �DEIELOPMFNtS —'LD�/A1w5�WiFD £gSiINP�SOENn (5.a1 M°KK fl9.e) RE9QENCE I ^` I`—�T—I— yWy� uocu�n Tsxs;_aar I N \ L 4 FH 32iR1 `T T �T( \ / I �� `�>. III I NORTH VILLAGE-SMOOTHRUN '__ _ _-� Attachment 5 To Report PSD-034-12 i I REVISION TO GRAFT PLAN S-C-2005-004 PONC OF LOTS 2B C ESSION 2 L ---------------- -- -- } �{ MUNICIPALITY OF p _-- £flN�C-5 1.6N-iFflAP3-- '-- U-�--- CLAIR NGTON — --i---T� `-- - - _ (OEOORAPHIC TGE OF OF CASK ) J —_- FORMERIV NLLACE OF NEVCAS1lE) REQONAL NUNIQPAUW OF DURHAM � 6e 1. 3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 426 j (2':.10 L.-52.1 ...-.�...�..�U SWmD1£ Dg CF LAND -� r— B,.IFIELD I FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 1•�+i• 6L^OCNMM •• �.��mm seam «wt«.nm � ono :) I .., O•2.:m'm„.o.a mu.uvn iom,w en u.nl a)p M ..G vwm I m I 1, I , rvrva awmuT-mm n meN o-eet� 11,11L C U� I� -- tm Wa �� v — :i• D �� 51 xet•H u. i'r M I Yi§ Fku _---y st"'t'F' 51-1'H' _� ___ set' •.1--_« nSVee 'I:' -- -al.1 911 I I hQ Stl-t'A' St"It'A' _,It'A' W - ` _ 'Q. Street'P' — _,. o vg N'/'Af FFlC -r —,--,�- — NORTH VILLAGE D r- � Attachment 6 To Report PSD-034-12 o I ii ❑ �LI L---------- -- d p = -f9NEaE551�I}ROA&3- -L �L L 11, n I � i66s 3i I i I I � I I / 1 I I / / ---- FUTURE BBR OP M ENT I'ORESDELRE VFOUTIR URC I � , / I 4---- I I 4 i A1E �i1 _ FEE I I I I I I a _ I -- I _ _ I PART( _ = �---01 —� M3 == _ '_--� SCHOOL —_ = -- I I = I--- r--� I - i I I I j I I I I Ml I I I LEGEND 111 I II ® PHASEI I II I PHASING BOUNDARI6 �� II �'--� ■���■ NDGHBOURHOODDOUNDARY I // / �\` PPII<atlonf(or a�plo�of BubdivslM under OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE I Section 51 of the Planning Act. \ r MANAG A1EM I FACILITY I ----------\ II % 'I �1 \ � III PHASING PION North Village _ I Neighbourhood 04319 ,uxunBr. .e.. PLATE 12 Attachment 7 To Report PSD-034-12 AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: To implement the recommendations of the Foster Creek Subwatershed Study and to permit development in accordance with the North Village Neighbourhood Design Plan. BASIS: This amendment is based on Foster Creek Subwatershed Study, August 2001 prepared by Gartner Lee Limited and Greenland International Consulting Inc. and the North Village Neighbourhood Design Plan, 2011 prepared by the Sernas Group Inc., and applications for Official Plan Amendment, two Draft Plans of Subdivision and rezonings submitted by Smooth Run Developments Inc. and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. Amend Table 9-2 "Housing Targets by Neighbourhood" by revising the targets for Neighbourhood N5 North Village and amending all corresponding totals as follows: Table 9-2 Housing Targets by Neighbourhoods+ Urban Area Housing Units Nei hbourhoods Low Medium High Intensification'. Total: N5 North Village 1000 400 0 50 1450 TOTAL 5110 1225 300 350 6985 2. By Amending Map A4 — Land Use Newcastle Village Urban Area as shown on Exhibit "A" to this amendment. 3. By Amending Map B4 — Transportation Newcastle Village Urban Area as shown on Exhibit "B" to this amendment. 4. By Amending Map H3- Neighbourhood Planning Units —Newcastle Village Urban Area as shown on Exhibit "C" to this amendment. IMPLEMENTATIOWThe provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this amendment." Exhibit "A", Amendment No. 86 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map A4, Land Use, Newcastle Village Urban Area CONCESSION ROAD 3 • Change From "Public Elementary School"To "Separate Elementary ■ SPECIA School" ■ AREA ■ ■ Expand "Special Policy Area G' ■ ■ ■JL am M M N M Add "Medium Density Residential" Revise Collector symbols Road locations M M Delete "Separate Elementary School" symbol Relocate "Medium Density Residential" symbol Relocate"Public Elementary School' and "Neighbourhood Park" symbols W W H Add new Environmental Protection Area W� ■ MM n SPECIAL POLICY AREA E _ SPECIAL a POLICY O AREA E KING AVENUE M Exhibit "B", Amendment No. 86 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map 134, Transportation, Newcastle Village Urban Area r =� ip Revise Collector Road Locations 0 i 15 [1 IN ego, — ------ -- ------ KING AVENUE F I HIGHWAY 401 ' ._ CAR. } LA!(E ONTAR/O au F' URBAN BOUNDARY .._......-__ FREEWAY TYPE A ARTERIAL ®— TYPE B ARTERIAL OO .......... TYPE C ARTERIAL MAP B4 COLLECTOR ROAD TRANSPORTATION ——————— REGIONAL TRANSIT SPINE NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA EXISTING FUTURE OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON FREEWAY INTERCHANGE a JANUARY 1, 2010 0 200 400 600 600 m ""' REFER TO SECTION 19 200 m O GRADE SEPARATION ��% THIS CONSOLIDATION IS PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND REPRESENTS REQUESTED MODIFlCATIONS AND APPROVALS Exhibit "C", Amendment No. 86 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map 1-13, Neighbourhood Planning Units, Newcastle Village Urban Area CONCESSION ROAD 3 1 °N R /^ 5 o NORTH & VILLAGE (4150) I-0, UJ Change From (3900)To(4150) LU 3 1 a FOSTER KING AVENUE VIL LAGE-CENTRE (5700) �4(500)1— 0 2 GRAHAM o (3700) HIGHWAY 401 w 6 %- WILMOT C.N.R (1600) 4 PORT NEWCASTLE (2800) URBAN BOUNDARY ® NEIGHBOURHOOD BOUNDARY (1000) POPULATION LAKE ONTARIO N MAP H3 NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING UNITS NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JANUARY 1,2010 0 230 460 920 1,380 1,840 REFERTO SECTIONS SAND THIS CONSOLIDATION IS PROVIDED FOR CONVENffNCE ONLY Metres MDREPRESENTS REOUPRM1D ODIDOATIONSPNOAPPROV Attachment 8 To Report PSD-034-12 CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL S-C-2005-003 (Smooth Run Developments) PLAN IDENTIFICATION 1. The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan of subdivision S-C-2005-003 prepared by Sernas Associates identified as Project Number 04012, original submission dated August 2005, and as revised in March 2011, and further red lined, which illustrates a total 656 residential units consisting of 76 link detached units, 76 semi detached units, 326 single detached lots, 84 street townhouse units, a medium density block containing a maximum of 94 units, blocks for 2 stormwater management ponds, a block for a public elementary school, a block for a park, a block containing a daylighted water channel, a block for open space, a block for a water reservoir, a block for a walkway, a future development blocks, road widenings, and 0.3 metre reserves. The red-line revisions are: 1. 3.00 metre road widening on Concession Road 3 from Block 426; 2. 3.00 metre road widening on Arthur Street from Block 426; 3. Appropriate widening to accommodate Arthur Street grade separation; 4. 14.Om x 14.Om sight triangle at Concession Road 3 and Arthur Street; 5. The daylighted water channel and abutting parkette are identified as two separate blocks, the daylighted channel being Block 430 and the parkette being Block 430 A; 6. Rename Block 427, from "Walkway" to "Servicing Block"; and 7. Delete reference to "Street S' as it is a continuation of"Street B". FINAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2. The Owner shall dedicate to the Municipality of Clarington: a) the road allowances included in this draft plan as public highways on the final plan; b) a 3.00 metre road widening (Block 444 and 445), across the entire frontage of the draft plan abutting Concession Road 3; C) a 3.00 metre road widening across the entire frontage of the draft plan abutting Concession Road 3; d) a 14.0 metre x14.0 metre sight triangle at the intersection of Arthur Street and Concession Road 3; e) a 14.0 metre x 7.0 metre sight triangle at intersections where a local or collector street connects with an arterial road; fl Block 427 for the purposes of an overland flow channel; Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 11,2012-Page 1 g) Block 430 and Block 430 A (as redlined) for the purposes of a day-lighted water channel and a parkette; h) Block 431 to for Open Space purposes. 3. The Owner shall name road allowances included in this draft plan to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington. 4. The Owner shall terminate any dead ends and/or open sides of road allowances created by this draft plan in 0.3 metre reserve(s) to be conveyed to the Municipality of Clarington. 5. All land dedications, easements, sight triangles and reserves as required by the Municipality for this development must be granted to the Municipality free and clear of all encumbrances and in a form satisfactory to the Municipality's Solicitor. 6. The Owner shall convey to the Region of Durham: a) a sufficient road widening to provide for a minimum of 18 metres measured from the original centerline of Regional Road 17, across the entire frontage of the draft plan abutting Regional Road No. 17. b) a 7.0 metre x 14.0 metre sight triangles at the northeast and southeast corners of Regional Road 17 and Street "A"; and C) 0.3 metre reserve across the frontage of the site along Regional Road 17 where it abuts Lot 1 and Blocks 416, 431 and 432. 7. All land dedications, easements, sight triangles and reserves as required by the Region of Durham for this development must be granted to the Region free and clear of all encumbrances and in a form satisfactory to the Region's Solicitor. 8. The Owner shall grant to the Region of Durham, any easements require to provide Regional services for this development and these easements shall be in locations and of such widths as determined by the Region. REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 9. Prior to the execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the Owner shall execute and cause to be registered on the title to the lands to which it applies a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Municipality of Clarington and such other persons as the Municipality of Clarington Director of Planning Services and Director of Engineering Services deems necessary. The MOU shall detail parkland requirements for the development of the North Newcastle Neighbourhood. It shall specifically address the responsibility of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited with respect to parkland dedication of their total land ownership within the Neighbourhood. Parkland contribution shall be provided on the basis of 1 hectare per 300 hectares or 5% of the land area as specified in the Planning Act. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003 -Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 2 10. The Owner must submit a revised Functional Servicing Report. This report, reflecting the draft approved plan, will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. The report shall confirm the following: • that no storm sewers will be flatter that a 0.5% grade; • that external drainage from the east side of Arthur Street can be accommodated in a storm sewer system that is situated within the road allowance on Arthur Street; and • how the channel to be constructed within Block 430, will convey water from where it currently enters the site, on Arthur Street to its current outlet at the property line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The report must also detail how water will be conveyed through the property located at 220 Arthur Street (18-17-030-130-1100). 11. The Owner shall submit a Transportation Study which reflects the approved neighbourhood plan. The study shall include monitoring of potential traffic infiltration both into and through the Foster Creek North Neighbourhood as development of the subject neighbourhood proceeds. The report shall be updated and submitted for approval by the Director of Engineering Services prior to registration of each phase of development, after registration of Phase 1, in this draft plan. Each report shall identify recommendations for external road improvements, external traffic control measures and the need for other municipal infrastructure improvements that may be required as a result of the amount of infiltration that actually occurs. Furthermore, the number of units available for development within the overall neighbourhood may be restricted depending upon the amount of infiltration that actually occurs. Any decision regarding the number of units that will be made available for development within the overall neighbourhood at any phase of development will be determined solely at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. 12. The Owner agrees that prior to the registration of the second phase of development, to submit a further Traffic Study to determine the timing for upgrades and improvements to the intersection of Arthur Street and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The improvements shall include but not be limited to crossing barriers or a grade separation. 13. The Owner shall prepare an Internal Traffic Impact Study to assess the traffic movements within the Plan of Subdivision and identify areas where traffic calming may be required. The study shall recommend the appropriate measures to be used, such as textured asphalt, bump outs or landscaping measures. This study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 3 and Director of Planning Services. The Owner shall be 100% responsible for any improvements required as a result of the recommendations in the study. 