Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-057 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2012-057 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 "P, 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 '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 approved by the Ontario Municipal Board October 19, 2012 This is Schedule ..A"® to By-law 2012=057 passed this 3rd day of July 9 2012 A.D. 4p QPP�pip �pP QQ ppP QP pP �� 0­4 13 /V AA ppP PPPpppp > pP l'PIP.PQ PQ ;>rp1P QQ �>P xp P SITE PIP, 1P ,P p v;>1P 1;>P p, rpP pP PIP �>C> 1p %Prp ;,rP PW • 1p"P 1;>1;> PIP. EQQ ;>�>W pl;> ;,g x>rP pP P— 'P, t ff o x;:,'P P r PIP 1,P ;>P1;> 1> 1P,pPP t> r> pl;>,;> FM Zoning Change From "Al"To "R1 ;>'P %> p p%> Zoning Change From "A1"To "R1-42" P Qp ppA pQp pA PQQ Zoning Change From "A1"To "(H) R1-70" St—CO, Zoning Change From "A1"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" Street'F Street Zoning Change From "A1"To "(H) R1-86/(H)R4-32" E;n a) CO Zoning Change From "A1"To "(H) RY (D Street V If Zoning Change From "Al"To "(H) R3-44" If < Zoning Change From "A1"To "(H) R3-44/(H)R4-32" NOE "I Zoning Change From "Al To "EP" -,0)=;1117� Zoning To Remain "EP" .-Stre.tV• QQQQ Zoning To Remain "Al" Street W street W Street. W /V 0 Street' 0 street 1! ;t J,35:) Street'0' Stmet'N* C ancluien P ZBA 2005-042 FNEWCASTLE S-C 2005-003, SCHEDULES ISSUE DATE: 1 04 - I October 19, 2012 k ® _ PL080994 N®r Ontario Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de ['Ontario Smooth Run Developments Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63 of the Municipality of Clarington to rezone lands respecting Part Lots 27 and 28, Concession 2 from A-1 to R1-X, R2-X and R3-X to permit the development of a residential subdivision consisting of approximately 1,150 dwelling units OMB File No. PL080994 Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63 of the Municipality of Clarington to rezone lands respecting Part Lot 28, Concession 2 from A-1 to R1-X, R2-X and R3-X to permit the development of a residential subdivision consisting of approximately 400 dwelling units OMB File No. PL080995 Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from the failure of the Municipality of Clarington to make a decision respecting a proposed plan of subdivision on lands composed of Part of Lot 28, Concession 2 in the Municipality of Clarington Approval Authority File No. S-C-2005-004 OMB File No. PL081140 Smooth Run Developments Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from the failure of the Municipality of Clarington to make a decision respecting a proposed plan of subdivision on lands composed of Part of Lots 27 and 28, t�eeron"'2 inhe Municipality of Clarington Approval Authority File No. S-C-2005-003 - OMB File No. PL081141 Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Limited and Smooth Run Developments Inc:have appeeled to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the ✓P'lJnning Act, R.S.Q. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect Ito,-enact-a.proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Municipality of Clarington to redesignate ]ands respecting Part Lots 27 and 28, Concession 2 to accommodate tFe 'desi `n of a Neighbourhood Plan for the North Village Neighbourhood of Newcas� Vill to-,permit the development of two residential subdivisions consisting of aV' - oximat 400. and 1,150 dwellings each ;approval Authority rile No. COPA-2005-008 j� = _ OMB File No. PL081142 , - 2 - PL080994 APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Smooth Run Developments Inc. and R. Houser/K. Hodges (student-at-law) Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Ltd. Municipality of Clarington A. Allison Regional Municipality of Durham C. Boyd Corey Geddes Participants Michael Boland Richard Columbus DECISION DELIVERED BY J. de P. SEABORN AND ORDER OF THE BOARD INTRODUCTION [1] The appeals by Smooth Run Developments Inc. and Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Ltd. ("Applicants") relate to a residential development proposal for two parcels of vacant land within the North Village Neighbourhood in the Town of Newcastle ("Town"). The applications include a proposed official plan amendment, two draft plans of subdivision and associated zoning by-law amendments. The Municipality of Clarington ("Municipality") and the Regional Municipality of Durham ("Region") support the project. Accordingly, the planning instruments under appeal were recommended by the Applicants, the Municipality and the Region for approval by the Board. [2] Corey Geddes, representing himself and the Newcastle Villagers Road Safety Committee, was given party status at the previous hearing event held in August 2012. Mr. Geddes testified on his own behalf and was permitted to cross-examine witnesses and provide