14. The Owner shall, if necessary, apply to the Municipality of Clarington and obtain area municipal approval of the zoning for the land uses shown on the approved draft plan in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. 15. The Owner shall retain a qualified landscape architect to prepare and submit a Landscaping Plan to the Director of Engineering Services and the Director of Planning Services for review and approval. The Landscaping Plan shall reflect the design criteria of the Municipality as amended from time to time. The Plan shall include: • a planting plan for Blocks 430, 430 A and 431; • 2.0 metre walking trail through Blocks 430, 430 A, 431 and 432; • a double row of coniferous trees, consisting of White Pine and White Spruce and no less than 2 metres in height within Block 430 immediately north of the property located at 220 Arthur Street. 16. The Owner shall be responsible for planting the double row of coniferous trees within Block 430 immediately north of the property located at 220 Arthur Street. Such planting shall be required simultaneously with the creation of the daylighted channel and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and Director of Planning Services. 17. The Owner shall implement a rear yard planting program for all lots in accordance with the guidelines to be established or terms approved by the Municipality or by the Director of Panning Services. 18. The Owner shall submit a detailed Tree Preservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington. No trees shall be removed until such time as this program has been approved except as authorized by the Director of Engineering Services. 19. The Owner shall prepare an Environmental Sustainability Plan for approval by the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Engineering Services. The Plan shall identify the measures that the Owner will take to conserve energy, and water in excess of the standards of the Ontario Building Code, reduce waste and increase recycling of construction materials and utilize non-toxic, environmentally sustainable materials and finishes. 20. The Owner shall prepare a Community Theme Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Engineering Services. This plan shall be consistent with the draft approved plan prepared by the Owner of the Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-004. The Plan shall include design concepts for community theming include gateway treatments, landscape treatments, lighting Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003 -Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 4 fixtures, fencing details and related design issues for the overall design, location and configuration of trails and open space buffers. REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 21. That the Owner shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the Municipality of Clarington and agree to abide by all terms and conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement. 22. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington for review and approval if the subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. 23. The future phasing will be restricted by the number of external accesses that are available. Full development of this draft plan will require all external accesses to be constructed. The specific lots available for building permit in any single phases of the development will be determined at the engineering stage and shall be at the sole discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. 24. The existing municipal roadways situated in this portion of the Newcastle Urban Area have not yet been constructed to an urban standard and related infrastructure such as storm sewers and storm water drainage systems do not exist. Full build out of the subject lands cannot occur until improvements to municipal infrastructure such as the urbanization of existing roads, the installation of pedestrian sidewalks, the installation of streetlights and the installation of storm drainage systems has taken place. The phasing scheme and the timing for actual development within any part of the subject portion of the Newcastle Urban Area will be dependent upon the completion of necessary and related municipal infrastructure improvements. The subdivision shall be developed in phases by more than one registration. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Directors of Engineering Services and Planning Services for approval. The number of residential units that will be permitted for development at any given time will be made solely at the discretion of the Directors of Engineering Services. 25. The Owner acknowledges that portions of this draft plan of subdivision are premature relative to the Municipality's capital budget and Development Charges By-law. Development cannot proceed until such time as the Council of the Municipality of Clarington, acting reasonably, has approved the expenditure of funds for the provision of the certain works for this draft plan or external works or services in its capital budget and which have been included in the Municipality's Development Charges By-law and deemed necessary by the Director of Engineering Services, and Director of Finance, to service this development. These include but are not limited to: i) Installation of sidewalks to serve as a direct connection to the existing municipal sidewalk network within the Newcastle Urban Area; Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 5 ii) installation of streetlights within the North Street road allowance; iii) park development; iv) reconstruction of Arthur Street and Concession Road 3; and iv) improvements to the level crossing at Arthur Street. 26. Should the Owner wish to proceed in advance of the approval by the Council of the Municipality of Clarington acting reasonably, for the expenditure of funds for any of the works required by the Director of Engineering Services identified in Condition No. 25, to facilitate development, the Owner shall pay 100% of the cost of all required works, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and Director of Finance. 27. The Owner shall convey Blocks 429 and Block 430 A to the Municipality of Clarington for park or other public recreational purposes. The Owner further agrees that the dedication of parkland dedication for the subject application will be considered together with the parkland dedication requirement for the application of Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C- 2005-004. The Owners of the two draft plan agree that the parkland dedication is less than 1 hectare per 300 units or 5% of the total land area as provided for in the Planning Act. The dedication of additional parkland or cash payment in lieu of parkland shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding. 28. The Owner shall be responsible for grading and seeding Block 430 A in accordance with the local service definition in the Development Charges By-law and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 29. The park, Block 429, must be developed as part of Phase I. Should the Owner wish to develop Phase I in advance of Council approval for the expenditure of funds for development of the park, the Owner shall be 100% responsible to construct the park (Block 429) in its entirety. The Owner shall retain a qualified Landscape Architect to undertake the preparation of a detailed park concept plan, followed by the preparation of park construction drawings and specifications all to be approved by the Director of Engineering Services. The park construction drawings shall clearly indicate all park grading, equipment and facilities. Park facilities to be included in Block 429 shall include, but not be limited to: • traditional playground with equipment suitable for junior and senior age Children; • hard surface play court (i.e. basketball, ball hockey); • shade structure; • park furniture such as benches, picnic tables, waste containers, bike racks as appropriate; Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 6 • paved walkways connecting various park features to surrounding street; • walkway lighting; • tree and shrub planting as appropriate; • park sign; • one unit sports field; and • park entirely sodded/seeded to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 30. The Owner agrees to commence construction of the park Block 429 at the issuance of the 151st building permit of Phase I of the development either singularly or in combination with plan of subdivision S-C-2005-004. The Owner further agrees to complete the park construction in accordance with the approved construction drawings and specifications prior to the issuance of the 200th building permit of Phase I of the plan either singularly or in combination with plan of subdivision S-C-2005-004. 31. The Owner acknowledges that full build out of this development cannot occur until such time that the Council of the Municipality of Clarington has approved expenditure of funds for the reconstruction of Arthur Street from the Canadian Pacific Railway to Concession Road 3 and Concession Road 3 from Arthur Street to Regional Road 17, to an urban standard including storm sewers, water service sanitary sewers, full urban section, street trees, parks, sidewalks and street illumination as well as any other external works or services which have been included in the Municipality's Development Charges By-law and have been deemed necessary by the Director of Engineering Services to service this development. Alternatively other financial arrangements can be made at the discretion of and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and the Director of Finance in order for individual phases of this development to proceed. 32. The Owner must provide the Engineering Services Department with a Stormwater Management Implementation Report which provides for the sequential construction of the stormwater management works necessary for the entire watershed and addresses the impacts of developing this plan of subdivision in the absence of the balance of the watershed. The required Report must demonstrate that the blocks designated for stormwater management facilities proposed for this development address the needs of the entire tributary watershed area and have been adequately sized. This Report shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. 33. Building Permits for Lots 18 to 26 and 37 to 58 will not be issued until such time as engineering drawings and specifications for the stormwater management ponds and the daylighted water channel have been submitted and demonstrate that these proposed lots are not required for the ponds and daylighted channel Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 7 respectively. The release of these lots shall be at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. 34. The Owner must provide the Engineering Services Department with a Master Grading Plan satisfactory to the Director of Engineering Services. The required Plan shall be submitted at the engineering review stage of the development process. 35. The Owner shall cause the north side of Street "C" to be fully serviced with water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, hydro, telephone and cable television for any future development that may front onto Street "B" and "D" and any streets or future streets which may intersect Street "C", must be stubbed for water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. 36. Suitable temporary turning circles must be located on streets with a temporary "dead end" configuration. The installation of any temporary turning circles will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services. Any lots or blocks situated adjacent to temporary turning circles will remain frozen until such time that the street is extended and constructed to a finished urban roadway including Regional services, asphalt paving, curb and gutter, sodded boulevard, sidewalk, street trees and street lighting, for the entire frontage width abutting any "frozen" lot or block. Any final decision regarding the requirement for a temporary turning circle or the suitability of a temporary turning circle configuration will be made solely at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services during the engineering review stage of the development process. 37. Sufficient road pavement widths to accommodate turning lanes must be provided at any locations where local roads meet arterial roads. Any final decision regarding road pavement widths will be determined solely at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services at the engineering review stage. 38. The applicant will be responsible to provide a revised On-Street Parking Plan satisfactory to the Director of Engineering Services. The required Plan must also illustrate the driveway location for each residential unit and demonstrate that a suitable driveway access can be provided to all units. 39. The engineering drawings for this development must be signed, sealed and dated by a Professional Engineer. 40. All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington Design Criteria and Standard Drawings, provision of the Municipality Development Charges By-law and all applicable legislation and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 41. Prior to development of adjacent lands some of the lands identified as "Part Lots" and "Part Blocks" on the draft plan may be difficult to access. Prior to registration of the relevant/affected portion of this draft plan containing the Part Lots and Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 8 Part Blocks, the owner will be required to demonstrate that a suitable access can be provided to all "Part Lots" or "Part Blocks". 42. Should development of S-C 2005-004, not proceed simultaneously with development of this draft plan a suitable access must be provided to Blocks 416 and 417. The applicant must demonstrate how these blocks can be accessed and maintained. 43. The Owner shall grant such easements as may be required for utilities, drainage and servicing purposes to the appropriate authorities. 44. All works shall be constructed in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington standards. 45. The Owner shall install fencing adjacent to all park, water courses, stormwater management and open space blocks and on the rear and side lot lines of Lots 18 to 36 and 37 to 58 in accordance with Municipality of Clarington standards. 46. The Owner shall cause all utilities, including, hydro, telephone, Cable television within the streets of this development to be installed underground for both primary and secondary services. 47. Prior to the issuance of building permits, access routes to the subdivision must be provided to meet Subsection 3.2.5.2(6) of the Ontario Building Code and, that all watermains and hydrants are fully serviced and the Owner agrees that during construction, fire access routes be maintained according to Subsection 2.5.1.2 of the Ontario Fire Code, storage of combustible waste be maintained as per Subsection 2.4.1.1 and open burning as per Subsection 2.6.3.4 of the Ontario Fire Code. 48. The Owner agrees that where the well or private water supply of any person is interfered with as a result of the subdivision, the Owner shall at his expense, either connect the affected party to municipal water supply system or provide a new well or private water system so that water supplied to the affected party shall be of quality and quantity at least equal to the quality and quantity of water enjoyed by the affected party prior to the interference. 49. The Owner shall provide the Municipality, unconditional and irrevocable, Letters of Credit acceptable to the Municipality's Director of Finance, with respect to Performance Guarantee, Maintenance Guarantee, Occupancy Deposit and other guarantees or deposit as may be required by the Municipality. 50. The Owner shall pay to the Municipality, the development charge in accordance to the Development Charge By-law as amended from time to time, as well as payment of a portion of front end charges pursuant to the Development Charges Act if any are required to be paid by the Owner. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 9 51. The Owner shall be required to make a new application for the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, Future Development Block 426. 52. Prior to registration of any portion of the subject draft plan the owner must demonstrate how perpetual maintenance of any blocks identified as "Part Lots or Blocks" will be undertaken. All part lots will be pre-serviced with water, sanitary and storm sewers. 53. The Owners shall be 100% responsible for the cost of preparing Architectural Design Guidelines specific to this development, as well as 100% of the cost for the control architect to review and approve all proposed models and building permits, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. 54. The Owner agrees that no residential units shall be offered for sale to the public on said plan until such time as the architectural control guidelines and the exterior architectural design of each building has been approved by the Control Architect and the Director of Planning Services. 55. Dwellings on Lots 25 and 26, abutting (Block 427), shall have upgraded and enhanced elevations. 56. Prior to final approval, the proponent shall engage a qualified professional to carry out, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Culture, an archeological assessment of the entire development property, and mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No demolition, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the Ministry of Culture confirming that all archeological resource concerns have been met including licensing and resource conservation requirements. 57. The Owner shall agree in the Municipality of Clarington Subdivision Agreement to implement the recommendation of the report entitled "Environmental Noise Assessment" prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated April 2011, which specify recommended noise control measures. The measures shall be included in the Municipality of Clarington Subdivision Agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to the noise report (i.e. author, title, date and any revisions/addenda thereto) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the acoustic report. The Owner shall provide the Region with a copy of the Subdivision Agreement containing such provisions prior to final approval of the plan. 58. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 10 constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 59. The Owner is required to reserve Block 425 to the Regional Municipality of Durham for a water reservoir. Should the Regional Municipality of Durham not require the Block for a reservoir, then those lands will be incorporated into new Draft Plan of Subdivision required for the Future Development Block 426. 60. Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Regional Municipality of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 61. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Regional Municipality of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services. 62. Prior to final approval and to any grading taking place on the site, a detailed stormwater management report in accordance with current MOE criteria and the Functional Servicing report prepared by Sernas Associates, (last revised April 2011) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the GRCA, and the Director of Engineering Services. 63. Prior to the commencement of any on-site works the Owner shall prepare a report satisfactory to the Director of Engineering Services and the GRCA detailing the means whereby erosion and siltation will be minimized and contained on the site both during and subsequent to the construction period. 64. The Owner shall submit a detailed design report for the tributary to be restored and re-naturalized. The report shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the GRCA, in accordance with the Geomorphic Solutions memorandum of June 8, 2011, and shall include but not be limited to fluvial geomorphic design of the channel complete with minimum vegetation requirements to ensure structural stability of the works. 65. The Owner shall retain a qualified soils engineer to investigate the potential for groundwater interference with the functionality of the east pond, and the pond shall be redesigned if necessary. 66. The Owner shall provide a detailed hydrogeological investigation, as per the recommendation of the 2010 hydrogeological study, incorporating additional boreholes being drilled in the west stormwater management pond block. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 11 Depending on the findings of this investigation, changes to the pond design may be required. 67. That prior to any on site grading, an inventory of the downstream tributaries from the railway to the main branch of the Foster Creek shall be carried out. This survey shall describe .current channel morphology and culvert conditions including a photographic record of pre-development conditions. Additionally, that the Owner re-conduct the inventory at a point in time deemed to be acceptable by the Municipality, documenting any changes in channel or culvert conditions. This report is to be reviewed and found to be acceptable to the Municipality of Clarington and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. 68. The Owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement to carry out or cause to be carried out all of the measures and recommendations contained within the reports approved under Conditions, 62, 63 and 64. 69. The Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to maintain all erosion and siltation control devices in good repair during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. 70. Prior to any on-site works requiring permission under Ontario Regulation 168/06 (i.e watercourse alteration/interference)the Owner shall obtain GRCA permit(s). 71. The Owner shall be 100% responsible for the construction of the new daylighted channel, in keeping with the recommendations of the Geomorphic Solutions memorandum of June 8, 2011, and the approved Landscaping Plan. 72. All Subdivision Agreements for the subject draft plan between the Municipality of Clarington and the Subdivider contain a requirement that all Purchase and Sale Agreements for all phases of the approved draft plan contain a clause advising all potential purchasers that while an elementary school site has been reserved within the approved draft plan of subdivision for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board that it may not be constructed and used as an Elementary School site. All potential purchasers are further advised that an existing Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board school(s) will be used to accommodate all public board elementary pupils until such time as any new Elementary School can be constructed within the draft plan. If a new Elementary School is not constructed within the approved draft plan, then all Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board pupils will be accommodated at an existing public board elementary site. 73. The Subdivider shall enter into an option agreement with the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board for Block 428 in draft plan of Subdivision S-C 2005- 003, prior to the registration of a subdivision agreement with the Municipality of Clarington for the second phase of development. 74. Prior to the execution of an option agreement with the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, the Subdivider for draft plan of subdivision S-C 2005-003 Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 12 shall provide the following to the satisfaction of the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board: a) A copy of a stormwater management report indicating that all storm water quality and quantity facilities for the proposed school block will be accommodated outside of the proposed school block. b) A copy of a geotechnical soils study indicating that the soils in Block 428 are suitable for the construction of an elementary school. c) A copy of Record of Site Condition filed with the Ministry of Environment that applies to the proposed elementary school site indicating that soils in Block 428 are suitable for the construction of an elementary school. d) The proposed grading and servicing plans for the proposed elementary school site, Block 428. 75. No topsoil or fill stockpiling, no construction storage or construction use of any kind shall be carried out by the Subdivider on the proposed elementary school block in the draft plan of subdivision. 76. The Owner shall install along all residential lot lines that are common with the proposed school block a 1.8 metre high galvanized chain link fence that is situated 150 mm within the school block site. The 1.8 metre high galvanized chain link fence may be a lower height only if required to comply with the Municipality's zoning by-law. The chain link fence shall be installed by the Owner simultaneously with the topsoil and sodding of the abutting residential lots having the common lot line with the proposed elementary school Block 428. 77. The Subdivider shall install a sidewalk within the road allowance for any roads that are adjacent to Block 428. 78. The Owner agrees to construct a berm, or combination berm and noise attenuation fence, having extensions or returns at the ends, to be erected on lands within the Plan of Subdivision and parallel to the railway right-of-way with construction according to the following: a) minimum total height 5.5 metres above top-of-rail; b) berm minimum height 2.5 metres and side slopes not steeper than 2.5 to 1; and c) fence or wall, to be constructed without openings and of a durable material weighting not less than 20 kg. per square metre (4 lb/sq.ft) of surface area. No part of the berm/noise barrier is to be constructed on railway property. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 13 79. The Owner shall insert a clause in all Offers of Purchase and Sale or Lease, and be registered on title or included in the lease for each dwelling affected by any noise and vibration attenuation measures, advising that any berm, fencing, or vibration isolation features implemented are not be tampered with or altered, and further that the owner shall have the sole responsibility for and shall maintain these features. 80. Dwellings must be constructed such that the interior noise levels meet the criteria of the appropriate Ministry. A noise study should be carried out by a professional noise consultant to determine what impact, if any, railway noise would have on residents of proposed subdivisions and to recommend mitigation measures, if required. The Railway may consider other measures recommended by the study. 81. Setback of dwellings from the railway right-of-way to be a minimum of 30 metres. While no dwelling should be closer to the right-of-way than the specified setback, an unoccupied building, such as a garage, may be built closer. The 2.5 metre high earth berm or depression adjacent to the right-of-way must be provided in all instances. 82. Ground vibration transmission to be estimated through site tests. If in excess of the acceptable levels, all dwellings within 75 metres of the nearest railway track should be protected. The measures employed may be: a) Support the building on rubber pads between the foundation and the occupied structure so that the maximum vertical natural frequency of the structure on the pads is 12 1-12; b) Insulate the building from the vibration originating at the railway tracks by an intervening discontinuity or by installing adequate insulation outside the building, protected from the compaction that would reduce its effectiveness so that vibration in the building became unacceptable; or C) Other suitable measures that will retain their effectiveness over time. 83. The Owner shall insert a clause in all Offers of Purchase and Sale or Lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling within 300m of the railway right-of-way, warning prospective purchasers or tenants of the existence of the Railway's operating right-of-way; the possibility of alterations including the possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and/or operations. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 14 84. The Owner shall obtain concurrence from the Railway should any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting railway property, and be substantiated by a drainage report to be reviewed by the Railway. 85. The Owner shall construct and maintain a 1.83 metre high chain link security fence along the common property line of the Railway and the development by the Owner at his expense, and the Owner is made aware of the necessity of including a covenant running with the lands, in all deeds, obliging the purchasers of the land to maintain the fence in a satisfactory condition at their expense. 86. The Owner shall obtain approvals from the Railway should any proposed utilities under or over railway property to serve the development prior to their installation and be covered by the Railway's standard agreement. 87. The Owner is to co-ordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities including the separation between utilities. Streets are to be constructed in accordance with composite utility plans previously submitted and approved by all utilities. 88. The Owner shall grade all streets to final elevation prior to the installation of the gas lines and provide the necessary field survey information required for the installation of the gas lines, all to the satisfaction of the utility company. 89. All utilities will be installed within the proposed road allowances in the event that that is not possible easements will be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 90. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Municipality of Clarington. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, drainage and other local services. 91. The Owner shall be responsible to advise all purchasers and tenants in Offers of Purchase and Sale warning clauses recommended in the approved Noise Report, as required by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Canadian Pacific Railway, and as follows: "Purchasers and tenants are notified that there are existing farm operations nearby and they will not object, complain or seek legal action against nuisances such as noise, odour, dust or illumination. Purchasers and tenants are notified that despite measures to attenuate noise caused by the adjacent railway, whistling from oncoming trains may be heard on a regular basis. Train whistling protocol is regulated and enforced by Transport Canada." Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 15 92. Prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington shall be advised in writing by: i) Regional Municipality of Durham, how Conditions 3, 6, 7, 8, 22, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61 have been satisfied; ii) Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, how Conditions 10, 32, 33, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71 have been satisfied; iii) Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board how Conditions 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 91 have been satisfied; iv) Ministry of Culture, how Condition 56 has been satisfied; and v) Canadian Pacific Railway, how Conditions 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 91 have been satisfied. NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL 1. If final approval is not given to this plan within six years of the draft approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be CLOSED. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date. 2. The Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 3. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4. Where agencies' requirements are required to be included in the local municipal subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agencies in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are: i) Ganarska Region Conservation Authority, 2216 County Road 28, PO Box 328 Port Hope, Ontario L1A 3W4 ii) Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, 1994 Fisher Drive, PO Box 719 Peterborough Ontario K9J 7A1 iii) Regional Municipality of Durham, 605 Rossland Road East, 4th Floor Whitby Ontario LIN 6A3 Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29,2012 Page 16 iii) Regional Municipality of Durham, 605 Rossland Road East, 4th Floor Whitby Ontario LIN 6A3 iv) The Ministry of Culture, Culture Programs Unit, 400 University Avenue, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9. v) Canadian Railway, 1290 Central Parkway West Suite 800, Mississauga Ontario L5C 4R3 Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-003-Smooth Run): May 29, 2012 Page 17 Attachment 9 To Report PSD-034-12 CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited) PLAN IDENTIFICATION 1. The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan of subdivision S-C-2005-004 by Sernas Associates identified as Project Number 04320, original submission dated August 2005, and as revised in March 2011 and further redlined, which illustrates a total 270 residential units consisting of 62 link detached units, 139 single detached lots, 69 street townhouse units, various blocks for residential uses, a parkette, a walkway , a future development block, road widenings, and 0.3 metre reserves. As redlined revisions are: 1. a 3.00 metre road widening on Concession Road 3; and 2. Rename Block 193 from "Walkway" to "Servicing Block". FINAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2. The Owner shall dedicate to the Municipality of Clarington: a) the road allowances included in this draft plan as public highways on the final plan; b) a 3.00 metre road widening, as red-lined along the entire frontage of the draft plan abutting Concession Road 3; and c) a 14.0 metre X 7.0 metre sight triangles at intersections where a local or collector street connects to an arterial road. 3. The Owner shall name road allowances included in this draft plan to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington. 4. The Owner shall terminate any dead ends and/or open sides of road allowances created by this draft plan in 0.3 metre reserve(s) to be conveyed to the Municipality of Clarington. 5. All land dedications, easements, sight triangles and reserves as required by the Municipality for this development must be granted to the Municipality free and clear of all encumbrances and in a form satisfactory to the Municipality's Solicitor. 6. The Owner shall convey to the Region of Durham: Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 1 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 a) a sufficient road widening to provide for a minimum of 18 metres measured from the original centerline of Regional Road 17, across the frontage of the draft plan abutting Regional Road No. 17, save and except along the Future Development Block (Block 196) ; and b) a 0.3 metre reserve across the frontage of the site along Regional Road 17, within the draft plan, save and except the Future Development Block (Block 196). 7. All land dedications, easements, sight triangles and reserves as required by the Region of Durham for this development must be granted to the Region free and clear of all encumbrances and in a form satisfactory to the Region's Solicitor. 8. The Owner grant the Region of Durham, any easements required to provide Regional services for this development and these easements shall be in locations and of such widths as determined by the Region. REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 9. Prior to the execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the Owner shall execute and cause to be registered on the title to the lands to which it applies a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Municipality of Clarington and such other persons as the Municipality of Clarington Director of Planning Services and Director of Engineering Services deems necessary. The MOU shall detail parkland requirements for the development of the North Newcastle Neighbourhood. It shall specifically address the responsibility of Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited with respect to parkland dedication of their total land ownership within the Neighbourhood. Parkland contribution shall be provided on the basis of 1 hectare per 300 hectares or 5% of the land area as specified in the Planning Act. 10. The Owner must submit a revised Functional Servicing Report. This report, reflecting the draft approved plan, will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. The report shall confirm the following: • that no storm sewers will be flatter that a 0.5% grade; and • proposed walkway (Block 194) is required for over land flow. 11. The Owner shall submit a Transportation Study which reflects the approved neighbourhood plan. The study shall include monitoring of potential traffic infiltration both into and through the Foster Creek North Neighbourhood as development of the subject neighbourhood proceeds. The report shall be updated and submitted for approval by the Director of Engineering Services prior to registration of each subsequent phase of development, after registration of Phase I, in this draft plan. Each report shall identify recommendations for external road improvements, external traffic control measures and the need for Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 2 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 other municipal infrastructure improvements that may be required as a result of the amount of infiltration that actually occurs. Furthermore, the number of units available for development within the overall neighbourhood may be restricted depending upon the amount of infiltration that actually occurs. Any decision regarding the number of units that will be made available for development within the overall neighbourhood at any phase of development will be determined solely at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. 12. The Owner shall prepare an Internal Traffic Impact Study to assess the traffic movements within the Plan of Subdivision and identify areas where traffic calming may be required. The study shall recommend the appropriate measures to be used, such as textured asphalt, bump outs or landscaping measures. This study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and Director of Planning Services. The Owner shall be 100% responsible for any improvements required as a result of the recommendations in this study. 