closing submissions. He did not call any witnesses. Michael Boland, a resident to the south of the development, requested at the outset of the hearing that his status be changed from that of a party to a participant. Richard Columbus, a participant, appeared at the hearing and also provided testimony. - 3 - PL080994 ISSUE [3] The hearing was originally scheduled for August 2012. The Applicants (who are also the appellants) and the municipal parties had reached a settlement on all aspects of the appeals and were prepared in August to present evidence to support the settlement. Four residents appeared at the August hearing and Ms. Houser agreed to a short adjournment to explore whether the matters raised by Mr. Geddes and Mr. Boland, who requested and were granted party status, could be resolved. Ms. Houser convened a meeting to review the applications with Mr. Geddes and Mr. Boland. No agreement was achieved and Mr. Geddes identified one issue for the hearing, which was set out in the Board's procedural order (issued September 18, 2012) as follows: Based on the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan and the Clarington Official Plan, does the impact from traffic generated by the proposed development promote a healthy, liveable and safe community? [4] Consequently, the evidence presented at the hearing was largely restricted to this one issue, albeit Mr. Jordan, the land use planner retained by the Applicants, provided his opinion in respect of the merits of the planning instruments under appeal. Mr. Geddes confirmed his earlier advice to Ms. Houser and Mr. Allison that the residents did not "wish to stop the development from happening" (Exhibit 2). However, they are concerned about the impact of an increase in traffic from the development and they predict a negative social impact on the community. EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS Planning Instruments [5] As indicated at the outset the draft official plan amendment, zoning by-law. amendments, and draft plans of subdivision, including detailed conditions, were supported by the Region and the Municipality. The project has been planned for several years and the original applications were filed in 2005. Several refinements have been introduced over the years and the issues originally raised by the municipalities are resolved. The requisite public meetings were held and, ultimately, Council for the Municipality indicated their support for the proposal, subject to the numerous conditions set out in each draft plan of subdivision. It was Mr. Jordan's opinion that the instruments represent good planning and he recommended their approval. - 4 - PL080994 [6] Briefly, the Applicants own separate parcels of largely vacant land situated in the Newcastle Urban Area (Map A4, Clarington Official Plan), which is south and east of highway 115/35. The urban area includes lands both south and north of highway 401. The parcel owned by Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Ltd. ("Brookfield Homes") is at the north end of the urban area, at Concession Road 3 and the parcel owned by Smooth Run Developments Inc. ("Smooth Run") is immediately to the south. Both parcels are designated as "Living Area" in the Region's Official Plan and accordingly, no amendment is required to implement the development proposal. The Official Plan for the Municipality designates the lands as "Urban Residential" and "Future Urban Residential", subject to special policies. The proposed official plan amendment (Exhibit 6, Tab 9) is required to implement the recommendations of a necessary watershed study and to permit development in accordance with the North Village Neighbourhood Design Plan, a requirement of the Municipality. The evidence was clear that urban and residential development has been anticipated and provided for in the applicable official plans for several years. [7] Mr. Jordan explained that the two zoning by-laws are proposed to amend the comprehensive zoning by-law for the former Corporation of the Town of Newcastle (By- law 84-63) and provide detailed standards for the residential development described in the draft plans of'subdivision (Exhibit 6, Tabs 12 and 13). The two draft plans propose: a 656-unit residential development with a mix of housing types, elementary school, park block, a parkette, a day-lighted tributary, two storm water management ponds, an open space block, a block for a water reservoir and a future development block (Smooth Run project); and, a 270-unit residential plan with mixed housing, a parkette, a walkway, a servicing block and a future development block (Brookfield Homes project). The details of each proposal are set out in the draft plans (Exhibit 6, Tabs 10 and 11) and include agreements between the Applicants and the municipalities and detailed conditions