13. The Owner shall, if necessary, apply to the Municipality of Clarington and obtain area municipal approval of the zoning for the land uses shown on the approved draft plan in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. 14. The Owner shall retain a qualified landscape architect to prepare and submit a Landscaping Plan to the Director of Engineering Services and the Director of Planning Services for review and approval. The Landscaping Plan shall reflect the Community Theme Plan and design criteria of the Municipality as amended from time to time. 15. The Owner shall implement a rear yard planting program for all lots in accordance with the guidelines to be established or terms approved by the Municipality or as specified by the Director of Planning Services. 16. The Owner shall submit a detailed Tree Preservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington. No trees shall be removed until such time as this program has been approved except as authorized by the Director of Engineering Services. 17. The Owner shall prepare an Environmental Sustainability Plan for approval by the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Engineering Services. The Plan shall identify the measures that the Owner will take to conserve energy, and water in excess of the standards of the Ontario Building Code, reduce waste and increase recycling of construction materials and utilize non-toxic, environmentally sustainable materials and finishes. 18. The Owner shall prepare a Community Theme Plan, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Engineering Services. This plan shall be consistent with the draft approved plan prepared by the Owner of the Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-003. The Plan shall include design concepts Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 3 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 for community theming include gateway treatments, landscape treatments, lighting fixtures, fencing details and related design issues for the overall design, location and configuration of trails and open space buffers. REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 19. That the Owner shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the Municipality of Clarington and agree to abide by all terms and conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement. 20. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington for review and approval if the subdivision is to be developed in more than one registration. 21. No phase of this development can proceed until adjacent lands in S-C-2005-003 are developed which provide Municipal services and road connections to this development. The future phasing will be restricted by the number of external accesses that are available. Full development of this draft plan will require all external accesses to be constructed. The specific lots available for building permit in any single phases of the development will be determined at the engineering stage and shall be at the sole discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. 22. The existing municipal roadways situated in this portion of the Newcastle Urban Area have not yet been constructed to an urban standard and related infrastructure such as storm sewers and storm water drainage systems do not exist. Full build out of the subject lands cannot occur until improvements to municipal infrastructure such as the urbanization of existing roads, the installation of pedestrian sidewalks, the installation of streetlights and the installation of storm drainage systems has taken place. The phasing scheme and the timing for actual development within any part of the subject portion of the Newcastle Urban Area will be dependent upon the completion of necessary and related municipal infrastructure improvements. The subdivision shall be developed in phases by more than one registration. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Directors of Engineering Services and Planning Services for approval. The number of residential units that will be permitted for development at any given time will be made solely at the discretion of the Directors of Engineering Services. 23. The Owner acknowledges that portions of this draft plan of subdivision are premature relative to the Municipality's capital budget and the Development Charges By-law. Development cannot proceed until such time as the Council of the Municipality of Clarington, acting reasonably, has approved the expenditure of funds for the provision of the certain works for this draft plan or external works or services in its capital budget and which have been included in the Municipality's Development Charges By-law and deemed necessary by the Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 4 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 Director of Engineering Services, and Director of Finance, to service this development. These include but are not limited to: i) Installation of a sidewalk to serve as a direct connection to the existing municipal sidewalk network within the Newcastle Urban Area; ii) installation of streetlights along the frontage of North Street road allowance; iii) reconstruction of Concession Road 3; and iv) park development. 24. Should the Owner wish to proceed in advance of the approval by the Council of the Municipality of Clarington, acting reasonably, for the.expenditures for any of the works required by the Director of Engineering Services, identified in Conditions No. 23 to facilitate development, the Owner shall pay 100% of the cost of all required works, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and Director of Finance. 25. The Owner shall convey Block 195 to the Municipality of Clarington for park or other public recreational purposes. The 'Owner further agrees that the dedication of parkland for the subject application will be considered together with the parkland dedication requirement for the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-003 being Block 429. 26. The Owners of the two draft plans agree that the parkland dedication is less than 1 hectare per 300 units or 5% of the total land area as provided for in the Planning Act. The dedication of additional parkland or cash payment in lieu of parkland shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding. 27. The Owner agrees to commence construction of the park Block 429 in S-C- 2005-003 prior to the issuance of the 151St building permit of Phase 1 of the development either singularly or in combination with plan of subdivision S-C 2005-003 and further agrees to complete the park construction in accordance with the approved construction drawings and specifications prior to the issuance of the 200th building permit of Phase 1 of the development either singularly or in combination with the plan of subdivision S-C 2005-003. 28. Should the Owner wish to proceed with Phase 1 singularly, the Owner is 100% responsible to construct the park (Block 429 in S-C 2005-003) in its entirety. The Owner shall retain a qualified Landscape Architect to undertake the preparation of a detailed park concept plan, followed by the preparation of park construction drawings and specifications all to be approved by the Director of Engineering Services. The park construction drawings shall clearly indicate all park grading, equipment and facilities. Park facilities to be included in Block 429 shall include, but not be limited to: • traditional playground with equipment suitable for junior and senior age children; Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)- Page 5 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 • hard surface play court (i.e. basketball, ball hockey); • shade structure; • park furniture such as benches, picnic tables, waste containers, bike racks, as appropriate; • paved walkways connecting various park features to surrounding streets; • walkway lighting; • tree and shrub planting as appropriate; • park sign; • one unlit sports field; and • park entirely sodded/seeded to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 29. For the purpose of Block 195 parkland development, the local service as defined in the Development Charges By-law as amended from time to time, includes the requirement for the Owner to undertake the preparation of a detailed park concept plan including proposed grading to demonstrate that the proposed park size, configuration and topography will allow for the construction of park facilities to the satisfaction of the Municipality. In addition, the Owner is required to provide the park site graded in accordance with the park concept plan including storm water servicing. The park site must be fenced and seeded with a minimum cover of 200mm of topsoil. 30. The Owner acknowledges that the Stormwater Management facilities for these lands are located in draft plan S-C-2005-003. The Owner must provide the Engineering Department with a Stormwater Management Implementation Report which provides for the sequential construction of the Stormwater Management works necessary for the entire watershed and addresses the impacts of developing this plan of subdivision in the absence of the balance of the watershed. The required Report must demonstrate that the blocks designated for Stormwater Management facilities proposed for this development address the needs of the entire tributary watershed area and have been adequately sized. This Report shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. 31. The Owner must provide the Engineering Services Department with a Master Grading Plan satisfactory to the Director of Engineering Services. The required Plan is shall be submitted at the engineering review stage of the development process. 32. The Owner shall cause the south side of Street "F" to fully serviced with water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, hydro, telephone and cable television for all part lots and for the future southerly extension of Street "H". 33. The owner shall cause Street "A" to be fully serviced with water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, hydro, telephone and cable television to the northerly limit in a manner appropriate to accommodate future development to the north. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)- Page 6 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 34. Suitable temporary turning circles must be located on streets with a temporary "dead end" configuration. The installation of any temporary turning circles will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services. Any lots or blocks situated adjacent to temporary turning circles will remain frozen until such time that the street is extended and constructed to a finished urban roadway including Regional services, asphalt paving, curb and gutter, sodded boulevard, sidewalk, street trees and street lighting, for the entire frontage width abutting any "frozen" lot or block. Any final decision regarding the requirement for a temporary turning circle or the suitability of a temporary turning circle configuration will be made solely at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services during the engineering review stage of the development process. 35. Sufficient road pavement widths to accommodate turning lanes must be provided at any locations where local roads meet arterial roads. Any final decision regarding road pavement widths will be determined solely at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services at the development review process. 36. The applicant will be responsible to provide a revised On-Street Parking Plan satisfactory to the Director of Engineering Services. The required Plan must also illustrate the driveway location for each residential unit and demonstrate that a suitable driveway access can be provided to all units. 37. The engineering drawings for this development must be signed, sealed and dated by a Professional Engineer. 38. All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington Design Criteria and Standard Drawings, provision of the Municipality Development Charges By-law and all applicable legislation and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. 39. Prior to development of adjacent lands some of the lands identified as "Part Lots" and "Part Blocks" on the draft plan will be difficult to access. Prior to registration of the relevant /effected portion of this draft plan containing Part Lots and/or Part Blocks, the Owner will be required to demonstrate that a suitable access can be provided to all "Part Lots" or "Part Blocks". 40. All lots which do not have frontage on a completed section of roadway will be placed on hold with no building permits issued until such time as these roads have been constructed. Alternatively, a temporary turning circle can be provided with suitable easements for snow storage. Lots situated at the end of these roads will remain frozen until such time as the roads are extended and constructed to a finished urban profile including Regional services, asphalt paving, curbs and gutter, sodded boulevard and sidewalk. Release of building Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 7 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 permits for designated `frozen lots" will be determined by the Director of Engineering Services. 41. Block 194 is identified as 9.0 metre easement and walkway. The Owner shall be 100% responsible for the cost of constructing the walkway to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Furthermore, a building permit for Lot 115 will not be available until the walkway is constructed in accordance with drawings approved by the Director of Engineering Services. 42. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the dwelling on Lot 115 abutting Block 194 shall have upgraded and enhanced side and rear elevations. Furthermore, The Owner acknowledges and agrees to install decorative fencing along the lots abutting Block 194. 43. The Owner shall grant such easements as may be required for utilities, drainage and servicing purposes to the appropriate authorities. 44. All works shall be constructed in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington standards. 45. The Owner shall cause all utilities, including, hydro, telephone, Cable TV, etc. to be buried underground for both primary and secondary services. 46. Prior to the issuance of building permits, access routes to the subdivision must be provided to meet Subsection 3.2.5.2(6) of the Ontario Building Code and, that all watermains and hydrants are fully serviced and the Owner agrees that during construction, fire access routes be maintained according to Subsection 2.5.1.2 of the Ontario Fire Code, storage of combustible waste be maintained as per Subsection 2.4.1.1 and open burning as per Subsection 2.6.3.4 of the Ontario Fire Code. 47. The Owner shall retain a qualified Engineer to prepare and submit a Hydrogeology Report to the Director of Engineering Services to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact the existing wells in the surrounding areas. 48. The Owner agrees that where the well or private water supply of any person is interfered with as a result of the subdivision, the Owner shall at his expense, either connect the affected party to municipal water supply system or provide a new well or private water system so that water supplied to the affected party shall be of quality and quantity at least equal to the quality and quantity of water enjoyed by the affected party prior to the interference. 49. The Owner shall be required to make an application for a new Draft Plan of Subdivision for Block 196, Future Development Block. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 8 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 50. The Owner shall be required to make an application for Site plan Approval for development of Block 171 to 176, Medium Density Block, 51. The Owners shall be 100% responsible for the cost of preparing Architectural Design Guidelines specific to this development, as well as 100% of the cost for the control architect to review and approve all proposed models and building permits, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. 52. The Owner agrees that no residential units shall be offered for sale to the public on said plan until such time as the architectural control guidelines and the exterior architectural design of each building has been approved by the Control Architect and the Director of Planning Services. 53. The Owner shall provide the Municipality, unconditional and irrevocable, Letters of Credit acceptable to the Municipality's Director of Finance, with respect to Performance Guarantee, Maintenance Guarantee, Occupancy Deposit and other guarantees or deposit as may be required by the Municipality. 54. The Owner shall pay to the Municipality, the development charge in accordance to the Development Charges By-law as amended from time to time, as well as payment of a portion of front end charges pursuant to the Development Charges Act if any are required to be paid by the Owner. 55. Prior to final approval, the proponent shall engage a qualified professional to carry out to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Culture, an archaeological assessment of the entire property, and mitigate through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. No demolition, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the subject property prior to the Ministry of Culture confirming that all archaeological resource concerns have been met including licensing and resource conservation requirements. 56. The Owner shall agree in the Municipality of Clarington Subdivision Agreement to implement the recommendation of the report entitled "Environmental Noise Assessment" prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated April 2011, which specify recommended noise control measures. The measures shall be included in the Municipality of Clarington Subdivision Agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to the noise report (i.e. author, title, date and any revisions/addenda thereto) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the acoustic report. The Owner shall provide the Region with a copy of the Subdivision Agreement containing such provisions prior to final approval of the plan. 57. All Subdivision Agreements for the subject draft plan between the Municipality of Clarington and the Subdivider shall contain a requirement that all Purchase and Sale Agreements for all phases of the approved draft plan contain a clause advising all potential purchasers that while an elementary school site has been Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)- Page 9 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 reserved within the adjacent approved draft plan of subdivision for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board that it may not be constructed and used as an Elementary School site. All potential purchasers are further advised are further advised that an existing Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board school(s) will be used to accommodate all public board elementary pupils until such time as any new Elementary School can be constructed within the draft plan. If a new Elementary School is not constructed within the approved draft plan, then all Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board pupils will be accommodated at an existing public board elementary site. 58. Prior to final approval and to any grading taking place on the site, a detailed Stormwater Management Report in accordance with current MOE criteria and the Functional Servicing report prepared by Sernas Associates, (last revised April 2011) be prepared to the satisfaction of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and the Director of Engineering Services. 59. Prior to the commencement of any on-site works, the Owner shall prepare a report satisfactory to the Director of Engineering Services and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority detailing the means whereby erosion and siltation will be minimized and contained on the site both during and subsequent to the construction period. 60. Should the Owner proceed in advance of Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C 2005-003, the Owner shall: i) retain a qualified soils engineer to investigate the potential for groundwater interference with the functionality of the east pond. The pond shall be redesign if necessary and; ii) provide a detailed hydrogeological investigation as per the recommendations of the 2010 hydrogeological study, incorporating additional boreholes being drilled in the west stormwater management pond block (Block 432 in Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C 2005-003). Depending on the findings of this investigation, changes to the pond design may be required. 61. The Owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement to carry out or cause to be carried out all of the measures and recommendations contained within the reports approved under Conditions 58 and 59. 62. The Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to maintain all erosion and siltation control devices in good repair during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 10 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 63. The Owner shall obtain all necessary Authority permits. 64. Prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit to the Ministry of Transportation for their review and approval, a Traffic Impact Study to assess the impacts of the development on the Highway 35/115. 65. Prior to final approval, the Owner shall submit to the Ministry of Transportation for their review and approval, a Stormwater Management Report indicating the intended treatment of the calculated runoff. 66. Prior to final approval, the Owner shall enter into a legal agreement with the Ministry of Transportation, whereby the Owner agrees to assume financial responsibility for all highway improvements to the Highway 35/115 Concession Road 3 interchange, as a direct result of this development. 67. The Owner shall insert a clause in all Offers of Purchase and Sale or Lease, and be registered on title or included in the lease for each dwelling affected by any noise and vibration attenuation measures, advising that any berm, fencing, or vibration isolation features implemented are not be tampered with or altered, and further that the Owner shall have the sole responsibility for and shall maintain these features. 68. The Owner agrees to construct dwellings such that the interior noise levels meet the criteria of the appropriate Ministry. A noise study should be carried out by a professional noise consultant to determine what impact, if any, railway noise would have on residents of proposed subdivisions and to recommend mitigation measures, if required. The Railway may consider other measures recommended by the study. 69. The Owner shall insert a clause in all Offers of Purchase and Sale or Lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling within 300m of the railway right-of- way, warning prospective purchasers or tenants of the existence of the Railway's operating right-of-way; the possibility of alterations including the possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and/or operations. 70. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Regional Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 11 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 Municipality of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 71. Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Regional Municipality of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 72. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Regional Municipality of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services. 73. The Owner shall agree that no development is to be approved within Block 196 (Future Development) until a Class Environmental Assessment study has been completed to determine the future alignment of Regional Road 17. 74. The Owner is to co-ordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities including the separation between utilities. Streets are to be constructed in accordance with composite utility plans previously submitted and approved by all utilities. 75. The Owner shall grade all streets to final elevation prior to the installation of the gas lines and provide the necessary field survey information required for the installation of the gas lines, all to the satisfaction of the utility company. 76. All utilities shall be installed within the proposed road allowances in the event that that is not possible easements will be provided at no cost to the utility provider. 77. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Municipality of Clarington. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, drainage and other local services. 78. The Owner shall cause to advise all purchasers and tenants in Offers of Purchase and Sale warning clauses recommended in the approved Noise Report, as required by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Canadian Pacific Railway, and as follows: "Purchasers and tenants are notified that there are existing farm operations nearby and they will not object, complain or seek legal action against nuisances such as noise, odour, dust or illumination. Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 12 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 Purchasers and tenants are notified that despite measures to attenuate noise caused by the adjacent railway, whistling from oncoming trains may be heard on a regular basis. Train whistling protocol is regulated by Transport Canada." 79. Prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington shall be advised in writing by: i) Regional Municipality of Durham, how Conditions 3, 6, 7, 8, 20, 56, 70, 71, 72 and 73 have been satisfied; ii) Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, how Conditions 10, 30, , 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, and 63 have been satisfied; iii) Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board how Conditions 57 and 78 have been satisfied; iv) Ministry of Culture, how Condition 55 has been satisfied; v) Canadian Pacific Railway, how Conditions 67, 68, 69 and 78 have been satisfied; and vi) Ministry of Transportation, how Conditions 64, 65 and 66 have been satisfied. NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL 1. If final approval is not given to this plan within six years of the draft approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be CLOSED. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date. 2. The Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 3. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4. Where agencies' requirements are required to be included in the local municipal subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agencies in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are: Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 13 Conditions of Approval S-C-2005-004 (Brookfield): May 11, 2012 i) Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, 2216 County Road 28, P.O. Box 328, Port Hope Ontario L1A 3W4 ii) Ministry of Transportation, Corridor management Section, 7th Floor Building D, 1201 Wilson Avenue, Downsview Ontario M3M 1J8 iii) Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, 1994 Fisher Drive P.O. Box 719, Peterborough Ontario K9J 7M3 iv) The Ministry of Culture, Culture Programs Unit 400 University Avenue, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9 v) Canadian Pacific Railway, 1290 Central Parkway West Suite 800, Mississauga Ontario L5C 4R3 Vi) Regional Municipality of Durham, 605 Rossland Road East, 4th Floor Whitby Ontario LIN 6A3 Conditions of Draft Approval FINAL(S-C-2005-004—Brookfield Homes(Ontario) Limited)-Page 14 Attachment 10 To Report PSD-034-12 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2012- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63,the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the former Corporation of the Town of Newcastle WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the former of Town of Newcastle for ZBA 2005-042; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of Clarington enacts as follows: By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended, as follows: 1.• Section 12.4 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE (R1) ZONE"is hereby amended by adding new Special Exceptions as follows: "SECTION 12.4.86 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R1-86)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 j. i)and iv); 3.16 i. iv); 3.22; 12.1; 12.2 a); b); c); d)i), ii), iii),f); h); i),those lands zoned R1-86 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for single detached, linked dwellings, subject to the following zone regulations: a. For the purpose of this Section,the terms: Dwelling, Linked shall mean a building separated vertically into two separate dwelling units, which are horizontally connected at the footing, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside of the building and each of which is located on a separate lot. b. Lot Area (minimum) I) single detached dwellings with minimum of 11.6 metre frontage 345 square metres ii) single detached dwellings with minimum of 13.1 metre frontage 410 square metres iii) linked dwellings 585 square metres c. Lot Frontage Interior(minimum) I) single detached dwelling 11.6 metres ii) single detached dwelling 13.1 metres iii) linked dwellings 19.6 metres d. Lot Frontage Exterior(minimum) i) single detached dwelling 14.5 metres ii) linked dwellings 22.5 metres e. Yard Requirements for single detached dwellings (minimum) i) Front or exterior 6.0 metres to the garage; 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2 metres to the unenclosed porch; ii) Interior side yard 1.2 metres on one side, 0.6 metres on the other side without private garage or carport; 3.0 metres on one side, 0.6 metres on the other side. g. Yard Requirements for linked dwelling (minimum) i) Front or exterior side yard 6.0 metres to the garage; 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2 metres to the unenclosed porch; ii) Interior side yard 1.2 metres without private garage or carport 3.0 metres h. Special Yard Regulation i) Notwithstanding the interior side yard requirements above, a linked dwelling connected by the footing shall have a horizontal distance between the interior walls of the two (2) dwelling units above finished grade between 1.2 metres and 1.5 metres. ii) Bay windows with foundations may project into any required yard to a distance of not more'than 0.75 metres with the bay window having a maximum width of 2.4 metres, but in no instance shall the interior side yard be reduced below 0.6 metres. iii) Steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metre. iv) Visibility Triangle (minimum) 6.5 metres I. Lot Coverage (maximum) i) 1 Storey a)Dwelling 50 percent b)Total of all buildings and structures 55 percent ii) All other residential dwellings a)Dwelling 45 percent b)Total of all buildings and structures 50 percent iii) Notwithstanding the above lot coverage provision, a covered and unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable floor space above it, shall be permitted subject to the following: a) in the case of an interior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 12.0 square metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage. b) In the case of an exterior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 20.0 square metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front and/or exterior side yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage j. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished grade (maximum) 1.0 metre k. Height(maximum) i) 1 storey 8.5 metres ii) all other residential units 10.5 metres I. Garage Requirements all garage doors shall not be located any closer to the street line than the dwellings front wall or exterior wall or covered porch projection. 2. Section 14.6 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS —URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE (R3) ZONE" is hereby amended by adding thereto new Special Exceptions as follows: "SECTION 14.6.37 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R3-44)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 j. i), iv); 3.16 i. iv); 3.22; 14.1; 14.2; 14.3 a.; b.; c. i), ii) and III); e.; and h. those lands zoned R3-44 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for street townhouse dwellings subject to the following: a. Lot Area (minimum) , 210 square metres b. Lot Frontage Interior(minimum) 7.6 metres c. Lot Frontage Exterior(minimum) 11.6 metres d. Yard Requirements (minimum) i) front yard or exterior side Yard 6.0 metres to the garage; 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2.0 metres to the unenclosed porch; ii) interior side yard (minimum) 1.2 metres; nil where building has a common wall with any building on an adjacent lot located in an R3-44 zone iii) rear yard (minimum) 7.5 metres e. Special Yard Regulation i) bay windows with foundations may project into any required yard to a distance of not more than 0.75 metres with the bay window having a maximum width of 2.4 metres, but in no instance shall the interior side yard be reduced below 0.6 metres. ii) steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metre. f. Visibility Triangle (minimum) 6.5 metres g. Lot Coverage (maximum) i) townhouse dwelling 45 percent ii) Notwithstanding the above lot coverage provision, a covered and unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable floor space above it, shall be permitted subject to the following: a) in the case of an interior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 10.0 metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage. b) In the case of an exterior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 15.0 metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front and/or exterior side yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage. h. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished grade(maximum) 1.0 metre I. Garage Requirements all garage doors shall not be located any closer to the street line than the dwellings front wall or exterior wall or covered porch projection. 3. Section 15.4 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS—URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE FOUR (R4)ZONE"is hereby amended by adding a new"Urban Residential Exception (R4-32)Zone"as follows: 15.4.31 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R4-32)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 15.1 a. and15.2. those lands zoned "R4-32" on the Schedules to this By-law may be used for an apartment building, a nursing home, retirement home; or linked townhouse dwelling units subject to the following zone provisions: a. Definitions: Retirement Home shall mean any premises maintained and operated for retired persons or couples where each private living unit has a separate private bathroom and separate entrance from a common hall but where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided, along with common lounge, and recreation rooms and may include ancillary uses for the residents such as a beauty salon, barber shop or tuck shop. b. Density(maximum) 60 units per ha C. Regulations for apartment building, a nursing home, or retirement home: I. Yard Requirements(minimum) i) Front Yard 7.5 metres ii) Exterior Side Yard 7.5 metres iii) Interior Side Yard 7.5 metres iv) Rear Yard 7.5 metres ii. Dwelling Unit Area (minimum) I) Bachelor Dwelling Unit 40 square metres ii) One Bedroom Dwelling Unit 55 square metres iii) Two Bedroom Dwelling Unit 70 square metres iv) Dwelling Unit Containing Three or more Bedrooms 80 square metres plus 7 square metres for each bedroom in excess of three iii. Lot Coverage(maximum) 40 percent iv. Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 35 percent V. Building Height(maximum) 12 metres d. Regulations for linked townhouse dwelling units: i. Yard Requirements (minimum) I) Front Yard 6.0 metres to private garage or carport and 3.0 metres to a dwelling ii) Interior Side Yard 4.5 metres iii) Exterior Side Yard 6.0 metres iv) Rear Yard 7.5 metres ii. Lot Coverage (maximum) 40 percent iii. Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 40 percent iv. Building Height(maximum) 10 metres 4. Section 26"INTERPRETATION" is hereby amended by adding the following new Section 26.5 as follows and renumbering existing Sections 26.5 to 26.6 inclusive: "26.5 COMPOUND ZONES Notwithstanding any other zone provision of this By-law, where two or more zone symbols are shown on a map to this by-law divided by an oblique line 7", the total of the lands within that block may be used for any use permitted in either one of the zones included in the compound zone symbol subject to the regulations applicable to said zone." 5. Schedule 5 to By-law 84-63 as amended is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Environmental Protection (EP) Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Urban Residential Type One (R1)Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Urban Residential Exception (R1-42)Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-70) Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-71) Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-74) Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-75) Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-86) Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-44) Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R3) Zone. 5. Schedule W attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 6. This By law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act BY LAW passed in open session this day of 2012 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk This is Schedule "A" to Sy-law 2012- , passed this day of ' , 2012 A.D. 4p4p4pp4 pQP 44pQ4 4Q4 44pQ4p4 4ppppppppQp Q4p 4Qppp P4 N5 N 44Q4pQ Q4Q4p4pQ4p4p4pp44pQ4Qp44p4pQ44p4 4p p4pp 4p4pPQ4pQP Opp P4pp4Q4P4ppQ4 E p44QQpp4Qp 4p4ppp4QpppQpppQpp pQ p5'p p4 ppQ ppp p4 pS'p pp S' � 44 pop 44p 4Q 4pp4P4 p44 Opp 44 4 n 4p4 QQ444p4Qp Opgqp���44 N4 QQ4p4p4Q p 4 4 4 pQ 4p4QQ4p4p44P pp pp4 Q 44 pQQ4 SITE Q4pQ4Q4Q4Q 44 pQ44p44 444p 4p4 4 4 SN Q4pp QQpp4p4pp4p4pQ pQ4ppp4ppp4 Qp4pp A4.. i° ec 4ppQ44p4ppQ4p 4QpQPppQ4pp44p4p p N� r'^ pp4p4p4ppp pp4 4p4ppQ> p4 (_c Dy Q4 4Q pQ4pQ p44pQ444444p4ppp 4 ~�� •^��n��L�=�=� '� ..a � pppp4pp4p4pp4p Q4 Q4p Q4 44 s pQ 4 pp4p Qp5'4 p Opp Qpp4 pppppQ e Q s,.. � 4p44 44pp 4 44p Q444Q4pQ44p4Q4Q $ € © •®�� © Qp�4ppp4p4pp4pQ4Qpp4 p4p4QpQ4 Qp4 Qp ® c yam. .,•.,• Q D& 44pQp4ppppQp444p 44444pp44N pp4Qp4Q kJ� Q4 pQ Q44 44 Q44p544Qp4p4444p4Q4 �.. ti ppp 4ppp44p4 pp4pp4 ® Zoning Change From it tt it Al To R1 44 pQ4p4Q4pQ4ppp44 p4 ® Zoning Change From"A1"To"R1-42" 4 44p4Q p4QpQ4p4Q Zoning Change From Al To (H) R1-70 <<: Zoning Change From"Al"To"(H) R1-71" Zoning Change From"A1"To"(H) R1-74" =; Zoning Change From"A1"To"(H)R1-75" Zoning Change From"A1"To"(H) R1-86" 5�F •s,reet � Zoning Change From"Al"To"(H) R1-86/(H)R4-32" ® r Zoning Change From"A1"To"(H) R3" .T btreel'J ® Zoning Change From"A1"To"(H) R3-44" ® Zoning Change From"A1"To"(H) R3-44/(H)R4-32" i- .