of approval that represent input received from various reviewing agencies, including the Ministry of Transportation ("MTO") and the Region. In addition, the Applicants provided a detailed Neighbourhood Plan (Exhibit 10) for the North Village Neighbourhood, showing a thoughtful plan for each subdivision including the layout of interior roads, parks, school site and servicing. The Neighbourhood Plan was introduced to the residents at a public meeting, endorsed by municipal staff after all agency comments were incorporated and, subsequently, were provided to Municipal Council as one of the bases for the approvals sought. - 5 - PL080994 [8] Based on the evidence provided and, in particular, the opinion of Mr. Jordan, the Board finds that each of the planning instruments under appeal should be approved. The application generally and the proposed official plan amendment, zoning by-law and draft plans of subdivision have regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and conform to all applicable provincial plans. The draft plans of subdivision each have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. The conditions of each draft plan are detailed and satisfy the requirements of the Municipality and the Region. [9] The project will be constructed in phases and will likely be built out over a seven to ten year period. The two proposed zoning by-laws also represent good planning and implement the project as described in the evidence. The zoning by-laws conform to both the Region's Official Plan and the Official Plan for the Municipality. The proposed official plan amendment meets the general intent of the Official Plan for the Municipality and conforms to the Region's Official Plan. On this basis, the Board concludes that the appeals should be allowed and the planning instruments approved in the form provided for in the evidence (Exhibit 6, Tabs 9 — 13, inclusive). In arriving at this decision, s. 2.1 of the Planning Act has been considered, which requires the Board to have regard to the decision of Municipal Council, which supports the application. TRAFFIC [10] In providing his opinion on the planning merits of the instruments under appeal, Mr. Jordan also explained the configuration of the existing road network and explained the work undertaken by the municipal parties and the Applicants in addressing traffic. In addition Mr. Roovers, a transportation engineer, testified in respect of the work undertaken by the Applicants to ensure that any potential impact from increased traffic arising from the development proposal had been addressed. [11] Regional Road 17 ("RR 17") is next to the west limit of the development. It commences at Taunton Road, follows highway 115/35 at the Newcastle Village Urban Area, runs through the Village (as Manvers Road) to highway 401 (known as Mill Street). Official plan policies identifies RR 17 as a Type B arterial road, which means it has significant daily traffic volumes, there are generally no restrictions on the movement of goods, and it is to experience an uninterrupted traffic flow except at traffic control signals. Technical comments were provided to the Applicants early in the planning - 6 - PL080994 process and certain upgrades will be required as the project is built out. There will have to be a realignment of RR 17 such that its intersection with Concession Road 3 is moved away from the highway 115/35 interchange. Incremental improvements will include turning lanes and sidewalks. Mr. Jordan pointed out that several of the residents' concerns relate to that portion of RR 17 that is south of Grady Drive and proposed improvements to this segment cannot be made conditions of draft plan approval, but rather should be addressed, as necessary by the Region and the Municipality. On this matter, the Board accepts Mr. Jordan's planning opinion. [12] Mr. Geddes testified that the development threatens the existing community given the level of expansion that two new subdivisions will have on the residents of Newcastle directly to the south. Existing roads are not urbanized and many of the major streets do not have sidewalks. There will be considerable increases in volumes of traffic during the construction phase and when the development is eventually completed. Mr. Geddes and the residents are concerned that RR 17 in particular will become a popular route adding unnecessary traffic to existing residential roads. Noise will increase and the end result will be increased pollution and undesirable congestion. It was Mr. Geddes's evidence that the planning policies stipulate that the Municipality is to promote healthy, viable communities and that impact to existing residents has been overlooked. Mr. Boland, who lives at George Street and Manvers Road (the south end of RR 17), testified that he is already faced with tractor trailers on Manvers Road and speeding vehicles through residential areas where many streets lack sidewalks. He anticipates a negative impact to his neighbourhood and suggested that the Municipality must consider restrictions to protect residents from traffic volumes and speeding cars and trucks. Mr. Columbus echoed these concerns and explained that safety on Manvers Road is a problem today. The area is one where neighbours enjoy walking and biking. The state of the roads coupled with increased traffic will result in unsafe conditions on Manvers Road. [13] Mr. Geddes conducted his own count of existing traffic, which Mr. Roovers reviewed and concluded that the counts were almost identical. Mr. Roovers also looked at the impact of predicted future volumes arising from the development and concluded while there will obviously be an increase, it is well within the limits of the Region's standards for arterial roads. Mr. Roovers reviewed the history behind the traffic impact work, including a revision undertaken to reflect the reduction in the number of residential - 7 - PL080994 units from the original proposal. Mr. Roovers' conclusion, which the Board accepts, was that "the proposed traffic volumes related to the subject development and subsequent future forecasted traffic volumes are in the low range of expected volumes based on the intended function of Regional Road 17 as a Type B arterial road" (Exhibit 7, Tab 2, p. 3). [14] Mr. Geddes proposed several conditions of draft plan approval that relate to road upgrades. As pointed out by Mr. Allison, the issues raised by Mr. Geddes have been addressed by staff. In some instances, the requested conditions are simply outside the jurisdiction of both the Board and the Municipality. For example, one request was that a 30 km/hr speed limit be imposed on streets within the area. This is not a matter that the Board can include in any condition of draft plan approval. In other instances, there will be upgrades of the type suggested by Mr. Geddes as the development is built out over the next decade. Mr. Geddes requested that a grade separation be constructed to address the conditions at the CPR line and that the existing street be urbanized with sidewalks. In addition, changes to road configurations and traffic calming measures be introduced to improve safety and divert truck traffic from residential areas. [15] The concerns about safety and traffic are important issues. To the extent that the issues raised relate to existing conditions, the residents should ensure that their specific concerns (for example, traffic calming, sidewalks and location of bus stops so that pedestrian safety is maximized) are known to Municipal staff. As stated by staff in their final report to Municipal Council (June 2012, Exhibit 6, Tab 6), RR 17 is under the Region's jurisdiction and will be reviewed through an environmental assessment. The reconstruction of Arthur Street is included in the Development Charges By-law Background Study undertaken by the Municipality and improvements to an urban standard will be constructed as the phases of the development connect to Arthur Street. Improvements to the level crossing will also be constructed when future phases of the development connect to Arthur Street. Sidewalks connecting the development to the downtown are required during the first phase of the development on RR17. With respect the area of RR 17 and highway 115/35 recommendations have been made for intersection improvement as future phases develop. These are subject to the approval of the MTO and the Region. [16] Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that the conditions of draft plan approval need not be augmented by the additional conditions relating to road improvements, traffic calming, urbanization and reduction in upper speed limits. The - 8 - PL080994 traffic concerns have been addressed by the Applicants and as indicated by staff in their report and Mr. Roovers in his evidence, the transportation study was reviewed by MTO, the Region and the Municipality and all requirements are satisfactorily addressed by the conditions of draft approval (Exhibit 7, Tab 2, p. 3). DECISION AND ORDER [17] The Board orders that the appeals are allowed, as follows: (a) An official plan amendment to the Clarington Official Plan, as set out in Exhibit 6, Tab 9 is approved. (b) The draft plans of subdivision are approved, including the conditions, all of which is set out in Exhibit 6, Tabs 10 (Smooth Run) and 11 (Brookfield Homes). (c) The zoning by-law amendments to the former Corporation of the Town of Newcastle By-law 84-63 are approved, in the manner set out in Exhibit 6, Tabs 12 and 13. (d) The Clerk shall assign record keeping numbers to the planning instruments approved by the Board. "J. de P. Seaborn" J. de P. SEABORN VICE-CHAIR