`vr All Q Zoning Change From"A1"To"EP" Zoning To Remain"EP" g•,F '` w • ••Street'J QQQQ Zoning To Remain"Al #•t-?a•:.a� •` ' 7 ti i•: •yy r�r J ��•'3. .'k. •S(reet'A' Street'A' Street'A' � J» »»>a>>p>JJ> o',''o• ;:: ';'a•j•s:.T• e•r:••y 1.',i•e. �_ >�>»>pJ >3��a a+>>> •' $ suet'o•• � Street Y••• .:A• ~'.V.I >� Adrian Foster,Mayor anadian P z'a;>a >�> ;>�0�>' 3,' ; > ZBA 2005-042 NEWCASTLE S-C2005-003 Patti L.Barrie,Municipal Clerk SCHEDULES Attachment 11 To Report PSD-034-12 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2012- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63,the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the former Corporation of the Town of Newcastle WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the former of Town of Newcastle for. ZBA 2005-043; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of Clarington enacts as follows: By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended, as follows: 1. Section 12.4 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE (R1) ZONE" is hereby amended by adding new Special Exceptions as follows: "SECTION 12.4.86 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R1-86)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 j. i)and iv); 3.16 i. iv); 3.22; 12.1; 12.2 a); b); c); d)i), ii), iii),f); h); i), those lands zoned R1-86 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for single detached, linked dwellings, subject to the following zone regulations: a. For the purpose of this Section,the terms: Dwelling, Linked shall mean a building separated vertically into two separate dwelling units, which are horizontally connected at the footing, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside of the building and each of which is located on a separate lot. b. Lot Area (minimum) I) single detached dwellings with minimum of 11.6 metre frontage 345 square metres ii) single detached dwellings with minimum of 13.1 metre frontage 410 square metres iii) linked dwellings 585 square metres c. Lot Frontage Interior(minimum) i) single detached dwelling 11.6 metres ii) single detached dwelling 13.1 metres iii) linked dwellings 19.6 metres d. Lot Frontage Exterior(minimum) I) single detached dwelling 14.5 metres ii) linked dwellings 22.5 metres e. Yard Requirements for single detached dwellings (minimum) I) Front or exterior 6.0 metres to the garage; 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2 metres to the unenclosed porch; ii) Interior side yard 1.2 metres on one side, 0.6 metres on the other side without private garage or carport; 3.0 metres on one side, 0.6 metres on the other side. g. Yard Requirements for linked dwelling (minimum) I) Front or exterior side yard 6.0 metres to the garage; 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2 metres to the unenclosed porch; ii) Interior side yard 1.2 metres without private garage or carport 3.0 metres h. Special Yard Regulation I) Notwithstanding the interior side yard requirements above, a linked dwelling connected by the footing shall have a horizontal distance between the interior walls of the two (2) dwelling units above finished grade between 1.2 metres and 1.5 metres. ii) Bay windows with foundations may project into any required yard to a distance of not more than 0.75 metres with the bay window having a maximum width of 2.4 metres, but in no instance shall the interior side yard be reduced below 0.6 metres. iii) Steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metre. iv) Visibility Triangle(minimum) 6.5 metres i. Lot Coverage(maximum) i) 1 Storey a) Dwelling 50 percent b)Total of all buildings and structures 55 percent ii) All other residential dwellings a) Dwelling 45 percent b)Total of all buildings and structures 50 percent Iii) Notwithstanding the above lot coverage provision, a covered and unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable floor space above it, shall be permitted subject to the following: a) in the case of an interior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 12.0 square metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage. b) In the case of an exterior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 20.0 square metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front and/or exterior side yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage j. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished grade (maximum) 1.0 metre k. Height(maximum) i) 1 storey 8.5 metres ii) all other residential units 10.5 metres I. Garage Requirements all garage doors shall not be located any closer to the street line than the dwellings front wall or exterior wall or covered porch projection. 2. Section 14.6 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS —URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE (R3) ZONE" is hereby amended by adding thereto new Special Exceptions as follows: "SECTION 14.6.44 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R3-44)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 j. i), iv); 3.16 i. iv);3.22; 14.1; 14.2; 14.3 a.; b.; c. i), ii)and iii); e.; nd h. those lands zoned R3-44-on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for street townhouse dwellings subject to the following: a. Lot Area (minimum) 210 square metres b. Lot Frontage Interior(minimum) 7.6 metres c. Lot Frontage Exterior(minimum) 11.6 metres d. Yard Requirements(minimum) i) front yard or exterior side Yard 6.0 metres to the garage; 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2.0 metres to the unenclosed porch; ii) interior side yard (minimum) 1.2 metres; nil where building has a common wall with any building on an adjacent lot located in an R3-44 zone iii) rear yard (minimum) 7.5 metres e. Special Yard Regulation I) bay windows with foundations may project into any required yard to a distance of not more than 0.75 metres with the bay window having a maximum width of 2.4 metres, but in no instance shall the interior side yard be reduced below 0.6 metres. ii) steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metre. f. Visibility Triangle (minimum) 6.5 metres g. Lot Coverage(maximum) i) townhouse dwelling 45 percent iii) Notwithstanding the above lot coverage provision, a covered and unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable floor space above it, shall be permitted subject to the following: a) in the case of an interior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 10.0 metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage. b) In the case of an exterior lot, an unenclosed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 15.0 metres shall be permitted provided it is located in the front and/or exterior side yard of the lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverage. h. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished grade (maximum) 1.0 metre i. Garage Requirements all garage doors shall not be located any closer to the street line than the dwellings front wall or exterior wall or covered porch projection. 3. Section 14.6 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS —URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE (R3) ZONE" is hereby amended by adding thereto new Special Exceptions as follows: "SECTION 14.6.46 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R3-46)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 2, 3.1 a., b. and f., 14.1 and 14.2,those lands zoned R3- 17 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for a street townhouse dwelling in accordance with the following definitions and regulations: a. Definitions Arterial Road: Shall mean an improved public street with a right-of-way width of 26 metres or greater. Local Road: Shall mean an improved public street with a right-of-way width of 20 metres or less. FRONT LOT LINE For the purposes of this Special Exception, front lot line shall mean the line dividing the lot from the arterial road. In the case of a lot having frontage on two arterial roads, the shorter lot line abutting the arterial road shall be deemed the front lot line. REAR LOT LINE The lot line dividing the lot from a local road shall be deemed the rear lot line. In the case of a lot having frontage on two local roads,the shorter lot line abutting the local road shall be deemed the rear lot line. b. Regulations i) Lot Area (minimum) 200 square metres ii) Lot Frontage (minimum) a) Interior Lot 6.0 metres b) Exterior Lot 10.5 metres iii) Yard Requirements(minimum) a) Front Yard 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2.0 metres to the unenclosed porch; b) Interior Side Yard 1.5 metres, nil where the building has a common wall with any dwelling on an adjacent lot located in the R3-46 Zone; c) Exterior Side Yard 4.5 metres d) Rear Yard for a dwelling with a detached garage 18.0 metres;for a dwelling with an attached garage 12.0 metres iv) Building Height(maximum) 10.5 metres c. Special Building Regulations i) Notwithstanding 3.1 a., no accessory structures are permitted in the R3-46 Zone except detached private garage subject to the special regulations contained herein. ii) Notwithstanding 3.1 b. and f., a detached private garage shall have a minimum 6.0 metre setback to the rear lot line and must have a minimum separation from the main dwelling of 5.0 metres. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of 0.6 metres, nil where the detached private garage has a common wall with another private garage on an adjacent lot located in the R3-17 Zone. 4. Schedule 5 to By-law 84 63 as amended is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Urban Residential Type One (R1)Zone Agricultural Exception (A-1) to Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-86) Zone; Agricultural Exception (A-1)to Holding-Urban Residential Exception((H)R3-44) Zone; and Agricultural Exception (A-1)''to`Holding-Urban Residential Exception((H)R3-46) Zone. 5. Schedule'A'attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 6. This By law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act BY LAW passed in open session this day of 2012 Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2012- passed this day of 12012 A.D. /V SITE Concession Road 3 PIEU J N 'PIP PIP 64444464 64444 pQ4 44464 P4 444444 QPp4Pp4 44444444 P4 pPP 4P pp PP pp PP,;,p I PQ zoning Change From"Al To R1" P PPPQQ4 PQ 444 PP 444 6 '6 Zoning Change From"Al To"(H) R1-86" Zoning Change From"Al To"(H)R3-46" PP 644 6 444 444444 4P 4 zoning Change From"Al To"(H) R3-44" PP Zoning To Remain"Al" 44 44644 4 4444 646 IP /V LL Strew F so-em F �v! cc 0 0 ry Adrian Foster,Mayor ZBA 2005-043 Patti L.Barrie,Municipal -C-2006-004 Pa ipal Clerk NEWCASTLE SCHEDULE Attachment 12 To Report PSD-034-12 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2012- being a By-law to adopt Amendment No. 86 to the Clarington Official Plan WHEREAS Section 17 (22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 as amended, authorize the Municipality of Clarington to pass By-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and Amendments thereto; AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend the Clarington Official Plan to include recommendations contained in the Foster Creek Subwatershed Plan and the North Newcastle Neighbourhood Design Plan; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment No. 86 to the Clarington Official Plan, being the attached explanatory Text and exhibits is hereby adopted. 2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of the final passing thereof. BY-LAW passed in open session this day of , 2012. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk Attachment 13 To Report PSD-034-12 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2012- being a By-law to authorize the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding between Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS Council on 'July 3, 2012, recommended approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 86 to the Clarington Official Plan; AND WHEREAS at their meeting held on July 3, 2012, Council of the Municipality of Clarington approved Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision S-C-2005-003, and S-C-2005- 004 and Zoning By-law Amendments ZBA 2005-042 and ZBA 2005-043 as they apply to certain lands owned by Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited, respectively; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and seal with the Corporation seal, the Memorandum of Understanding between Smooth Run Developments and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. BY-LAW passed in open session this day of , 2012. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk