Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-01-19
Planning and Development Committee Post Agenda Date:January 19, 2026 Time:5:00 p.m. Location:Council Chambers or Electronic Participation Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, Ontario Inquiries and Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Laura Preston, Temporary Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at lpreston@clarington.net. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Collection, Use and Disclosure of Personal Information: If you make a delegation, or presentation, at a Committee or Council meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording public on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar. Written and oral submissions which include home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses become part of the public record. If you have any questions about the collection of information, please contact the Municipal Clerk. Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non-audible mode during the meeting. Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive The Revised Agenda will be published on Wednesday after 12:00 p.m. Late items added or a change to an item will appear with a * beside them. Pages 1.Call to Order 2.Land Acknowledgment Statement 3.Declaration of Interest 4.Announcements 5.Presentations/Delegations *5.1 Delegation by Desmond Lightbody, Regarding Report PDS-001-26 - Clarington Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 63 Residential Units at 1420 and 1422 Nash Road in Courtice 5 *5.2 Delegation by Janice Jones, Regarding Report PDS-002-26 - Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Recommendation Report 27 *5.3 Delegation by Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PDS- 002-26 - Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Recommendation Report 29 5.4 Presentation by Marilyn Morawetz and JJ MacLellan, Regarding a Report from Manorville Homes on the Camp 30 Cafeteria Assessment and Costing 33 *5.5 Delegation by Doug Allingham, Regarding Road and Fire Safety Concerns 45 Doug Allingham was present regarding road and fire safety concerns. Using an electronic presentation Doug 6.Consent Agenda 6.1 PDS-001-26 - Clarington Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 63 residential units at 1420 and 1422 Nash Road in Courtice 58 6.2 PDS-002-26 - Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Recommendation Report 84 6.3 PDS-003-26 - Intention to Pursue Heritage Designation – Multiple Properties 245 6.4 PDS-004-26 - Appointment of a Deputy Chief Building Official 311 Planning and Development Committee Agenda January 19, 2026 Page 2 6.5 PDS-008-26 - Bill 68: Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and an ERO Posting Consulting on the Proposed Consolidation of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities into Seven Regional Conservation Authorities 316 6.6 PDS-009-26 - A Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate 1,356 residential dwelling units of various built forms at 1738 Bloor Street in Courtice 325 7.Items for Separate Discussion 7.1 CAO-001-26 - Camp 30 Cafeteria Building Update 376 8.New Business 9.Public Meetings (6:30 p.m.) 9.1 Public Meeting for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applicant: Minto Communities Inc. Location: 2149 Courtice Road, Courtice Planner: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner 9.1.1 PDS-005-26 - Technical Minor Zoning By-law Amendment to Amend Section 14.6.80 Provision b.i) and i.a) within the R3-80 Exception Zone 398 9.2 Public Meeting for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applicant: Weston Consulting on behalf of 1725596 Ontario Ltd. Location: 113 Down Road & Part Lot 31, Con BF, Courtice Planner: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner 9.2.1 PDS-007-26 - Courtice Waterfront - Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision 425 10.Confidential Items 10.1 LGS-003-26 - Cafeteria Building - Lease to Jury Lands Foundation Municipal Act, 2001 Section 239 (2) (c) and (f) Planning and Development Committee Agenda January 19, 2026 Page 3 11.Adjournment Planning and Development Committee Agenda January 19, 2026 Page 4 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from LIGHTBODY Date:Friday, January 9, 2026 4:55:46 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject 1420-1422 Proposal 2024-0005 & 2024-0011( Endangered wild life ) Action requested of Council Deny the Proposal Date of meeting 1/19/2026 Summarize your delegation the residents of Nash Rd directly effected Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? No Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person First name: DESMOND Single/Last name LIGHTBODY How to pronounce your name: Mr. LIGHTBODY Address Town/Hamlet Courtice Page 5 Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? Yes Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. Yes I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 6 Varcoe Road Townline Road N Nash Road King Street E Shankel Road Regional Highway 2 Lawson Road Adelaide Avenue E Old Varcoe Road Violet Hall Road Eldorado Avenue Birchfield Drive Fleetwood Drive Bridle Court Belair Crescent Wabbokish Court Astra Avenue Clarence Biesenthal Drive Winter Avenue Apollo Street Maracle Road Lockie Street Hartsfield Drive Laguna Street Athabasca Street Cameron Lott Street Mahaffy Place Eastlawn Street Bradenton Path Leland Road Sheco Court Centerfield Drive Dale Park Drive Astra Court 4 Storey Apar tm ent Building 3 Storey Stacked Townhouses 3 Storey Townhouses 1420 & 1422 Nash Road Adelaide Avenue Extension Page 7 Canada.ca Environment and natural resources Wildlife, plants and species Migratory birds Avoiding harm to migratory birds Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities Official title: Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction - Section 70 of the Migratory Bir ds Regulations (specifically for Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities) On this page 1. Purpose 2. Introduction 3. Criteria for permit issuance 1. Purpose The purpose of this document is to identify the criteria for issuing s. 70 permits to destroy unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities prior to the 36-month waiting period as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Migratory Bir d Regulations (MBR). 1/15/26, 3:55 PM Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca file:///D:/Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction_ Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca.html 1/5 Page 8 For the purposes of this document, to be considered unoccupied, the Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity must not have been used during the previous breeding season (for more information see Section 3). In virtually all cases, proponents will need to have completed a “Nest Notification” using Environment Climate Change Canada's (ECCC) Abandoned Nest Registry system. 2. Introduction Section 70 of the MBR states that: (1) An egg and nest destruction permit allows its holder and their nominees named in the permit to take and destroy the eggs of the species of migratory birds specified in the permit and to remove and destroy the nests of those species in an area described in that permit and subject to the conditions of that permit, and to dispose of the eggs and nests in the manner provided in the permit. Conditions (2) The Minister may issue an egg or nest destruction permit only if the Minister has reason to believe that the destruction of the eggs or nests is necessary to reduce or prevent the danger that migratory birds are causing or are likely to cause to human health or to public safety or the damage they are causing or are likely to cause to agricultural, environmental or other interests. Eligible permit holder (3) An egg or nest destruction permit may be issued only to a person who owns, leases or manages a parcel of land, who holds an easement, servitude, right-of-way, licence of occupation, or holds rights under 1/15/26, 3:55 PM Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca file:///D:/Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction_ Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca.html 2/5 Page 9 provincial laws to use land for public utilities or infrastructure in the area described in the permit. 3. Criteria for permit issuance The focus of the document is the destruction of unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities prior to the 36-month waiting period as outlined in Schedule 1 of the MBR. In order for a permit to be issued for the destruction of an unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity using Section 70, the following conditions must be met: 1. Location and number The location and number of unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker cavities must be known in advance of permit application: Rationale: This will allow Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) staff to assess the situation and determine the best course of action based on the number (for Pileated Woodpecker, the maximum number of unoccupied nesting cavities must not be more than 10, where the location of each is known, for any one permit). To ensure that any authorizations to remove unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities prior to the 36-month waiting period that are causing damage or danger do not circumvent the intent of Schedule 1 of the MBR, CWS requires that such authorizations be limited to a specific number of cavities whose specific location(s) is (ar e) known to the proponent. 1/15/26, 3:55 PM Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca file:///D:/Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction_ Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca.html 3/5 Page 10 2. Evidence For Pileated Woodpecker unoccupied nesting cavities, each cavity must be identified in advance of permit application with supporting e vidence and a Nest Notification submitted to ECCC’s Abandoned Nest Registry System. No permit will be issued for feeding or roosting cavities since they are not protected under the MBR. For more information on distinguishing Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities from other types of cavities, please see Pileated Woodpecker cavity identification guide . Rationale: Proponents will need to provide justification and supporting evidence to demonstrate that the unoccupied nesting cavity in question is that of a Pileated Woodpecker. This would include clear photographs showing the cavity and other documentation/evidence that would support that the cavity was used for nesting by a Pileated Woodpecker. The onus will be on the applicant to provide clear and convincing evidence of a nesting cavity. Failure to provide sufficient evidence of a nesting cavity will result in delays or rejection of permit applications. 3. Due diligence Appropriate due diligence and measures have been taken by the proponent (monitoring in advance of project siting or operational activities). Rationale: In general, to be considered unoccupied, the Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity must not have been used during the previous breeding season. This assumes that some sort of surveys have been conducted to demonstrate due diligence so that, to the extent possible, proponents can avoid unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities (similar to raptor nests in some jurisdictions). 1/15/26, 3:55 PM Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca file:///D:/Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction_ Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca.html 4/5 Page 11 In all cases, issuance of any permit under s.70 Nest Destruction Permit, would be a last resort and only where avoidance options (leaving the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity alone until the 36 month waiting period has passed) is are not feasible due to human health or public safety. 4. Mitigation Destroying an unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity prior to the 36-month waiting period may require mitigation measures, which will be included as a condition of the permit. Rationale: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities were added to Schedule 1 of the MBR 2022 given that they are reused by the woodpeckers themselves, as well as dozens of other secondary cavity nesters, including Species at Risk. Clear and consistent conditions will be applied to permits as mitigation measures when unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities are destroyed prior to the 36-month waiting period. Date modified: 2023-07-12 Date modified: 1/15/26, 3:55 PM Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca file:///D:/Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction_ Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities - Canada.ca.html 5/5 Page 12 July 4, 2024 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL (Danielle.Wilson@strathcona.ca) Strathcona County Legislative and Legal Services 2001 Sherwood Drive Sherwood Park, AB T8A 3W7 Attention: Danielle Wilson, Manager of Legal Services Dear Madam: Re: Request for Legal Opinion On May 7, 2024, Council passed a motion: THAT Administration prepare a report for Council’s consideration by the end of July 2024 with information and implications of nesting birds at the site of the proposed new BGC Strathcona facility, including any possible legal implications. In connection with that motion, you have asked for a legal opinion that addresses: •The current and relevant law (including regulations and policies and procedures of governing authorities) for development on land that is the nesting habitat of the Pileated Woodpecker. •The difference between the regulatory approach taken to the nests and nesting cavities of Pileated Woodpeckers and that taken to other migratory birds. •If a site is confirmed to be the nesting habitat for the Pileated Woodpecker, then can such land be developed (i.e. trees removed) and if so how that can be done from a regulatory approvals process. Summary of Legal Opinion The federal Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA)1 and the regulations made under it, Migratory Bird Regulations (MBRs)2 provide significant protection for 395 species of migratory birds. There is also protection for the nests of migratory birds. 1 S.C. 1994, c. 22 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/M-7.01/ 2 SOR/2022-105 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2022-105/ 1 Enclosure 1 Page 13 For most of the species, the protection for the nest is only while it is occupied by a migratory bird or contains a viable egg. For the 18 species listed in Schedule 1 to the Regulations, the protection applies whether or not the nest is occupied or contains a viable egg. Pileated Woodpeckers are a species listed in Schedule 1. Their nesting cavities cannot be damaged, destroyed, removed or disturbed unless they remain unoccupied for at least 36 months (and appropriate notice has been given to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)). It is important to note that while there is a high degree of protection afforded to Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities, that protection does not apply to every hole made by or used by a Pileated Woodpecker. Feeding and roosting cavities are not protected. Therefore a threshold factual question that must precede any legal analysis is—is the cavity a Pileated Woodpecker’s nesting cavity?3 If it is not, the protection and processes described below do not apply. If a proponent of a project wishes to proceed without waiting for a Pileated Woodpecker’s nest to be unoccupied for 36 months, they may apply for: • a permit to destroy the nest under section 70 of the MBRs if they can demonstrate the destruction of the nest is necessary to reduce or prevent damage that is caused or is likely to be caused to agricultural, environmental or other interests; and • a permit to relocate the nest under section 71 of the MBRs if they can demonstrate that relocating the birds, eggs and nests is necessary to prevent or reduce the damage that is caused or is likely to be caused to the use of the land or to agricultural interests, and other means are not sufficient to prevent or reduce the damage. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), the federal department responsible for migratory birds, has published online policy statements describing the criteria required to obtain permits under section 70 and section 71 of the MBRs. These criteria are stringent to ensure that the protection afforded to migratory birds under the MBCA is not too readily eroded. Based on the criteria: • it will be very difficult to obtain a permit under section 70 to destroy a Pileated Woodpecker’s nest that has not been abandoned for at least 36 months. ECCC suggests that such a permit is only available if waiting 36 months is not feasible due to human health or public safety. • a permit under section 71 to relocate a Pileated Woodpecker’s nest that has not been abandoned for at least 36 month appears to be somewhat more readily available. However, there will still be a high threshold for obtaining one—a proponent will need to explain specifically why the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity cannot remain 3 See ECCC’s online publication “Pileated Woodpecker Cavity Identification Guide” https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/pileated- woodpecker-cavity-identification-guide.html 2Page 14 in place until the 36-month waiting period has passed and must demonstrate the seriousness and legitimacy of the damage to the use of the land caused by the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity. The Canadian Wildlife Service is the federal agency responsible for administering the system of permits for nest destruction or relocation. They have advised that their service standard is to issue decisions on 95% of permits within 35 days of receipt of a complete application. The current and relevant law (including regulations and policies and procedures of governing authorities) for development on land that is the nesting habitat of the Pileated Woodpecker The Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA) is the federal legislation in issue. The purpose of the MBCA is to implement the Convention between Canada and the USA4 “by protecting and conserving migratory birds — as populations and individual birds — and their nests.”5 Woodpeckers are identified as migratory birds in the Convention. A person that breaches specific provisions of the MBCA and designated regulations commits an offence. The penalties on conviction are very significant.6 There have been significant prosecutions under the MBCA.7 8 4 First adopted in 1916 and amended by a Protocol in 1994 and included as a Schedule to the MBCA. 5 MBCA, s. 4. 6 MBCA, s. 13. In brief: a. if the offense is prosecuted as a summary conviction offense, the maximum fines for a first offense range from $25,000 for an individual to $250,000 for a small revenue corporation to $500,000 for any other form of corporate entity; and b. if the offense is prosecuted as an indictable offense, there are mandatory minimum fines and much higher maximum penalties: the fine for an individual is a minimum of $15,000 up to a maximum of $1,000,000 (and the possibility of imprisonment up to three years); the fine for a small revenue corporation is a minimum of $75,000 and a maximum of $4,000,000; and the fine for any other corporate entity is a minimum of $500,000 and a maximum of $6,000,000 7 For example, in 2021, EllisDon Construction Services Inc. was sentenced in the Provincial Court of Alberta in Calgary after pleading guilty to one count of violating section 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations pursuant to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA, 1994). The offences relate to disturbing migratory bird nests without a permit during the course of their work at the West Calgary Ring Road project site in June 2019. EllisDon Construction Services Inc. was ordered to pay a mandatory minimum fine of $100,000. See: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental- enforcement/notifications/ellisdon-construction-violating-migratory-birds-convention-act.html 8 The MBCA also establishes a system of ticketable offenses. See s. 19. 3Page 15 The MBCA gives the Federal Cabinet considerable scope for making regulations.9 Most relevant to the issue here are the Cabinet’s powers to make regulations: • for prohibiting the killing, capturing, injuring, taking or disturbing of migratory birds or the damaging, destroying, removing or disturbing of nests;10 and • for granting permits to remove or eliminate migratory birds or nests where it is necessary to do so to avoid injury to agricultural interests or in any other circumstances set out in the regulations.11 In 2022, the Federal Cabinet enacted new Migratory Bird Regulations (MBRs)12 that, amongst other things, prohibited the disturbance of nests of migratory birds without authorization and provided for a system of permits for removing or eliminating nests. Section 5(1) of the MBRs provides: 5 (1) A person must not engage in any of the following activities unless they have a permit that authorizes them to do so or they are authorized by these Regulations to do so: (a) capture, kill, take, injure or harass a migratory bird or attempt to do so; (b) destroy, take or disturb an egg; and (c) damage, destroy, remove or disturb a nest, nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box. (Emphasis added) There are very important exceptions in subsection 5(2) that allow a nest to be damaged, destroyed or removed without a permit: (2) However, the following may be damaged, destroyed, removed or disturbed without a permit: (a) a nest shelter, eider duck shelter or duck box that does not contain a live bird or a viable egg; 9 MBCA, s. 12. 10 MBCA, s. 12(1)(h). 11 MBCA, s. 12(1)(e). 12 SOR/2022-105 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2022-105/ 4Page 16 (b) a nest that was built by a species that is not listed in a Table to Schedule 1 if that nest does not contain a live bird or a viable egg; and (c) a nest that was built by a species that is listed in a Table to Schedule 1 if the following conditions are met: (i) the person who damages, destroys, removes or disturbs that nest provided a written notice to the Minister a number of months beforehand that corresponds to the number of months set out in column 3 of the relevant Table to that Schedule for the species, and (ii) the nest has not been used by migratory birds since the notice was received by the Minister. Subsection (2)(b) is the general rule which allows an abandoned nest of a migratory bird to be damaged, destroyed, removed or disturbed. It applies to 377 species of migratory birds protected under the MBCA and MBRs. Subsection 2(c) deals with the 18 species listed in Schedule 1, which includes the Pileated Woodpecker. Their abandoned nests can only be damaged, destroyed, removed or disturbed without a permit if two conditions are met: a. Notice of abandonment of the nest is given to the Minister 13 a specified time before the proposed damage, destruction, removal or disturbance. This can be done on-line. b. The nest has not been used by any migratory bird since the notice was given. For the Pileated Woodpecker, the period of abandonment required is 36 months. It is important to note that for this provision to apply the nest must not be used by any species of migratory bird during that 36 month period. In conclusion, unless a permit is obtained from the Minister, a Pileated Woodpecker’s nest may only be damaged, destroyed, removed or disturbed if notice of abandonment has been filed and the nest has remained abandoned for at least 36 months. 13 In practice the Registry for Abandoned Nests operated by the ECCC. See https://www.permis- permits.ec.gc.ca/en/AbandonedNests 5Page 17 The difference between the regulatory approach taken to the nests and nesting cavities of Pileated Woodpeckers and that taken to other migratory birds For most migratory birds (377 species), their nests are only protected when they contain a live bird or viable egg.14 Once the nest is unoccupied it can be damaged, destroyed, removed or disturbed. For the 18 species listed in schedule 1 of the MBRs, their nests are protected whether they are occupied or not and cannot be damaged, destroyed, removed or disturbed unless they remain unoccupied for the period specified in Schedule 1 and notice of abandonment has been provided to ECCC. ECCC states: The nests of 377 migratory bird species can be removed when they are no longer active, that is when they do not contain a live bird or viable egg. For most nests, once the chicks have fledged have left the nest on their own, and it is no longer occupied by a migratory bird or eggs, they no longer continue to have conservation value, and most species will build a new nest each year. However, the nests of the 18 species that reuse their nests and are listed in Schedule 1 of the MBR 2022, are protected year round, even when they do not contain a live bird or viable egg. They may only be destroyed if they have been deemed abandoned, and the conditions of the MBR 2022 have been met.15 At 36 months, Pileated Woodpeckers have the longest required period of abandonment before the nest can be destroyed. ECCC explains why in the following terms: Why are Pileated Woodpecker’s nests protected for 3 years after they have become unoccupied and other species on Schedule 1 are only protected for 1 or 2 years? Nests of Pileated Woodpeckers are commonly reused for several years by this species as well as other migratory birds (secondary cavity nesters) who are often not capable of excavating their own cavities. Pileated Woodpecker nests can be re-occupied by migratory birds after a few years of being unoccupied. There is extensive documentation that the Pileated Woodpecker is a keystone species (meaning it has a disproportionately large effect on its 14 See section 5(2)(a) of the MBRs. 15 “Frequently asked questions: Migratory Birds Regulations, 2022” https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-bird-permits/faq-migratory-birds- regulations-2022.html 6Page 18 natural environment relative to its abundance) for the cavity nesting community. Cavities are a critical and limiting resource for many migratory birds, both for nesting and for overwinter survival. In one study (Bonar RL. 2000. Availability of Pileated Woodpecker Cavities and Use by Other Species, The Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 52-59), 4 out of 5 Pileated Woodpecker cavities were being used, which shows just how in demand, and how important, their cavities can be. Furthermore, some species may favour only nesting cavities that are a few years old, so if only active nests are protected there may be a negative bias in the conservation of secondary cavity nesters. The other species on Schedule 1 usually reuse their own nests, so a nest that is unoccupied after one or two breeding seasons is indicative of nest abandonment and therefore loses its value for nesting migratory birds. If a site is confirmed to be the nesting habitat for the Pileated Woodpecker, then can such land be developed (i.e. trees removed) and if so how that can be done from a regulatory approvals process The MBRs recognize that there are circumstances where the protection of migratory birds must be balanced against other societal interests and needs. Part 3 of the MBRs deals with circumstances in which the protection for migratory birds and their nests may be lifted in circumstances where they are overabundant or cause damage or danger. Section 58 of the MBRs sets out the purpose of Part 3: Scope 58 This Part applies to the management of migratory birds for the purpose of reducing the danger that they are causing or are likely to cause to human health or public safety or the damage they are causing or are likely to cause to agricultural, environmental or other interests. (Emphasis added) Part 3 contains provisions for permits for the destruction or removal of nests. In relation to your question: • Section 70(2) provides for a permit to destroy eggs or nests if the destruction of the eggs or nests is necessary to reduce or prevent … the damage they are causing or are likely to cause to agricultural, environmental or other interests. • Section 71 provides or a permit for relocating birds, eggs or nests if two conditions are met: o relocating the birds, eggs and nests is necessary to prevent or reduce the damage that migratory birds are causing or are likely to cause to the use of the land or to agricultural interests; and o other means are not sufficient to prevent or reduce the damage. 7Page 19 Because these sections are central to an understanding of how permits can be obtained to destroy or move the nests of Pileated Woodpeckers, I have set them out in full in Appendix 1. A proponent who wants to destroy the nest of a Pileated Woodpecker to facilitate development without waiting for 3 years of abandonment must apply to the representative of the Minister, the Canadian Wildlife Service, for a permit. Under section 70, they must demonstrate that the destruction is necessary to reduce or prevent the damage that the nest is causing or likely to cause to “agricultural, environmental or other interests.” A proponent who wants to move the nest of a Pileated Woodpecker to facilitate development without waiting for the 3 years of abandonment must apply to the Canadian Wildlife Service for a permit. Under Section 71, they must demonstrate that the relocation nest is necessary to prevent or reduce the damage that migratory birds “are causing or are likely to cause to the use of the land or to agricultural interests” and that “other means are not sufficient to prevent or reduce the danger or damage.” The terms damage to “other interests” in section 70 and “use of the land” in section 71 are not defined in the MBRs. From a legal perspective they are open textured terms and their interpretation requires an analysis of their text, context and purpose.16 To date they have not been considered in any court decisions so we do not have guidance from the Courts. Therefore, our analysis proceeds from first principles. Read textually, they are broad terms suggesting a broad scope for the issuance of permits. Read contextually the words appear within the Part of the MBRs which includes within its purpose “reducing …the damage they [migratory birds] are causing or are likely to cause to agricultural, environmental or other interests.” This also suggests a broad scope for the issuance of permits. However, when one considers the context of the MBCA and MBRs as a whole, there is a careful balancing of the protection of migratory birds against other societal interests, which suggests that there should be a high threshold for issuance of permits. Similarly, the overarching purpose of the MBCA which is to protect and conserve “migratory birds — as populations and individual birds — and their nests” supports a high threshold. In my view, permits should be granted where a proponent demonstrates societal importance of the “other interest” or the “use of the land” and the necessity of destroying or removing the nest to achieve that purpose. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s online policy statements identify the criteria for the issuance of permits: 16 Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Canada, 2024 SCC 23 (CanLII) at para. 101 https://canlii.ca/t/k5hm5 8Page 20 The document entitled “Damage or Danger Permits for Nest Destruction: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities”17 identifies the criteria for issuing s. 70 permits to destroy unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities prior to the 36-month waiting period as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Migratory Bird Regulations. The document entitled “Damage to the use of the land: Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities”18 identifies the criteria for issuing s.71 permits to relocate unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities prior to the 36-month waiting period as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Migratory Bird Regulations. Summary of criteria for section 70 permits for nest destruction The criteria suggest a very high threshold for nest destruction (which seem to be more stringent than actually contemplated by the wording of section 70 read contextually and purposively):19 In all cases, issuance of any permit under s.70 Nest Destruction Permit, would be a last resort and only where avoidance options (leaving the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity alone until the 36 month waiting period has passed) is are not feasible due to human health or public safety. (Emphasis added) A proponent must: a. identify the specific nesting cavities and location that are proposed to be destroyed (no more than 10 per application) i.e. you cannot make a general application for nest destruction without details of the cavities and locations; b. each nesting cavity must be identified in advance of permit application with supporting evidence and a Nest Notification submitted to ECCC’s Abandoned Nest Registry System. The cavities must be nesting cavities and not feeding or roosting cavities; c. establish that they have taken appropriate due diligence. This requires establishing that each unoccupied nesting cavity was not used in the previous season and that all other avoidance options were not feasible due to human health or public safety; and 17 https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/dod-permits- nest-destruction-pileated-woodpecker-nesting-cavities.html 18 https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/damage-use- land-pileated-woodpecker-nesting-cavities.html 19 In law, the Canadian Wildlife Service cannot fetter their discretion to issue a permit by a policy and must consider each application on its merits. So even though an application may not seem to fit the online criteria, the CWS must consider it on its own merits and if they reject it acting unreasonably, their decision may be challenged in the Federal Court. In email correspondence with the County’s Sr. Advisor, Environmental Planning dated June 4, 2024, the CWS Permitting Coordinator stated that “Permitting decisions are made on a case-by-case basis once a complete application has been received.” 9Page 21 d.undertake mitigation measures imposed as a condition of the permit. Criteria for section 71 permits for nest relocation For the purposes of section 71, the Canadian Wildlife Service defines “damage to the use of land” as: Any impact migratory birds, eggs or nests may have on the ability of a person who owns, leases, or who holds an easement, servitude, right-of-way, licence of occupation, or holds rights under provincial laws to use land for public utilities or infrastructure to access, make use of, or to conduct business on said land, including any facilities or equipment stored on or situated there. In the final analysis the criteria for a permit for nest relocation under section 71 are more flexible than those applicable to nest destruction under section 70, but they are still stringent: In general, to be considered unoccupied, the Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity must not have been used during the previous breeding season. This assumes that some sort of surveys have been conducted. Requiring the proponent to conduct Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity surveys in advance of project siting or operational activities puts the onus on proponents to demonstrate that they have done their due diligence so that they can, to the extent possible, avoid unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavities (much like many proponents need to do for raptor nests, which fall under provincial jurisdiction). As with any nest survey, nests can and will be missed. Proponents would need to clearly articulate why the project footprint cannot be relocated or why the operational activities cannot wait for the end of the 36 month waiting period to avoid the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity. In all cases, issuance of any permit under s.71 Relocation Permit, would be considered as a last resort and only where avoidance options (leaving the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity alone until the 36 month waiting period has passed) is not feasible. On the migratory bird Relocation Permit application form, the applicant must describe in detail the circumstances surrounding their claim that the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity in question is causing damage to the use of land. The applicant must explain specifically why the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity cannot remain in place until the 36 month waiting period has passed. The applicant must attest to the seriousness and legitimacy of the damage to the use of the land caused by the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity when signing the application form. (Emphasis added) 10Page 22 The proponent must take essentially the same steps for a section 71 application as for a section 70 application: a.identify the specific nesting cavities and location that are proposed to be destroyed (no more than 10 per application) i.e. you cannot make a general application for nest destruction without details of the cavities and locations; b.each nesting cavity must be identified in advance of permit application with supporting evidence and a Nest Notification submitted to ECCC’s Abandoned Nest Registry System. The cavities must be nesting cavities and not feeding or roosting cavities; c. establish that they have taken appropriate due diligence. This requires that establishing that each unoccupied nesting cavity was not used in the previous season and that other avoidance options were not feasible; d.undertake mitigation measures imposed as a condition of the permit. There are specific criteria respecting how the relocation is to be done: Relocation of the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity must maintain the structural integrity of the cavity itself. Rationale: The unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity must be relocated in such a way that it can be used by Pileated Woodpeckers or other migratory birds. In some cases, it may be possible to preserve the section of the tree containing the cavity by cutting above and below the cavity, and then capping both ends to prevent rapid deterioration of that section. The section of tree containing the Pileated Woodpecker nesting cavity could then be fastened to another nearby tree outside of the project footprint. In other cases, applicants may be able to cut the tree at the base and relocate the entire tree outside of the footprint. A mechanical auger would be needed to dig a hole in which the relocated tree base would be placed. Conclusion The MBRs limit the destruction of Pileated Woodpecker nests unless they are abandoned for at least 36 months and notice of abandonment has been given to the ECCC. This makes development on land that contains a Pileated Woodpecker nesting site challenging. If the damage to the nesting cavity can be avoided through design choices that is the best way to deal with the issue. If not, a proponent who wants to proceed with development within the 36 month abandonment period may apply for a permit either to destroy the nest or to relocate the nest. Based on current ECCC policies, a proponent will find it difficult to obtain a permit for nest destruction. Seeking a permit for relocation is more likely to be successful, but the proponent will need to ensure that they have demonstrated that mitigation measures are not possible (e.g. adjusting the siting of the building) and that there will be a serious and legitimate damage to the use of the land caused by the unoccupied Pileated Woodpecker nesting site. 11Page 23 Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or wish to discuss. Sincerely, SHORES JARDINE LLP Per: WILLIAM W. SHORES, K.C. bill@shoresjardine.com WWS/ck 12Page 24 Appendix 1 Excerpts from Migratory Birds Regulations (2022) Section 70 reads: Permit to destroy eggs or nests 70 (1) An egg or nest destruction permit allows its holder and their nominees named in the permit to take and destroy the eggs of the species of migratory birds specified in the permit and to remove and destroy the nests of the species of migratory birds specified in the permit in an area described in that permit and subject to the conditions of that permit, and to dispose of the eggs or nests in the manner provided in the permit. Conditions (2)The Minister may issue an egg or nest destruction permit only if the Minister has reason to believe that the destruction of the eggs or nests is necessary to reduce or prevent the danger that migratory birds are causing or are likely to cause to human health or to public safety or the damage they are causing or are likely to cause to agricultural, environmental or other interests. Eligible permit holder (3)An egg or nest destruction permit may be issued only to a person who (a)owns, leases or manages a parcel of land that is situated in the area described in the permit; (b)holds or is the authorized representative of a person who holds an easement, real servitude, right-of-way or licence of occupation in respect of a parcel of land that is situated in that area; or (c)has or is the authorized representative of a person who has rights under the laws of a province to use a parcel of land that is situated in that area for public utilities or public infrastructure. Section 71 reads: Relocation permit 71 (1) A relocation permit allows its holder or their nominees named in the permit to undertake activities for the purpose of relocating the migratory birds, eggs and nests 13Page 25 described in the permit, in the manner set out in the permit and subject to the conditions of that permit, including (a) the capture of migratory birds, the taking of eggs and the removal of nests in an area described in the permit; (b) the transport of those migratory birds, eggs and nests to the other area described in the permit; and (c) the release of those migratory birds, and the placement of those eggs and nests, in that other area. Conditions (2) The Minister may issue a relocation permit only if the Minister has reason to believe that (a) the relocation of birds, eggs and nests is necessary to prevent or reduce (i) the danger that migratory birds are causing or are likely to cause to human health or to public safety in one or more areas, or (ii) the damage that migratory birds are causing or are likely to cause to the use of the land or to agricultural interests; and (b) other means are not sufficient to prevent or reduce the danger or damage. Eligible permit holder (3) A relocation permit may be issued only to a person who (a) owns, leases or manages a parcel of land that is situated in the area described in the permit from which the birds are captured, the eggs are taken or the nests are removed; (b) holds or is the authorized representative of a person who holds an easement, real servitude, right-of-way or licence of occupation in respect of a parcel of land that is situated in that area; or (c) has or is the authorized representative of a person who has rights under the laws of a province to use a parcel of land that is situated in that area for public utilities or public infrastructure. 14Page 26 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Jones Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 10:10:45 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Recommendation Report Action requested of Council Restart and update public input, delay the Secondary Plan until public input is updated and completed Date of meeting 1/19/2026 Summarize your delegation many changes since public input was obtained, no longer relevant. Re-engagement with the public is needed before moving forward Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? No Report number (if known) PDS-002-26 Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person First name: Janice Single/Last name Jones Address Page 27 Town/Hamlet Courtice Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? No Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. No I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 28 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Guetter Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:26:02 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Recommendation Report (Item 6.2) Action requested of Council Requesting endorsement of the recommendation report from Staff Date of meeting 1/19/2026 Summarize your delegation Speaking in support of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan and process to date. Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Darryl Lyons, Lisa Backus, Amanda Crompton Report number (if known) PDS-002-26 Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person First name: Ryan Single/Last name Guetter Page 29 Firm/Organization (if applicable) Weston Consulting Job title (if applicable) President Address Town/Hamlet Vaughan Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? No Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. No I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 30 Page 1 of 2 Municipality of Clarington January 16, 2026 Land Development and Building File 9365 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attn: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services RE: Comments on Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan – Report PDS-002-26 Clarington Planning and Development Committee – Item 6.2 1725596 Ontario Limited 113 Down Road (Courtice Waterfront) Weston Consulting is the planning consultant for 172556 Ontario Ltd. (“client”) the owners of the lands municipally known as 113 Down Road & PT LT 31 CON BROKEN FRONT DARLINGTON PT 1 in the Municipality of Clarington (herein referred to as the “subject lands”) municipally addressed as 113 Down Road. We have been actively participating in the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”) process and are pleased to submit a letter of support for the Secondary Plan on behalf of the owner. The subject lands form a significant component of the Secondary Plan, generally bound by the CN Railway corridor to the north, Darlington Provincial Park to the west, Lake Ontario to the south, and Tooley Creek to the east. Since the Secondary Plan was expanded to include the Subject Lands in 2019, our client has worked closely with the Municipality of Clarington as a key stakeholder and has been actively involved in its evolution to date. On behalf of our client, we support the recommendations in Report PDS-002-26. Our client is committed to contributing to the vision of the Secondary Plan through Zoning By -law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications that will deliver a vibrant, mixed-use community to the Courtice Waterfront and will result in a municipal wide park of a significant size. These applications are currently under review with the Municipality, and we are working in close collaboration with Staff to see them advance. We would like to sincerely thank the Municipality of Clarington Staff for their efforts and collaboration on advancing the Secondary Plan to this stage, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide this letter of support. We look forward to the opportunity to continue working with Staff on implementing the vision of the Secondary Plan through the ongoing Zoning By -law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigne d (rguetter@westonconsulting.com) or Nicholas Klymciw (nklymciw@westonconsulting.com). Page 31 Page 2 of 2 Yours truly, Weston Consulting Per: Ryan Guetter, BEST, MCIP, RPP President c. 172556 Ontario Ltd. Paul DeMelo, Kagan, Shastri, DeMelo, Wine, Park Lawyers LLP Lisa Backus, Municipality of Clarington Amanda Crompton, Municipality of Clarington ` Page 32 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Morawetz, MacLellan Date:Tuesday, December 9, 2025 12:55:44 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Camp 30 Cafereria assessment Action requested of Council Request staff reword lease agreement such that JLF shoulders responsibility for the project allowing JLF to proceed with restoration of cafeteria, funded by JLF. Date of meeting 1/19/2026 Summarize your delegation Discussion of Report from Manorville Homes on assessment and costing of Cafeteria Building costing. Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Daryl Lyons Report number (if known) PD-088-25 Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person First name: 1. Marilyn 2. JJ Single/Last name Page 33 1. Morawetz 2. MacLellan Firm/Organization (if applicable) 1. Jury Lands Foundation 2. Manorville Homes Address 1. 2. Town/Hamlet 1. Hampton 2. ajax Postal code 1. 2. Email address: 1. 2. Phone number 1. 2. Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? No Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. Yes I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven Page 34 minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 35 Camp 30 Cafeteria Building Page 36 Page 37 : Page 38 Page 39 Rehabilitation Plan Our rehabilitation plan of the Cafeteria Building can be broken down into 5 components: 1.Abatement –Asbestos, lead and mercury were all noted in the AiMS Environmental report. These components require special handling and procedures as set out by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Labour (MOL). 2.Demolition –Conduct controlled demolition of all affected building components. 3.Reconstruction –Reconstruct all building components as required. 4.Exterior Finishing –Bring the building to a clean, water-tight, and secure level of exterior finishing 5.New Systems –install new mechanical systems as needed to ensure the future success of the building Page 40 Page 41 Phase 1 -Primary Cost Breakdowns Masonry Repairs $507,000* Framing & Carpentry $256,000* Misc. Demo $62,500 Electrical Servicing $65,000 Admin/Engineering/Consulting $20,000 Construction Permits $23,500 General Construction Costs $596,000 Contingency (10%)$160,000 Total $1,690,000 Abatement $880,000* Total $2,570,000 Municipality may be able to waive this fee * These number are based actual quotes by qualified contractors who have visited the site Page 42 Phase Type Cost Immediate Needs <$10,000 Phase 1 -Exterior Restoration $2,570,000 Phase 2 -Future Mechanicals $200,000 -$400,000 Phase 3a -Interior Upfitting $100/sq ft -$200/sq ft+ Phase 3b -Windows/Doors $300,000 (est) Phase 4 -Exterior Landscaping $100,000 -$300,000+ Possible Phase 2 -4 Costs $1,400,000 -$2,600,000* * Cost estimates based on 8000 sq ft of interior space Budget Proposal Page 43 Page 44 Stevens Road Emergency Access and Fire Safety Concerns Prepared By: Doug Allingham Glenn Jager Thorsten Koseck 1 Page 45 46 Stevens Rd OLT – 23-000308 Figure 1: 46 Stevens Rd. Property Line 2 Page 46 Agenda •Brief History of Property -46 Stevens Road; •Access and Fire Safety Concerns; •Fire Code Standards and Best Practices - Emergency Access Routes; •Incidents at Fairview Lodge Whitby and Thorncliffe Park - Major Fire Events and Evacuations. •Appendix A (Letter to the Mayor & Council) 3 Page 47 Brief History of Property •Initial approval of 47 townhouse units on the subject lands; •Subsequent Approval by OLT of 600+ units and multiple high rise buildings following passage of Bill 23 by the Province - 1000+ residents in an assisted living setting; •Council dealt with “Settlement” proposal in-camera - no public input - not aware of safety concerns; •Safety issues resulting from additional 450+ units and raised by residents unanswered by Municipal staff and developer - letter to the Municipality not responded to; •Intersection of Stevens Rd. and Bowmanville Ave. experienced one recent fatality and has been temporarily shutdown twice in the last 2-3 years. 4 Page 48 Safety Concerns •Single access route for emergency services to site currently approved by OLT without being apprised of Standards or Best Practices; •Approval conditions were not supported by evidence based standards; •Single emergency access route does not meet minimum safety standard or best practices as established by Canadian Fire Chiefs; •3 access routes required according to standards or best practices; •Issues socialized and confirmed with other professionals and emergency service providers. 5 Page 49 Safety Concerns •Safety should never be an item for negotiation or compromise - minimum standards should never be reduced; •Future & Existing Residents will be at risk; •Most residents will require assistance during an evacuation exacerbating evacuation challenges - fire, smoke, gas leak etc; •Municipality will be assuming significant unnecessary liability; •Clarington’s Emergency and Fire Service Guidelines do not reflect industry best practices re: Access Routes. 6 Page 50 100 m 200 m Single Access Route Figure 2: Stevens Rd. measurement markers 300 m 7 Page 51 Fire code and Best Practices •Insufficient number of access routes for 1000+ residents; [Fig 3]. •No secondary emergency access route despite access road being greater than 300m in length (Fig 4] widening of existing road does not achieve necessary minimum standards; •Since site access is greater than 300m from a major road, a second, and possible a third public access route is required; [Figs 3 and 5). •Extra Sprinklers & Extra Hose Length as suggested by the Fire Chief are not sufficient and does not negate the need for additional access routes; •Greenfield site should not have any compromises or exemptions re: safety; •Sources: Fire Dept Access Std 2023 & Fire Chief’s Guide for Development 2022 Figure 3: Fire Chief’s Guide for Development. (2022). Page 33, Annex A. Access Routes/Road Design Number of units 8 Page 52 Figure 4: Fire Department Access Standard. (2023). Section 4 Access, 4.3 Emergency Access Routes Figure 5: Fire Department Access Standard. (2023). Section 4 Access, 4.7 Access: General Information Fire code and Best Practices 9 Page 53 Incident at the Fairview Lodge 2014 •Fairview Lodge Whitby (Highway 2) with ~200 residents (1000+ on Stevens rd); •Forced to evacuate via multiple access points/routes due to major fire event; •Several Roads had to be Closed; •50 Firefighters from Whitby, Oshawa, & Ajax fire services; •6 Firetrucks, Numerous Ambulances & Transit Vehicles. 10 Page 54 Incident At 100 Thorncliffe Park Toronto - 2025 • ~450 residents; •Forced to evacuate via multiple access points/routes due to major fire event; •Several major roads had to be Closed. 11 Page 55 Addressing Safety Concerns - Opportunities •Conduct a third party review of access route requirements; •Consult with Provincial Fire Marshall’s office; •Work with developer at site plan review/approval phase to ensure route access conditions meet nationally accepted access standards and requirements wrt number of units and distance from primary access Route (Bowmanville Avenue); 12 Page 56 Addressing Safety Concerns - Opportunities •No matter the resolution, update the Municipality’s Emergency and Fire Services Development Design Guidelines; •Issues and possible actions/opportunities socialized with local MPP. 13 Page 57 If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: PDS-001-26 Authored By: Ruth Porras, Senior Planner Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: COPA-2024-0005, ZBA-2024-0011 Resolution#: Report Subject: Clarington Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 63 residential units at 1420 and 1422 Nash Road in Courtice Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-001-26 and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That the Official Plan application submitted by by Meredith Consultant Services on behalf of Alesandro Sirizzotti, Rico Patrick Sirizzotti, Luigi Sirizzotti, Pasquale Sirizzotti, Adelina Pelosi, Giulio Sirizzotti, Marisa Sirizzotti be approved and the Official Plan Amendment in Attachment 1 to Report PDS-001-26 be approved; 3. That the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by by Meredith Consultant Services on behalf of Alesandro Sirizzotti, Rico Patrick Sirizzotti, Luigi Sirizzotti, Pasquale Sirizzotti, Adelina Pelosi, Giulio Sirizzotti, Marisa Sirizzotti be approved and that the Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 2 to Report PDS- 001-26 be approved; 4. That once all conditions contained in the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 84-63 with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol and the conditions as outlined in Section 6 of this report are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure Services; 5. That the Durham Region Community Growth and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS-001-26 and Council’s decision; and 6. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-001-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 58 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-001-26 Report Overview 1 Application Details Owner/Applicant: Meredith Consultant Services on behalf of Alesandro Sirizzotti, Rico Patrick Sirizzotti, Luigi Sirizzotti, Pasquale Sirizzotti, Adelina Pelosi, Giulio Sirizzotti, Marisa Sirizzotti Proposal: Official Plan Amendment (OPA): To amend the Clarington Official to permit a 4-storey apartment building and one 3 1/2-storey stacked townhouse block on the north part of the site. Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA): To rezone the subject lands from “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Holding- Urban Residential Exception ((H)R4-52) Zone” and “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone”. Area: 7.51 acres (3.039 hectare) Location: 1420 and 1422 Nash Road in Courtice (see Figure 1) Roll Numbers: 18-17-010-100-14500 18-17-010-100-13200 Page 59 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-001-26 Figure 1 – Proposed Conceptual Plan 2 Background 2.1 On July 31, 2024, Meredith Consultant Services, on behalf of Alesandro Sirizzotti, Rico Patrick Sirizzotti, Luigi Sirizzotti, Pasquale Sirizzotti, Adelina Pelosi, Giulio Sirizzotti, Marisa Sirizzotti submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By- law Amendment. The applications were deemed complete on August 30, 2024. Page 60 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-001-26 2.2 A Statutory Public Meeting was held on December 9, 2024, to provide background information regarding the applications and to obtain public comments. 2.3 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant and their consulting team have been working on addressing the identified issues from the public, staff and agencies . Several follow-up meetings were held with Staff and the applicant’s team to discuss design options and find solutions to the comments and concerns raised. The revised concept plan as provided by the applicant in December 2025, is shown in Figure 1 The revised plan includes Walkways added along the internal drive aisles. The total number of units has been reduced from 73 units to 63 units. The concept plan now shows an east-west internal drive aisle connection to adjacent future redevelopment sites. The proposed number of parking spaces for residents and visitors has been increased to meet the zoning by-law requirement of 98 parking spaces for 63 units. The private indoor and outdoor amenity spaces have been provided in a more central location, with the indoor amenity space located within the ground level of the proposed apartment and adjacent to the outdoor private amenity space. The development has been redesigned to provide an appropriate setback to a 0.07-hectare wetland complex, consistent with the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study. The building massing and location of townhouses, apartment buildings, and stacked townhouses have been redesigned. The townhouses are oriented towards the southern part of the site, and the apartment buildings and stacked townhouses, with the greatest heights located at the rear portion of the property, having the least amount of impact on the streetscape and existing low -rise built forms. Page 61 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-001-26 The proposed changes are outlined in Table 1 below: Apartment Building Two Bedroom -14 units Two Bedroom - 10 units One Bedroom - 37 units One Bedroom- 37 units Townhouses Three Bedroom - 10 units Three Bedroom - 8 units Stacked Townhouses One and Two Bedroom - 12 Units Two-bedroom 8 Units Total Units 73 Units 63 Units Parking Spaces 95 parking spaces proposed (including 12 Visitor Parking Spaces) 100 parking spaces proposed (including 16 Visitor Parking Spaces) Private Indoor and Outdoor Amenity Space Indoor Requirement: 102 square metres. Proposed: 120 square metres. Outdoor Requirement: 292 square metres. Proposed: 228 square metres Indoor Requirement: 94 square metres. Proposed: 120 square metres. Outdoor Requirement: 252 square metres. Proposed: 275 square metres Page 62 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-001-26 3 Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject lands are comprised of two properties on the north side of Nash Road municipally known as 1420 and 1422 Nash Road, Courtice, mid -block between Townline Road and Varcoe Road. The combined sites have approximately 55 metres of frontage along Nash Road. 1420 Nash Road also has approximately 10 metres of frontage on Townline Road. 3.2 The combined site area is approximately 3.03 ha (7.50 acres) and is vacant. 1422 Nash Road did contain a single detached dwelling, which has recently been demolished. Natural heritage features are located towards the rear of the property. Two tributaries transverse the property connecting to Harmony Creek. The properties also contain wooded areas and a wetland. 3.3 The surrounding uses are as follows: North: Existing single detached dwellings and wooded areas. East: Existing single detached dwellings. South: Existing single detached dwellings and shopping plaza. West: Existing single detached dwellings and newly constructed 3 storey townhouses in the City of Oshawa. 4 Provincial Policy The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) 4.1 The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) encourages planning authorities to create healthy, livable, and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing types, including affordable housing and shall promote development patterns that efficiently use land and infrastructure. Opportunities for redevelopment and intensification are to be promoted where it can be accommodated. 4.2 The PPS policies direct growth to settlement areas and promote compact development forms. The subject lands are located within the Courtice Urban Area. Planning authorities are to facilitate a variety of housing forms and promote residential intensification to achieve efficient use of land, especially along public transit and active transportation routes. 4.3 The PPS encourages a minimum density target of 50 residents and jobs per gross developable hectare in designated growth areas. Page 63 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-001-26 4.4 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, 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. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. 4.5 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement. 5 Official Plan Durham Region Official Plan 5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham) designates the subject lands as “Community Areas.” 5.2 Community Areas are to be planned for a variety of housing types, sizes, and tenures, including townhouses and apartments within connected neighbourhoods. These areas can also include population-serving uses and shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. Envision Durham Greenland System mapping identifies Regional Natural Heritage System and Key Hydrologic Features to the north of the subject lands. Site alteration is not permitted in Regional Natural System and Key Hydrologic Features including any vegetation protection zone (VPZ). Within Urban Areas the VPZ shall be determined through an Environmental Impact Study (EIS). 5.3 The proposal conforms to Envision Durham. Municipality of Clarington Official Plan 5.4 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands “Urban Residential” along Nash Road, and the balance is designated “Environmental Protection Areas.” Located within the Courtice Built Boundary, the Urban Residential designation supports a mix of housing types, densities, and tenures to accommodate residents of all ages, incomes, ages, and lifestyles. 5.5 The Clarington Official Plan contains criteria for multi-unit residential development. Sites shall be suitable in terms of size and shape, with consideration given to building form, height, scale, setbacks, and siting. Developments should provide a mix of unit types, well-located amenity spaces, adequate parking, and safe vehicular access while minimizing traffic impacts on local streets. Intensification or infill within established neighbourhoods must respect and complement the existing character of the area . Page 64 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-001-26 5.6 The Clarington Official Plan provides the Urban Structure Typologies for specific areas of the Municipality. These identified areas are where growth and higher intensity-built forms are to be directed. Sites adjacent to arterial roads shall have a minimum density of 19 units per hectare. The built form shall be between 1 to 3 storeys and primarily used for ground-related units, including townhouses, semi-detached, or detached dwellings, and limited apartments. The development does not conform to the height requirements in the Clarington Official Plan and therefore requires an Official Plan Amendment (see Attachment 1). 5.7 Environmental Protection Areas are recognized as the most significant components of the Municipality’s natural environment. As such, these areas and their ecological functions are to be preserved and protected from the effects of human activity. Environmental Protection Areas include the natural heritage features and hydrologically sensitive features that comprise the natural heritage system as well as those lands within the regulatory flood plain of a watercourse. 5.8 A woodlot and wetland have been identified on the site, as well as a tributary of Harmony Creek with the Provincially Significant Harmony-Farewell Wetland Complex located to the east of the site. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was required to determine the exact limits of development, including limits to the natural heritage system. The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) has been deemed satisfactory to determine the proposed limit of development. As per Clarington’s Parkland and Open Space By-law, lands in the NHS and MVPZ may be dedicated to the municipality, free and clear of all encumbrances, as part of the development application process in order to meet the Municipality’s long-term goals or their protection and conservation. Dedication of open space lands do not count towards fulfilling the parkland dedication requirements but are excluded from the total developable area. 6 Zoning By-law 84-63 6.1 The subject lands are currently zoned “Agricultural (A) Zone” and “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone”. A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to permit the proposed residential development on the subject lands. 6.2 The proposed Zoning By-law defines the limits of the “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” and rezones the developable portion of the property to “Holding- Urban Residential Exception ((H)R4-52) Zone” to allow the proposed development. The proposed zoning by-law amendment is included as Attachment 2. Holding Symbol 6.3 In addition to the regulations of Section 3.10 of Zoning By-law 84-63, the symbol ‘H’ following the zoning on the Zoning Schedule is identified; the ‘H’ shall not be removed until: a) The Applicant provides satisfactory evidence which addresses all concerns listed in this report and fulfills conditions of the future site plan with the Municipality of Clarington. Page 65 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-001-26 7 Summary of Background Studies Planning Justification Report, Meredith Consulting Services, July 2024, Addendum December 2025, 7.1 The Planning Justification Report submitted in support of the proposal concludes that the applications represent an appropriate form of development, consistent with the policy framework that applies to the subject property. The proposed development will result in negative impacts on the identified natural heritage features or their functions. The proposed development has not been created in isolation and has considered the future development of adjacent lands on the north side of Nash Road, east and west of the subject property. Environmental Impact Study, GHD, June 2024, October 2025 7.2 EIS in support of the proposal concludes that development will have no negative impact on the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), woodland, watercourse , or Head Drainage Feature, with the implementation of proposed measures outlined in the study. 7.3 The EIS recommends a variable Vegetation Protection Zone setback on the southern part of a small, isolated wetland pocket due to its composition consisting of grassland, a wooded area, and a maintained lawn and recommends a restoration plan with d ense native species to enhance the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (MVPZ) and compensation that will be applied also to the removal of the treed area located outside the Natural Heritage System on the southern portion of the site. In no instance has the MVPZ been reduced below 15 metres. Transportation Impact Study, Nextrans, April 2024, October 2025 7.4 The TIS in support of the proposal and concluded that the capacity analysis under future total traffic conditions indicates that the projected site traffic generated by the proposed development will have a negligible impact on the future operations of the surrounding road network. As such, the projected site traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated by the existing road network. 7.5 The study concludes the revised concept provides parking to meet the Zoning By-law requirements, and the review finds the proposed parking supply adequate to accommodate the projected parking demands of the site. The site is accessible by the waste collection vehicles that are expected to service the site. Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited, August 2023, October 2025 7.6 The study confirms the site can be serviced via existing Nash Road servicing connections. On-site storm sewers are designed for a 5-year post-development event per Clarington standards. Page 66 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-001-26 7.7 Stormwater flows will be controlled to pre-development levels using underground storage, surface ponding, and an orifice plate, with water quality enhanced by an oil/grit separator. Extended detention and erosion control will be provided through soak away pits, while temporary sediment controls during construction will use perimeter fencing, catch basin filters, controlled vehicle access, and standard engineering practices. Hydrogeological Assessment, Cambium Inc., May 2023 7.8 The Hydrogeological Assessment concludes that, based on the information collected during the investigation, development at the site is feasible from a hydrological perspective but will require consideration of groundwater conditions and the development and implementation of various management plans and monitoring to ensure compliance with local and provincial regulations. Appropriate LID and sediment and erosion control measures can be implemented to mitigate impacts. Geotechnical Investigation, Cambium Inc., May 2023 7.9 The Geotechnical Investigation presents geotechnical findings and recommendations for the proposed development to ensure that design and construction are safe and appropriate for the site-specific ground conditions, excavation for the foundations, temporary groundwater control measures, underfloor drainage, and exterior perimeter system for finished floor slabs, drainage system for the exterior walls, and design review and inspections. Stage 1 and 2 Archeological Assessment, A. M. Archaeological Associates, June 2022 7.10 The Stage 1 and 2 Archeological Assessment submitted in support of the proposal concludes that no archaeological resources were discovered from the background research or during the visual and Stage 2 test pit survey of the property at 1420 and 1422 Nash Road. The property does not require further archaeological assessment. 7.11 The Stage 1 and Stage 2 archaeological Assessment of the property is to be submitted to the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism for approval. A clearance letter from the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism will be required prior to the approval of the Site Plan Application. Urban Design Brief, Cord Design, December 2023, BBA, October 2025 7.12 The Urban Design Brief states that the proposed scale and intensity of the development consider its context and respond to the urban design principles and objectives of the Official Plan to create an appropriate built form interface with surrounding land uses and high-quality architectural and landscape treatments. Page 67 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PDS-001-26 Environmental Noise Assessment, YCA Engineering Limited, August 2023, October 2025 7.13 The Noise Impact Study submitted in support of the application states that the proposed development is feasible and that acceptable sound levels are expected to be achieved using the abatement measures, including air conditioning for the units. Standard windows and exterior wall construction meeting the Building Code requirements are sufficient for all locations within the development. Further investigation is recommended once the final plans and all mechanical details become available. All the required warning clauses shall be included in the site plan agreement and Agreements of Purchase and Sale for units as outlined in the final Noise Report. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Cambium, February 2023 7.14 The Phase One ESA submitted in support of the proposal identified three off site potentially contaminating activities (PCA) within the Phase One study area. Based on the research conducted during the Phase One ESA, it was concluded that none of the PCAs contributed to areas of potential environmental concern at the Site. As such as Phase Two ESA is not required. An updated Phase One ESA, including a Regional Reliance letter and certificate of insurance, would be required as part of a site pla n application. 8 Public Notice and Submissions 8.1 Public Notice was mailed to 64 households within 120 metres of the subject lands on November 14, 2024, and two public meeting signs were installed on the subject lands along Nash Road and Townline Road North. Details of the proposed application were also posted on the Municipality’s website, and in the Clarington Connected e-newsletter 8.2 Staff received several inquiries, and 9 members of the public spoke at the Public Meeting with respect to the applications. Residents have expressed the following comments and or concerns: The location of the proposed density, building typologies, building heights, the loss of privacy, the future tenure of the proposed apartment building, and the need for a park. The character of the existing neighbourhood is better suited for single-family homes. The need for an additional entrance to the site and connections to Varcoe Road as shown on the neighbourhood design plan prepared back in 1990. The lack of through road connections in the proposed concept to allow deep lots to develop. The negative impact on the quality of life and home values with the increase in units that would impact the capacity of schools, adjacent properties, and roads, particularly Nash Road, during pick-up and drop-off times from nearby schools. Page 68 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report PDS-001-26 The reduction of parking requirements and increase in vehicle parking on Nash Road from new development would further aggravate the existing traffic conditions. The impact of development on the community’s infrastructure, schools and traffic, noise, safety, and construction-related issues. The natural heritage features located to the north and environmental impacts to wildlife. Access to the conservation area and future Ownership. The Grading and disruption of groundwater flow causing negative impacts such as flooding and respiratory diseases. 9 Department and Agency Comments 9.1 Various agencies and internal departments were circulated for comments on the applications. Attachment 3 to this report is a chart that provides the list of circulated parties. 10 Discussion Proposed Residential Development 10.1 The proposed residential development is located within the Courtice Built Boundary, and the proposed residential uses represent a compact urban form of development. The proposed 63 units and would be located near shopping areas, parks, schools, and transit. 10.2 Through the completion of an Environmental Impact Study, combined with the requirement for a 5.0 metre road widening along Nash Road, the resulting net developable area has been determined to be 0.723 hectares, which represents approximately 24% of the overall site. The proposal comprises of 47 apartment units and 16 townhouse units. Urban Structure and Typologies, Multi-unit Residential Development Locational Criteria, Urban Design and Site Development 10.3 The subject site fronts onto Nash Road, a Type C Arterial Road, and is located at the edge of the established neighbourhood. The site shall have a minimum density of 19 units per hectare. The proposal is approximately 87 units per hectare. The Official Plan permits a predominant built form and mix consisting of townhouses, stacked townhouses, and limited apartment buildings on the subject lands with a height of a maximum of 3 storeys. 10.4 The applicant has redesigned the concept plan to meet the Multi-unit Residential Development Locational Criteria of the Clarington Official Plan and to allow for a development that is suitable to accommodate the proposed density, built form, heights, and yard setbacks, and would be compatible with the surrounding context. Page 69 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PDS-001-26 10.5 The revised proposal removes 10 units, resulting in a reduction of the footprint of all the proposed building types. The 3-storey townhouse blocks on the southern part of the site facing Nash Road would provide the required transition with the surrounding established neighbourhood. An additional transition is provided with the location of private outdoor amenity spaces between the 4-story apartment building and the link townhouses. These measures reinforce an appropriate transition and buffer between the proposed building typologies and the surrounding established neighbourhood. The implementing site-specific zoning-by-law contains performance standards to ensure that the new development will be compatible with the existing low-rise built form character of the established neighbourhood (See Figures 2 – 5 below). Figure 2: Applicant’s Elevation of the proposed Link Townhouses Figure 3: Applicant’s Elevation of the proposed Stacked Townhouses Page 70 Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report PDS-001-26 Figure 4: Applicant’s Elevation of the proposed 4 storey Apartment Building 10.6 A one-phase development and sequencing of the construction will be required. The requirements and conditions to ensure development does not negatively impact the adjacent neighbourhood and environmental features will be confirmed through the site plan review process. Parkland and Amenity Space 10.7 No parks are proposed within this development, given the amount of developable area available. Courtice Park is within walking distance of the subject lands. As an alternative, cash in lieu of parkland will be required as a condition of Site Plan Approval. 10.8 The concept plan has been revised and identifies a centralized area where private outdoor amenity space could be accommodated adjacent to the ground level of the apartment building. The exact location will be detailed through the Site Plan Approval process. The subject lands will be required to provide amenity space for the residents that meet Clarington’s Amenity Space Guidelines. Vehicle Access, Pedestrian Connections, Traffic, Infrastructure, Parking, Truck Movements 10.9 Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is proposed off Nash Road, and walkways are proposed along the internal drive aisles. All the proposed units are accessed by a private road network on the subject lands. The internal drive aisle located on the southern part of the site has been designed to allow for a future shared access in both an easterly and westerly direction and will be subject to an easement through a condition of the site plan application. The area of the proposed western connection on the concept site plan will accommodate two extra parking spaces until the connection on the western part of the site occurs. 10.10 The TIS confirmed that the projected site traffic generated by the proposed development can be accommodated by the existing road network. Page 71 Municipality of Clarington Page 15 Report PDS-001-26 10.11 The proposed number of parking spaces for residents and visitors has been increased to meet the zoning by-law requirement of 98 parking spaces; a total of 100 parking spaces is provided. 75 parking spaces are located along the proposed driveways, and 23 parking spaces are located within the ground level of the apartment building and townhouses. The proposed parking spaces for each stacked townhouse are proposed in tandem along the northern part of the site and represent 20 % of the total parking for the development. Truck Movements have been designed to occur entirely within the site. Figure 5 – Applicant’s rendering of the propped buildings along the northeast side of the property facing Nash Proposed Conceptual Plan Housing Diversity 10.12 The Clarington Official Plan encourages a broad range of housing types, tenures , and cost within Settlement Areas to meet the evolving housing needs for people of all ages, abilities, and income groups with a minimum of 30% of the proposed units to be affordable. 10.13 The applicant has indicated that the proposed development would be a residential standard condominium. Further discussions through the site plan application process would be needed in order to determine the type of tenure for the apartment units and townhouse units. Discussions about the provision of affordable units will be part of the site plan application process. Page 72 Municipality of Clarington Page 16 Report PDS-001-26 Schools 10.14 It has been confirmed that there is adequate capacity within the School Board to accommodate the number of students generated by the proposed development . Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 10.15 The lands zoned Agricultural (A) would be rezoned to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” and “Holding- Urban Residential Exception (H)R4-52) Zone”. Based on the review of the technical studies submitted, it is the staff’s opinion that the subject lands and the amount of land area and depth available can support the proposed development and will not result in any compatibility concerns to the adjacent low-density residential neighbourhood. 10.16 The proposed Zoning By-law meets the intent of the Provincial Planning Statement, the Durham Region Official Plan, and the Clarington Official Plan. 10.17 The proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning. Courtice West Neighbourhood Development Plan 10.18 The Courtice West Neighbourhood Development Plan was prepared back in 1990 to implement the Newcastle Official Plan and identified developme nt, including a road connection to Varcoe Road through lands that are environmentally protected today. While the Neighbourhood Design Plans guide the development of neighbourhoods, Clarington’s current Official Plan was last updated in 2018; the current Of ficial Plan Land Use Map designates 75% of the site as Environmental Protection Area where development is not permitted. The proposed concept plan shows an internal drive aisle with potential future shared access in both an easterly and westerly direction. As redevelopment occurs, future connections will be secured and eventually connect to Varcoe Road. Environmental Protection Areas, Hydrology of the Wetland 10.19 Staff have determined that the findings of the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to be satisfactory and the proposed development limits meet the policies of the Clarington Official Plan. The EIS provided a restoration and preservation plan (see Figure 6) and proposes compensation for the removal of the treed area located outside the Natural Heritage System on the southern portion of the site. The proposed planting will increase diversity and provide additional cover for wildlife. The findings of the studies have been implemented through the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment which will add 1.16 hectares of Environmental Protection Area to the existing 1.12 hectares currently zoned as Environmental Protection Areas. Page 73 Municipality of Clarington Page 17 Report PDS-001-26 Figure 6 – Restoration and Preservation Plan Concept 10.20 The Harmony-Farewell Iroquois Beach PSW and adjacent woodland areas presently are part of a north-south movement corridor within an urban area. The MVPZ associated with the watercourse, PSW , and woodland will protect the movement corridor for wildlife. The wildlife will continue to utilize the western portions of the site and the PSW, woodland, and watercourse features post-development. The proposed development will not have a significant negative impact on this corridor function. Fencing with no gate is recommended to protect the natural heritage system. The wetland pocket is under the 0.5-hectare threshold to be part of the natural heritage system established in the Clarington Official Plan; however, the EIS recommends the protection of this feature and that a minimum 15 metre buffer be applied. The proposal maintains the 15-metre setback and proposes an extra 6 metre setback to the future rear property line, enabling a total of 21 metre setback to the wetland feature. 10.21 Grading, groundwater flows, and flooding control are subject to detailed studies and design through the Site Plan process to ensure there are no negative impacts on adjacent properties and natural heritage features. Given the small reduction in pervious surface within the catchment area, the hydrology of the wetland is not expected to undergo significant change. All plant species recorded by GHD biologists in the wetland pocket are known to occur outside of wetland environments with moderate tolerances of disturbance. The EIS states that the proposed MVPZ will maintain the vegetation composition within the natural heritage features. Page 74 Municipality of Clarington Page 18 Report PDS-001-26 Site Plan Application 10.22 Staff will continue to collaborate with the owner through a future site plan application. Detailed site design refinements of technical aspects of the project will occur through the Site Plan approval process. 11 Financial Considerations 11.1 This proposal is considered an infill development. The capital infrastructure required for this development will be built by the developer and assumed by the Municipality upon acceptance. The Municipality will include the new capital assets in its asset management plans and be responsible for the major repair, rehabilitation, and replacement in the future. 12 Strategic Plan 12.1 The proposed development has been reviewed against the three pillars of the Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-27. Clarington’s Strategic Plan prioritizes applications resulting in the creation of growing, resilient, sustainable, and complete communities and connecting residents through the design of safe, diverse, inclusive, and vibrant communities. The proposal aligns with Clarington’s Strategic Plan. 13 Climate Change 13.1 The applicant has prepared a Sustainability Analysis within the Urban Design Brief. This proposal considers climate risks by implementing sustainable design techniques, features and attributes that will include active and passive strategies r educing energy and water consumption through building materials and fixtures, protecting water quality though enhanced storm water management strategies and low-impact development (LID) measures and reducing the urban heat island effect through landscaping measures. 14 Concurrence 14.1 Not Applicable Page 75 Municipality of Clarington Page 19 Report PDS-001-26 15 Conclusion 15.1 In consideration of the review of the detailed plans, all agency, staff and public comments, it is respectfully recommended that the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments included in Attachments 1 and 2 be approved. The (H) Holding provision will be removed once the applicant enters into a Site Plan Agreement and all the conditions therein are satisfied. Staff Contact: Ruth Porras, Senior Planner, (905)623-3379 ext. 2412 or rporras@clarington.net. Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from the Department. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Official Plan Amendment Attachment 2 – Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment 3 – Department and Agency Comments Interested Parties: Page 76 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-001-26 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Amendment Number 147 to the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to amend the Clarington Official to permit a 4-storey apartment building and one 3 1/2-storey stacked townhouse block on the north part of the site. Location: This Amendment to the Clarington Official Plan applies to the properties at 1420 and 1422 Nash Road in Courtice. Basis: This amendment is based on applications by Meredith Consultant Services on behalf of Alesandro Sirizzotti, Rico Patrick Sirizzotti, Luigi Sirizzotti, Pasquale Sirizzotti, Adelina Pelosi, Giulio Sirizzotti, Marisa Sirizzotti to permit 63 units consisting of a 4-storey apartment building with a total of 47 units, 3 1/2-storey stacked townhouses with 8 units, and two 3-storey townhouses each with 4 units in Courtice. The amendment meets the review criteria for amendments to the Clarington Official Plan under section 23.2.6 of the Official Plan by: conforming to municipal goals and objectives of the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan; contributing to the overall structure of the Municipality; being compatible with adjacent land uses; and being supported by infrastructure to service the development. Actual Amendment: Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a strike-through. The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended by adding an exception to Section 23.19.1. “Residential Exceptions” as follows: x. Notwithstanding Table 4-3 Summary of Urban Structure Typologies, lands identified by Roll Numbers 181701010014500, 181701010013200 (municipally known as 1420 and 1422 Nash Road in Courtice) shall, in addition to the Standard Minimum and Maximum Height identified for the General Location Criteria ‘Edge of neighbourhoods and adjacent arterial roads’, also be permitted to include apartment buildings with a maximum height of 4 storeys and stacked townhouses with a maximum height of 3 1/2-storeys. Implementation: The provisions outlined in the Clarington Official Plan regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Page 77 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-001-26 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2026-______ 1.“Special Exceptions –) Zone” is “ Page 78 Page | 2` c. Lot coverage (maximum) 25%; to a maximum of 1,816 sq. metres d. Landscape Open Space (minimum) 35% e. Building Height i) Building Apartment (maximum) 4 Storeys (15.0 metres north and south building façade) ii) Link Townhouse units(maximum) 3 Storeys (10.5 metres north and south building façade) iii) Stacked townhouse (maximum) 3 ½ Storeys (12.0 metres north and south building façade) f. Amenity Space i) Minimum outdoor amenity space 4.0 square metres per unit ii) Minimum indoor amenity space (apartment building) 2.0 square metres per unit g. Parking Spaces i) Notwithstanding the requirements of 3.16 e., a maximum of 20% of the required parking spaces may be tandem parking spaces. Each tandem parking space shall be a minimum of 2.75 metres wide and 11.5 metres long and shall be equal to 2 parking spaces. All other spaces shall be a minimum of 2.75 metres wide and 5.7 met res long, unless designated as an accessible parking space. h. Private Aisle (minimum) 6.5 metres i. Accessory structures are prohibited 2. Schedule ‘3’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone from: “Agricultural (A) Zone“ to “Holding - Urban Residential Type Four ((H)R4-52) Zone” Agricultural (A) Zone“ to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto. Page 79 Page | 3` 3. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 24.2, 34, and Section 36 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this day of January, 2026 __________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor __________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 80 Page | 4` Page 81 Attachment 3 to Report PDS-001-26 Attachment 3 – Agency and Department Comments Department/Agency Comments Received Summary of Comment ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ ☒ Page 82 Attachment 3 to PDS-001-26 Conseil Scolaire Viamonde ☒ The Conseil Scolaire Viamonde has no objection to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Canada Post ☒ Canada Post has no objection to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Enbridge Gas ☒ Enbridge has no objection to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Hydro One ☒ Hydro One has no objection to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Rogers Cable ☒ Rogers has no objection to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 83 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: PDS-002-26 Authored By: Sylvia Jennings, Planner II; Amanda Crompton, Principal Planner Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: COPA2022-0001 (PLN 41.6) Report Subject: Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Recommendation Report Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-002-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That Clarington Official Plan Amendment 131 and Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 2, attached to Report PDS-002-26, for the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan be finalized and forwarded to Council for approval; 3. That Clarington Official Plan Amendment 146, attached to Report PDS-002-26, for the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan be finalized and forwarded to Council for approval; 4. That upon approval by Council, the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan be implemented through the annual capital budgeting process; 5. That the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines appended to the Secondary Plan be approved and be used by staff to guide development applications and public projects; 6. That the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services be authorized to finalize the Transportation Impact Study in support of the Secondary Plan; 7. That Council request Durham Region Transit to provide transit service to connect the Energy Business Park, future residential development and the Courtice Waterfront Park to the future Courtice GO Station; Page 84 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-002-26 8. That Council direct staff to undertake a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to determine transportation improvements that may be required to facilitate access to the Courtice Waterfront Park and to unlock housing, subject to the Minister approving use of funding for this project through Clarington’s 2024 Build Faster Fund allocation up to $500,000. 9. That the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services be authorized to execute any agreements to implement the Secondary Plan once approved by Council; and 10. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-002-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Report Overview 1. Purpose of the Report 1.1 The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that Council approve Clarington Official Plan Amendment 131 (OPA 131) to include the new Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan (Secondary Plan) in the Clarington Official Plan. The recommendation follows an extensive public engagement process. OPA 131 includes the Secondary Plan and the associated Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines (UDSG), provided as Attachment 1 to this report. 1.2 To facilitate the creation of the new Secondary Plan, the report also recommends that Council approve Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 2 (ROPA 2), which removes the ‘Special Study Area 2’ overlay and redesignates a portion of the Courtice Waterfront lands to ‘Community Areas’. 1.3 ‘Special Study Area 2’ of the Durham Region Official Plan outlines that an amendment to permit the development of a mixed-use community at the Courtice Waterfront must satisfy the Durham Region Official Plan requirements regarding land use compatibility, transportation connectivity, and the execution of a land conveyance agreement with the Municipality of Clarington for the establishment of a public Waterfront Park. These requirements have all been addressed through the preparation of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan and associated technical studies. Page 85 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-002-26 1.4 As of January 1, 2025, Envision Durham, the new Durham Region Official Plan, became part of the Clarington Official Plan. As a result, Clarington Council is the approval authority for OPA 131 and ROPA 2. 1.5 This report includes an overview of the Secondary Plan and summarizes the process and feedback received since the release of the draft Official Plan Amendment, draft Secondary Plan, and draft UDSG in April 2025. 2. Background 2.1 In 2018, the Municipality initiated an update to the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan to identify a renewed vision and updated policy framework. 2.2 In 2019, the Secondary Plan area was expanded west to Darlington Provincial Park to include the Courtice Waterfront and renamed the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan. The Municipality has long recognized the future value of the waterfront as a public amenity by identifying the location of the Municipal Wide Park in the Clarington Official Plan. 2.3 In 2025, following the release of the new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 and changes to the Planning Act definition of “employment area”, the Secondary Plan boundary was further revised to focus solely on the Courtice Waterfront area. Accordingly, this report recommends the establishment of a new Secondary Plan. 2.4 The existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan will remain in effect and be updated at a future date, following completion of the Growth Management Study as part of the Official Plan Review. This study will include an employment lands assessment which will evaluate existing employment conditions, identify future employment land needs, and explore opportunities for employment growth within Clarington. 2.5 In the interim, and as directed by Clarington Council in May 2025, this report recommends that Council approve Clarington Official Plan Amendment 146, which introduces policy language that explicitly prohibits anaerobic digesters within the boundaries of the existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan . 2.6 The new Secondary Plan includes a 101-hectare area between Darlington Provincial Park to the west and Courtice Shores Drive to the east, south of Highway 401 , as shown in Figure 1. Currently, the Secondary Plan area consists of an apple orchard, agricultural fields, a rural residential dwelling, Tooley Creek and other natural heritage features. 2.7 The Secondary Plan area is envisioned as a residential neighbourhood with visitor - oriented commercial, a new Municipal Wide Park at the waterfront and protected natural features like the Lake Ontario shoreline and Tooley Creek valley lands. Page 86 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-002-26 2.8 The Courtice Waterfront is planned to accommodate approximately 4,800 residents and over 550 jobs. The Secondary Plan fosters an inclusive community by enabling a diverse range of housing options, including affordable housing. It supports a mix of building types and heights to create a balanced interface with Darlington Provincial Park while establishing a vibrant waterfront community. 2.9 The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, together with the broader open space system, is planned to protect significant natural features, provide enhanced public access to and along Lake Ontario, and offer a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. The Secondary Plan ensures the preservation of the Lake Ontario shoreline and protects an extensive area designated as Environmental Protection Area. 2.10 A preliminary Courtice Waterfront Park Master Plan was presented to Planning and Development Committee in June 2022. An updated version will be introduced as part of the Clarington Waterfront Strategy. The Secondary Plan supports many of the original 1992 Waterfront Strategy goals, including bringing more waterfront lands into public ownership, creating a connected trail system along the water’s edge, providing opportunities for views of the water, expanding public and private sector uses, and protecting “green infrastructure” to strengthen biodiversity and the local ecosystem. In addition, the proposed park configuration, intended uses, and integrated trail network outlined in the Secondary Plan are consistent with the recommendations of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan 2.11 The Statutory Public Meeting Report (PDS-021-25) and Presentation outline the Secondary Plan’s vision, framework, and key policy directions in detail. Page 87 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-002-26 Figure 1: Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Area 3. Secondary Plan Process 3.1 Development of the Secondary Plan was informed by an extensive public engagement program and several technical background studies. 3.2 The Secondary Plan process for the Courtice Waterfront involved three Phases as described below. A full sequence of events is provided in Attachment 4. Phase 1 (Visioning and Analysis) included technical analysis through background studies and initial consultation with the community to determine the vision for the new neighbourhood and updated Energy Park. Engagement included a Public Information Centre in December 2019. Phase 2 (Preferred Plan) resulted in a draft land use and urban design concept that was presented to the public and agencies for comment. Two Public Information Centres (March 2020 and March 2022) and two surveys were used to gather feedback on the proposed concept. Page 88 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-002-26 Phase 3 (Secondary Plan) focused on development of a Secondary Plan which was presented to Council and the public at a June 2022 Statutory Public Meeting. A second Statutory Public Meeting was held on May 12, 2025. Substantial changes to the Secondary Plan were made between 2022 and 2025 to reflect changes in the local planning context and updates to the provincial policy framework. 3.3 Public engagement included three Public Information Centres held between December 19 and March 2022, two Statutory Public Meetings, and landowner meetings held throughout the process. Feedback received over the last several years was used to inform the creation of this Secondary Plan. A more detailed summary of the Secondary Plan process and community engagement program is provided in the Statutory Public Meeting report (PDS-021-25). Background Reports 3.4 The technical analysis and recommendations from several background and technical reports informed the preparation of the Secondary Plan. A summary of the following technical reports is provided in Attachment 5 to this report: Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report, 2020 Phase 1 Technical Report, 2021 Land Use Compatibility Study, 2022 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Drainage Report, 2025 Natural Environment Report, 2025 3.5 In addition, a draft Traffic Impact Study assessed the proposed transportation network and intersection operations within the study area and provided recommendations to inform future areas of study. Final revisions are being made to the Traffic Impact Study to address comments from the Region and the Municipality. 3.6 A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment is required to determine the ultimate preferred alternative for road improvements to facilitate access to the Courtice Waterfront Park and to unlock housing opportunities in this location. Staff are requesting that up to $500,000 be allocated from the 2024 Build Faster Fund award to undertake this project. In accordance with the Build Faster Fund, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing requires that fund allocation be pre-approved and early communication with Ministry staff indicate that this would be eligible. This work will support readiness for any future grants to design and build the transportation improvements. 3.7 Council adopted the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study in 2023, and an associated Flood Mitigation Study was completed . Both of these studies informed the limits of the natural heritage system and flood plain in the Secondary Plan. Page 89 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-002-26 4. Public and Agency Submissions and Summaries 4.1 Comments on the draft Secondary Plan were received through oral and written correspondence from agencies, landowners and members of the public. This section summarizes the comments provided since the release of the draft OPA, draft Secondary Plan, and draft UDSG in April 2025. Section 6 outlines how these comments have been addressed. 4.2 All the comments on the draft Secondary Plan, along with staff responses, are documented in the Public and Agency Comments Summary Tables, included as Attachments 6 and 7 respectively, to this report. General Public Comments 4.3 A total of ten delegations were made at the Statutory Public Meeting held on May 12, 2025. Following the Public Meeting, the Municipality received over 20 written submissions via email and more than 40 additional comments through Clarington Connected. A summary of the public comments is detailed below: Opposition to residential development at the Courtice Waterfront. Requests to preserve and enhance the existing natural area, including adding bike and walking trails. Requests for improved connectivity to the Courtice Waterfront for cyclists and pedestrians. Support for recreational development, such as parks and trails. Concerns about potential loss of wildlife habitat. Concerns regarding insufficient community services and infrastructure to support new development (e.g., schools, hospitals, transit, grocery stores). Calls to protect Darlington Provincial Park and minimize negative impacts. 4.4 Public feedback on the vision for the Courtice Waterfront was also gathered through a survey conducted as part of Clarington’s Waterfront Strategy in July 2025. The results showed strong community support for developing a park: 73% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the vision for the Courtice Waterfront Park, while only 10% disagreed or strongly disagreed. The remaining respondents were neutral. 4.5 Responses were more mixed when asked about supporting the creation of a new residential community to help fund and secure land for the Courtice Waterfront Park. Survey results showed that 52% of respondents supported or strongly supported the idea, while 29% opposed or strongly opposed it, and 19% were neutral. Page 90 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-002-26 Landowner Comments 4.6 Comments were provided by Weston Consulting on behalf of the owners of 1725596 Ontario Ltd. (113 Down Road). Staff have worked closely with the landowners throughout the Secondary Plan process and have incorporated revisions where appropriate to address earlier feedback. Their comments at and following the Statutory Public Meeting included a request for greater flexibility in the design of Street D, the Special Local Road abutting the Courtice Waterfront Park, as well as input regarding permitted uses and minimum building heights within the Mixed Use Area. 4.7 The landowners also provided comments on the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines to suggest increased flexibility related to parking, building heights, street design, and improvements to streetscapes and park facilities. Agency Comments 4.8 The Region of Durham expressed concerns related to ensuring the safe operation and future expansion of regional infrastructure. Most comments regarding regional infrastructure focused on lands located within the existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan. The Region’s comments emphasized the need to recognize these facilities as critical infrastructure essential for supporting sustainable growth in Clarington and the Region. 4.9 Additional comments from the Region raised concerns regarding transportation connectivity, flagging that the Traffic Impact Study was not yet complete. Several recommendations to improve the active transportation network were provided. The Region has since reviewed the draft Traffic Impact Study and will continue to be engaged as the study is finalized. 4.10 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) is generally supportive of the Secondary Plan. CLOCA suggested that groundwater recharge ar eas should be protected, new flood control facilities should be a last resort, and that water should not be permitted to drain from one watershed into another. CLOCA also suggested adding a policy to support ‘wildlife friendly’ road crossings. 4.11 Comments from Hydro One Networks Inc. described the processes that may be applicable at the development application stage if additional hydro capacity is needed , or if development is undertaken near Hydro One infrastructure. 4.12 Comments from Ontario Provincial Parks focused on protecting natural features and reducing conflicts between residential development and Darlington Provincial Park. Page 91 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-002-26 Indigenous Consultation 4.13 The following Indigenous communities were invited to provide comments or consult directly with Municipal Staff: Alderville First Nation Beausoleil First Nation Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation Curve Lake First Nation Georgina Island First Nation Hiawatha First Nation Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation Métis Nation of Ontario Chippewas of Rama First Nation Huron-Wendat First Nation 4.14 Following circulation to the listed Indigenous communities, staff received two requests for funding to engage on the matter. The Municipality of Clarington is currently collaborating with the other lower-tier municipalities in Durham Region in the creation of an Indigenous Engagement Guide for Durham Region area municipalities, informed by Durham Region’s Braiding Pathways framework and upcoming engagement with Williams Treaties First Nations. 4.15 Staff held a virtual information meeting with representatives from Chippewas of Rama First Nation. No specific comments were received. 5. Key Revisions to the Secondary Plan 5.1 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the draft Secondary Plan was revised to focus on the Courtice Waterfront area, address new technical work, and address feedback from agencies, area landowners, and members of the public. Key revisions are described below. Minor editorial changes were also made. Revised Secondary Plan Area 5.2 The Secondary Plan area was revised to include only the Courtice Waterfront area and exclude the Energy Park. This resulted in revisions throughout the Secondary Plan to exclude references to the Energy Park and the relevant land use designations and roads. Employment forecasts were also revised. Page 92 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-002-26 Urban Design and Built Form Policies 5.3 Several policies related to built form and urban design were revised including: Added policies to support an inviting public realm; Revised the minimum height of buildings with destination -oriented uses in the Mixed Use Area to 7.5 metres; Removed the driveway width policy; Clarified the stepback requirements in the Mixed Use Area based on location; and Added a policy to improve compatibility between low density development and Darlington Provincial Park. Parkland and Natural Heritage 5.4 Revisions were made to provide additional access to and protection of natural features, including: Revised Courtice Waterfront Park policies to identify that the Lake Ontario Shoreline is designated Environmental Protection Area; and Added a policy to guide the development of additional parkland east of Tooley Creek focused on passive, nature-oriented uses. Transportation Policies 5.5 Several transportation policies were revised, including: Revised policies to clarify that a future Environmental Assessment will be initiated to evaluate transportation improvements to access the new community, including rail crossings; Revised Street D policies to provide additional flexibility in design and implementation; and Updated the Pedestrian Crossing policy to clarify that the crossing is a critical piece of infrastructure for ensuring multi-modal connectivity to the Secondary Plan area. Modifications to Schedule A – Land Use Plan 5.6 Changes made to Schedule A – Land Use Plan are summarized below and detailed in Figure 2: Revised the Secondary Plan boundary to only include the Courtice Waterfront portion and a Secondary Plan boundary line was added; The shape of the Municipal Wide Park was modified and additional lands were designated Municipal Wide Park east of Tooley Creek; Road network simplified and modified to reflect information from the draft Traffic Impact Study and the revised park shape; Page 93 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PDS-002-26 Lands north of the Darlington Park Access Road and east of the Gateway Commercial area were designated Waterfront Greenway; Additional lands were designated Environmental Protection Area lands along Darlington Provincial Park and east of Tooley Creek; A stormwater management facility symbol was removed east of Tooley Creek; and Other minor stylistic changes were made. Figure 2: Changes to Schedule A – Land Use Plan Page 94 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report PDS-002-26 Modifications to Schedule B – Heights Plan (Storeys) 5.7 Changes were made to Schedule B – Heights Plan (Storeys) in accordance with the applicable modifications made to Schedule A. Modifications to Schedule C – Roads and Active Transportation Plan 5.8 Changes made to Schedule C - Roads and Active Transportation Plan are summarized below and detailed in Figure 3: Revised in accordance with the applicable modifications made to Schedule A; A Potential Future Road was added east of Courtice Shores Drive; Additional trails were added; Courtice Shores Drive, Street A and Darlington Provincial Park were defined as Collector Roads; and A conceptual local road network was added. Page 95 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PDS-002-26 Figure 3: Changes to Schedule C – Roads and Active Transportation Plan Page 96 Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report PDS-002-26 6. Policy Conformity 6.1 The recommended Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and conforms to the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan , as summarized below. Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 6.2 The Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS). The PPS, 2024 directs growth to settlement areas and promotes compact urban forms that efficiently use land and existing infrastructure. Complete communities with a range and mix of land uses, housing options including affordable housing, and transportation options should be planned to support accessibility for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes. The Courtice Waterfront has been planned to support Clarington’s housing target, with a variety of housing types at densities that can support walkability, transit, and local amenities. The Secondary Plan provides trails, and parkland, and will accommodate a range of activities that will appeal to and attract a diverse group of users. Durham Region Official Plan 6.3 The Secondary Plan generally conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan. It envisions the areas as a complete community, offering opportunities for residents to live, work, shop and access services and amenities within the Courtice Waterfront. The Seconda ry Plan provides for a diverse mix of housing types, sizes and tenures, a range of transportation options, community-serving commercial uses, and recreational amenities. 6.4 ‘Special Study Area 2’ of the Durham Region Official Plan outlines that an amendment to permit the development of a mixed-use community at the Courtice Waterfront must satisfy requirements regarding land use compatibility, transportation connectivity, and the execution of a land conveyance agreement with the Municipality of Clarington for t he establishment of a public Waterfront Park. 6.5 These requirements have been addressed through the preparation of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan and supporting technical studies, as outlined below: A Land Use Compatibility Study has been completed and accepted by the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington; A Traffic Impact Study illustrating a road network that provides adequate access and egress has been reviewed by the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington, with final revisions anticipated shortly; and An agreement for the conveyance of land for the Waterfront Park has been successfully executed with the Municipality of Clarington. Page 97 Municipality of Clarington Page 15 Report PDS-002-26 6.6 This report recommends approval of ROPA 2 to remove the ‘Special Study Area 2’ overlay and redesignate a portion of the Courtice Waterfront lands to ‘Community Areas’. Clarington Official Plan 6.7 The Clarington Official Plan seeks to create a compact, connected community with efficient land use, a diverse built form, a mix of uses, and active transportation connections. The Secondary Plan conforms by planning for a broad variety of housing types and amenities, and a grid-like network of streets with sidewalks and bike lanes to support multi-modal transportation. 6.8 In addition, the Secondary Plan includes the Courtice Waterfront Park, which has been planned for in the Clarington Official Plan as a Municipal Wide Park. The Secondary Plan advances the Official Plan’s definition of a Municipal Wide Park by supporting recreational and cultural facilities and takes advantage of the natural features and attributes of Lake Ontario and Tooley Creek. It will create a sense of place and identity for the new neighbourhood and a new tourism node that attracts visitors from across the Municipality. 6.9 OPA 131 proposes to add the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan to the Clarington Official Plan. 7. Financial Considerations 7.1 The Clarington Official Plan requires that a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) be undertaken for Secondary Plans to understand the long-term financial impacts of proposed development. Accordingly, Hemson Consulting Ltd. have prepared a draft FIA for the Secondary Plan, which is included as Attachment 8 to this report. 7.2 The draft FIA found that there would be a small net negative financial impact to the Municipality once fully developed. The analysis estimated that there would be a deficit of approximately $7 per person and employee annually, or a total of $22,256 annually. Hemson has advised that the draft FIA results should not be viewed as precise forecasts of what will occur at full build-out, given that there are many assumptions built into their modelling. 7.3 The fiscal projections of development charge revenue assume the use of the Municipality’s development charge rates as passed in December 2025 and does not account for the anticipated passage of new DC by-laws during the build out period. The draft FIA noted that the total CWSP DC revenue is therefore likely to exceed their estimates, resulting in a more positive financial impact overall. Page 98 Municipality of Clarington Page 16 Report PDS-002-26 7.4 The fiscal projections of development charge revenue assume the use of the Municipality’s current development charge rates and therefore do not account for the passage of the new DC by-law in December 2025. The draft FIA noted that the total CWSP DC revenue is therefore likely to exceed their estimates once new rates are implemented, resulting in a more positive financial impact overall. 7.5 The draft FIA concluded the CWSP development will likely be fiscally neutral overall. Conservative estimates were used to calculate the total number of units and if the development exceeds the minimum targets used in the analysis, potential revenues may increase. 8. Strategic Plan 8.1 Adopting the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan directly addresses the following actions in the 2024-2027 Clarington Strategic Plan: C.1.1.2: Update Secondary Plan policies to include connectivity considerations and work to address gaps C.2.2.1 Identify the range of housing needed G.2.1.3: Update and complete identified Secondary Plans 9. Climate Change 9.1 The Secondary Plan has been planned with sustainability as a key priority. It contains policies that encourage high standards for energy efficiency and high -performance building envelopes. It plans for a dense built form that supports transit use, efficien tly uses land, and preserves natural areas. 10. Concurrence Not Applicable. 11. Conclusion and Next Steps 11.1 The Secondary Plan has been updated based on feedback from agencies, area landowners, members of the public and recommendations from Background Reports. Revisions also improve clarity and correct typographical errors. Staff are satisfied that the Secondary Plan is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the direction set out both in the Durham Region Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan. 11.2 Therefore, it is respectfully recommended that Clarington Official Plan Amendment 131 and Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 2 for the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan be approved. Page 99 Municipality of Clarington Page 17 Report PDS-002-26 11.3 Implementation of the Secondary Plan and development will be phased to align with the delivery of required infrastructure and community facilities, including necessary road improvements and rail crossings, sanitary sewers, water services, stormwater management facilities, and other community facilities. 11.4 It is also recommended that Council approve Clarington Official Plan Amendment 146 to incorporate language in the existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan that prohibits anaerobic digesters. Staff Contact: Sylvia Jennings, Planner II, sjennings@clarington.net; Amanda Crompton, Principal Planner, acrompton@clarington.net; Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1a – Recommended Clarington Official Plan Amendment 131 Attachment 1b – Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Attachment 1c – Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines Attachment 2 – Recommended Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 2 Attachment 3 – Recommended Clarington Official Plan Amendment 146 Attachment 4 – Sequence of Events Attachment 5 – Summary of Technical Reports Attachment 6 – Public Comments Summary Table Attachment 7 – Agency Comments Summary Table Attachment 8 – Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 100 Amendment No. 131 to the Clarington Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to include the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan in the Clarington Official Plan. This Secondary Plan creates a planning framework that will guide the development of a complete community consisting of residential, commercial, and recreation opportunities. The Secondary Plan includes Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines, which are not an operative part of the Clarington Official Plan. Location: This Amendment applies to a 101-hectare area between Darlington Provincial Park to the west and Courtice Shores Drive to the east, south of Highway 401. The subject lands are entirely within the Courtice urban area boundary and located at the south and west edge of the Municipality of Clarington. Basis: In 2018, the Municipality initiated an update to the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan to identify a renewed vision and updated policy framework. In 2019, the Secondary Plan area was expanded west to Darlington Provincial Park to include the Courtice Waterfront and renamed the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan . The Municipality has long recognized the future value of the waterfront as a public amenity by identifying the location of the Municipal Wide Park in the Clarington Official Plan. In 2025, following the release of the new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 and changes to the Planning Act definition of “employment area”, the Secondary Plan boundary was further revised to focus solely on the Courtice Waterfront area. The existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan will remain in effect and be updated at a future date. The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan is based on extensive technical study and public engagement. It incorporates recommendations of the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study and has been informed by a Land Use and Urban Design Analysis, a Functional Servicing Report, a Traffic Impact Study, and a Natural Environment Report. Given the proximity of the Darlington Nuclear Station, the Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant and the Durham York Energy Centre, a Land Use Compatibility Study was also completed. Attachment 1a to Report PDS-002-26 Page 101 Public and landowner input was received through Public Information Centres and Public Meetings held in December 2019, March 2020, March 2022, June 2022, and May 2025 as well as through Steering Committee Meetings. Actual Amendment: Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a strike- through. 1.Existing Clarington Official Plan, Map A2 Land Use Courtice Urban Area, is amended by redesignating the lands immediately north of the Municipal Wide Park, to Highway 401, from ‘Waterfront Greenway’ to ‘Urban Residential’, and from ‘Green Space’ to ‘Gateway Commercial’ as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and forming part of this Amendment. 2.Existing Clarington Official Plan, Map C Secondary Plan Areas, is amended to delineate the Courtice Waterfront as a new and completed Secondary Plan. 3.Existing Part Six, Section 3 “General Policies for Secondary Plans” is hereby amended as follows: “3. Secondary Plans have been prepared for the following areas: a)Bowmanville East Urban Centre; b)Bowmanville West Town Centre; c)Courtice Main Street; d)Newcastle Village Main Central Area; e)Port Darlington Neighbourhood; f)Bayview (Southwest); g)Clarington Energy Business Park; h)Brookhill Neighbourhood; i)Clarington Technology Business Park; j)Foster Northwest; k)Southeast Courtice; l)Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood; and m)Courtice Transit-Oriented Community.; and n)Courtice Waterfront.” Page 102 4. Existing Part Six, SECONDARY PLANS, is amended by adding the new Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan shown in Attachment 1. Page 103 !( !( !(CP !(CP !(CP !(MP!(MP !(MP 5 5 ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!! !! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !! !!!!! ! !! !!!! !!!!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! !! ! !!!! ! !!! !! !! !!! !!!!!! !!!!! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!! !! !!! !!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! VA R C O E R O A D CE N T E R F I E L D D R I V E TO O L E Y R O A D GE O R G E REYN O L D S DRIVE RO B E R T A D A M S DR I V E PR E S T O N V A L E R O A D RI DR I V E NG H A M SA N D DRI V E AVO N D A L E GLENABBEY DRIVE RO A D FE N N I N G D R I V E PR E S T O N V A L E RO A D TR U L L S R O A D BASELINE ROAD ENERGY DRIVE PEBBLESTONE ROAD HI G H W A Y 4 1 8 SPECIAL STUDY AREA 1 SP E C I A L P O L I C Y A R E A D SPECIAL STUDY AREA 1 C.N. R MEADOWGLADE AVENUE C.P.R CR A G O R O A D HA N C O C K CO U R T I C E R O A D SO L I N A R A O D SPECIAL STUDY AREA 4 SO L I N A R O A D SPECIAL STUDY AREA 4 SPECIAL STUDY AREA 4 A107-6 ³ McLaughlin Bay Lake Ontario URBAN RESIDENTIAL URBAN CENTRE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA GREEN SPACE WATERFRONT GREENWAY BUSINESS PARK ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA UTILITY REGIONAL CORRIDOR MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK URBAN BOUNDARY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! SPECIAL POLICY AREA SPECIAL STUDY AREA COMMUNITY PARK!CP å SECONDARY SCHOOL PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT AREA NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE !MP TRANSPORTATION HUB ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! GO D4-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 COURTICE URBAN AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON NOVEMBER, 2024 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A2 GO TO W N L I N E R O A D DURHAM HIG H W A Y 2 NASH ROAD CO U R T I C E R O A D BLOOR STREET BASELINE ROAD Change From 'Waterfront Greenway' To 'Urban Residential' Change From 'Green Space' To 'Gateway Commercial' Exhibit 'A', Amendment No. 131 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map A2. HIGHWAY 401 Change From 'Green Space' To 'Waterfront Greenway' Change From 'Municipal Wide Park' To 'Urban Residential' Page 104 BUTTERY RO A D HI G H W A Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 ENERGY DRIVE CO U R T I C E (B O W M A N V I L L E A V E N U E ) ROAD ST R E E T N O R T H ME A R N S MA P L E RE G I O N A L R O A D 5 7 (TAUNTON ROAD) RO A D CONCESSION FI C E S R O A D TAUNUS CRT RE G I O N A L R O A D 1 7 RO A D CRT ROAD BET H E S D A OL D S C U G O G R O A D CONCESSION LA M B S CONCESSION PO L L A R D BE L L W O O D CRAGO ROAD TO O L E Y HA N C O C K DURHAM H I G H W A Y 2 (M A I N S T R E E T ) BR A G G ROAD 4 RI L E Y GLENELGE ME A R N S PR E S T O N V A L E NASH RO A D TR U L L S ROAD 5 AV E N U E ENERGY DRIVE LO C K H A R T R O A D CONCESSION ROAD 3 CONCESSION RO A D SQ U A I R R O A D ROAD HIGHWAY 40 1 RO A D CRT MI D D L E GR E E N CONCESSION ROAD 4 REGIONAL ROAD 4 RO A D 3 4 RO A D GAUD PEBBLESTONE SO L I N A RO A D BU C K L E Y MI L L STREET DR I V E ANDELWOOD TR U L L S RE G I O N A L R O A D 5 7 RO A D GI B S O N R O A D RE G I O N A L R O A D 4 2 (TAUNTON ROAD) RO A D BLEWETT RO A D CRT HO L T RI C K A R D RO A D CRT AV E N U E ROAD LA M B S GR O V E RO A D AR T H U R S T R E E T MO F F A T R O A D PR O V I D E N C E BROWVIEW ROAD CRAIG CRT RU N D L E RO A D OC H O N S K I R O A D MARYLEAH BASELINE ROAD 4 RO A D RO A D RO A D RE G I O N A L CONCESSION ROAD GATE RO A D ST R E E T DURHA M H I G H W A Y 2 GA M S B Y R O A D RO A D LI B E R T Y RO A D STEPH E N S M I L L LI B E R T Y S T S . LI B E R T Y TO W N L I N E R O A D N O R T H (B O W M A N V I L L E A V E N U E ) ³Lake Ontario Courtice Newcastle Village Bowmanville NOTE: ALL EXISTING SECONDARY PLANS NEED TO BE UPDATED TO CONFORM TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN EXCEPT FOR COURTICE MAIN STREET SECONDARY PLAN. Orono CLARINGTON URBAN AREAS OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON NOVEMBER, 2024 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION SECONDARY PLAN AREAS MAP C SETTLEMENT AREA BOUNDARY SECONDARY PLAN BOUNDARIES NOT COMPLETED COMPLETED HI G H W A Y 4 1 8 Add 'Courtice Waterfront' Secondary Plan Area as Completed Exhibit 'B', Amendment No. 131 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map C. Page 105 Secondary Plans Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Municipality of Clarington Official Plan January 2026 Attachment 1b to Report PDS-002-26 Page 106 Table of Contents Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan ........................................................................... 6 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 6 2 Vision and Principles ....................................................................................... 6 2.1 Vision .............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Principles ........................................................................................................ 7 3 Community Structure....................................................................................... 7 3.1 Environmental Protection Areas and Waterfront Greenways .......................... 7 3.2 Courtice Waterfront Park ................................................................................ 7 3.3 Mixed Use Area .............................................................................................. 7 3.4 Medium Density Residential Areas ................................................................. 7 3.5 Low Density Residential Area ......................................................................... 8 3.6 Gateway Commercial Area ............................................................................. 8 3.7 Street Network ................................................................................................ 8 4 Environment and Energy ................................................................................. 8 4.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Environmental Protection Areas and Natural Features ................................... 8 4.3 Green Development ...................................................................................... 10 5 Land Use and Built Form ............................................................................... 11 5.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................... 11 5.2 General Policies ............................................................................................ 11 5.3 Low Density Residential ................................................................................ 11 5.4 Medium Density Residential ......................................................................... 12 5.5 Mixed Use Area ............................................................................................ 13 5.6 Gateway Commercial .................................................................................... 14 5.7 Environmental Protection Area ..................................................................... 15 5.8 Waterfront Greenway .................................................................................... 15 5.9 Environmental Constraints Overlay ............................................................... 15 6 Urban Design .................................................................................................. 16 6.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................... 16 6.2 General Policies ............................................................................................ 16 6.3 Low Density Residential Policies .................................................................. 17 Page 107 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 4 6.4 Medium Density Residential Policies ............................................................ 17 6.5 Mixed Use Area Policies ............................................................................... 17 6.6 Prominent Intersection .................................................................................. 18 7 Housing ........................................................................................................... 18 7.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................... 18 7.2 Policies ......................................................................................................... 19 8 Parks and Community Facilities ................................................................... 20 8.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................... 20 8.2 General Policies ............................................................................................ 20 8.3 Municipal Wide Park ..................................................................................... 20 9 Community Culture and Heritage ................................................................. 22 9.1 Objectives ..................................................................................................... 22 9.2 Policies ......................................................................................................... 22 10 Transportation ................................................................................................ 22 10.1 Objectives .................................................................................................. 22 10.2 General Policies ........................................................................................ 23 10.3 Collector Roads ......................................................................................... 24 10.4 Key Local Roads ....................................................................................... 24 10.5 Special Local Road .................................................................................... 25 10.6 Local Roads ............................................................................................... 25 10.7 Rear Lanes ................................................................................................ 25 10.8 Active Transportation ................................................................................. 26 10.9 Site Access and Parking ............................................................................ 27 11 Servicing ......................................................................................................... 27 11.1 Objectives .................................................................................................. 27 11.2 General Policies ........................................................................................ 28 11.3 Stormwater Management .......................................................................... 28 12 Implementation and Interpretation ............................................................... 30 12.1 Objectives .................................................................................................. 30 12.2 Policies ...................................................................................................... 30 Page 108 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 5 SCHEDULES AND APPENDICES Schedule A – Land Use Plan Schedule B – Heights Plan (Storeys) Schedule C – Roads and Active Transportation Plan Appendix A – Courtice Waterfront Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines Page 109 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 6 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 1 Introduction The purpose of this Secondary Plan is to establish goals and policies to guide comprehensive development and strategic planning within the Courtice Waterfront. The Secondary Plan will be further implemented through subdivision, zoning and site plan control. The Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines included in Appendix A support the policies of this Secondary Plan and will also be used to guide development. The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan area is generally bounded by Darlington Provincial Park to the west, Courtice Shores Drive to the east, Darlington Park Road to the north, and Lake Ontario to the south. The Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan and Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant are located immediately east of the Secondary Plan area. The Secondary Plan area is approximately 101 hectares in size. The Secondary Plan area is envisioned as a residential neighbourhood with visitor- oriented commercial, a new Municipal Wide Park at the waterfront and protected natural features like the Lake Ontario shoreline and Tooley Creek valley lands. The future population for area will be approximately 4,800 residents and approximately 2,500 units. The future number of jobs will be approximately 550. 2 Vision and Principles The vision, principles and community structure within this section of the Secondary Plan provide the foundation upon which the goals and policies of the Secondary Plan are based. 2.1 Vision The Courtice Waterfront is a vibrant new community offering residential, recreation and commercial opportunities in Clarington against the backdrops of Lake Ontario and Tooley Creek. The Courtice Waterfront will feature a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, centred on a pedestrian -oriented prominent intersection. Restaurants, shops and potentially a hotel will draw visitors to the area. The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, and broader open space system will protect significant natural features, provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. Page 110 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 7 2.2 Principles The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan is based on the following seven principles. 2.2.1 Support a high quality of life for residents of Clarington 2.2.2 Conserve, enhance and protect significant natural features 2.2.3 Promote environmental sustainability, energy efficiency and resilience 2.2.4 Connect the Secondary Plan area to the broader community and region by all modes of travel 2.2.5 Create distinct, memorable places that reflect the area’s natural and cultural heritage and the community’s values 2.2.6 Create an accessible, walkable and bikeable community linked to adjacent transportation networks 2.2.7 Develop the Courtice Waterfront in an orderly, coordinated and cohesive fashion 3 Community Structure The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan is supported by a community structure comprised of the following, as reflected in Schedule A: 3.1 Environmental Protection Areas and Waterfront Greenways 3.1.1 Environmental Protection Areas along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario form a key component of a future open space system that will support critical environmental functions, establish the setting for development, and be an amenity for local residents and people from across the Region. Waterfront Greenway lands will be a major component of the open space system, protecting and linking natural areas. 3.2 Courtice Waterfront Park 3.2.1 The area will be anchored by a new Municipal Wide Park. The park will be designed to serve the broader Clarington community and local residents and act as a major destination with a range of facilities and access to Lake Ontario. 3.3 Mixed Use Area 3.3.1 At the heart of the Courtice Waterfront neighbourhood will be a mix of housing types at varying densities, overlooking the Courtice Waterfront Park and centred at a prominent intersection where commercial uses in mixed -use buildings will give the park a lively edge that draws visitors year-round. 3.4 Medium Density Residential Areas 3.4.1 Townhouses and apartment buildings up to six storeys are expected to be dominant forms of housing in the Medium Density Area, blending seamlessly with higher-density forms in the Mixed Use Area. Page 111 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 8 3.5 Low Density Residential Area 3.5.1 Detached, semi-detached and townhouses will provide a transition between taller buildings in the heart of the neighbourhood and Darlington Provincial Park. 3.6 Gateway Commercial Area 3.6.1 North of the CN rail corridor are lands suitable for a variety of commercial uses serving local residents, local employees and the travelling public. 3.7 Street Network 3.7.1 Collector and key local roads will facilitate movement to and through the area. They will provide the framework for a grid-like network of local roads serving development and supporting walkable places in the Courtice Waterfront. 4 Environment and Energy 4.1 Objectives 4.1.1 Minimize adverse impacts from development and human activity on natural heritage and hydrologically sensitive features, and their ecological functions. 4.1.2 Implement the recommendations and strategies contained in the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study. 4.1.3 Ensure significant natural features are highly visible and contribute to the character of the waterfront. 4.1.4 Enhance and strengthen connections between natural heritage features, particularly through the creation of new east-west natural heritage connections. 4.1.5 Increase the tree canopy throughout the Secondary Plan area. 4.1.6 Design buildings, infrastructure and the Courtice Waterfront Park to high standards for energy and water conservation and integrate opportunities for renewable energy. 4.1.7 Design for a low-carbon community and contribute to a net-zero Clarington by 2050. 4.2 Environmental Protection Areas and Natural Features 4.2.1 Environmental Protection Areas, identified in Schedule A, include natural heritage features, hydrologically sensitive features, natural hazard lands associated with a watercourse and/or Lake Ontario , headwater drainage features and associated vegetation protection zones. 4.2.2 There may be additional environmentally sensitive terrestrial features and areas, natural heritage features, hydrologically sensitive features and areas, regulatory flood plain, and erosion hazards which, due to inadequate Page 112 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 9 information or the nature of the feature, area or hazard, are not shown on Schedules A or C of this Secondary Plan. These features are also important to the integrity of the natural heritage system and/or public safety and may be identified on a site-by-site basis for protection and/or conservation through the review of a development applications and their supporting studies, as well as other projects, including work related to new infrastructure, roads and servicing. 4.2.3 The Environmental Protection Area recognizes the interdependence of natural heritage features and their associated functions, and thus seeks to maintain connections among natural features, so that their existing ecological and hydrological functions are maintained or enhanced. 4.2.4 The biodiversity, ecological function, and connectivity of the Environmental Protection Area shall be protected, maintained, restored and, where possible, improved for the long-term, recognizing linkages between natural heritage features and areas, surface water features, and ground water features. 4.2.5 The delineation of the boundary of lands designated as Environmental Protection Area is approximate and shall be detailed through appropriate studies prepared as part of the review of development applications in accordance with the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Official Plan. 4.2.6 Where an Environmental Impact Study or other site -specific study required as part of development proposals within 120 metres of a natural heritage feature or where updated information from the Province or Conservation Authority results in refinements to the boundaries of the natural heritage feature or its related vegetation protection zone, such refinements shall not require an amendment to the Clarington Official Plan or this Secondary Plan. 4.2.7 Access to Environmental Protection Areas and associated areas through the development of public trails will be undertaken in a manner which conserves their ecological integrity. 4.2.8 All development shall adhere to the policies of the Clarington Official Plan as it pertains to the natural heritage system in Section 3.4, the Watershed and Subwatershed Plans policies in Section 3.5, the Hazards policies in Section 3.7 and the Environmental Protection Areas policies in Section 14.4. 4.2.9 Environmental studies prepared in support of development applications shall address the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study (Subwatershed Study). Such studies may refine on a site-by-site basis the recommendations from the Subwatershed Study. 4.2.10 For those properties not assessed for Headwater Drainage Features in the Subwatershed Study or where agricultural fields have gone fallow, Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments may be required prior to any development in order to accurately assess hydrological functions of these features. 4.2.11 The vegetation protection zone shall be planted, maintained or restored with self-sustaining, native plant materials, in keeping with the Environmental Impact Study recommendations. Page 113 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 10 4.2.12 The preservation of mature trees within and outside of the Environmental Protection Area designation is strongly encouraged in order to fully derive benefits relating to microclimate, wildlife habitats, hydrology and scenic quality. 4.2.13 During development, mitigation measures shall be utilized to protect features in Environmental Protection Areas, such as tree protection fencing, silt fence/sedimentation control, dust control, and protection of soil moisture regime. 4.2.14 Through development, the planting of new trees shall be required in public spaces and encouraged in private spaces to fully derive benefits relating to microclimate, wildlife habitats, hydrology and scenic quality. New trees shall be non-invasive, tolerant of expected conditions and of the largest size and maturity that the planting location permits. New tree planting zones shall contain sufficient soil volume to support the healthy gr owth of trees to maturity. 4.2.15 Where trees, shrubs and/or natural heritage features are destroyed or harvested pre-maturely prior to Municipal approval, compensation should occur on site and will be calculated at a 3:1 ratio. 4.2.16 The Municipality may require Environmental Protection Areas to be conveyed to a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the development approval process at nominal or no cost to the receiving public authority. Conveyance of lands designated Environmental Protection Area and associated vegetation protection zones shall not be considered as contributions towards the parkland dedication requirements under the Planning Act. 4.3 Green Development 4.3.1 All development shall be encouraged to meet high standards for energy efficiency and sustainability in building design and construction. The use of energy efficient lighting and appliances, passive building standards and high - performance building envelopes shall be encou raged to reduce the amount of energy required to heat and cool buildings. 4.3.2 All development shall be encouraged to incorporate energy and water conservation measures, including consideration for renewable and/or alternative energy systems, such as solar panels. Individual buildings shall be encouraged to accommodate solar panels, a green roof or high albedo surfaces, or a combination of these. 4.3.3 Landscape design should maximize infiltration through “soft” landscape features and include hardy, native plantings and trees that provide shade. 4.3.4 All development will be encouraged to meet high standards for the use of Low Impact Development strategies and minimize impermeable surfaces, to aid in stormwater infiltration. Page 114 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 11 4.3.5 Should the Municipality or other public entity initiate a district energy system for the Secondary Plan area, development shall be encouraged to utilize the system and may be required to be District Energy-ready. 5 Land Use and Built Form 5.1 Objectives 5.1.1 Accommodate a diverse population and employment base of approximately 4,800 residents and approximately 550 jobs. 5.1.2 Establish the Courtice Waterfront as a tourist destination that supports recreation needs for residents from across Clarington. 5.1.3 Achieve a mix of residential, commercial and public uses that attracts visitors year-round. 5.1.4 Ensure development contributes to a public realm of streets, parks and other open spaces that is inviting, comfortable and safe for residents and visitors. 5.1.5 Ensure residents have convenient access to commercial amenities and community facilities by all modes of travel. 5.1.6 Ensure compatibility among land uses and building types. 5.1.7 Create opportunities for medium density, compact development that supports efficient use of infrastructure. 5.2 General Policies 5.2.1 Schedule A identifies the land use designations for the Secondary Plan area, and Schedule B identifies minimum and maximum heights in storeys. 5.2.2 The following land use designations apply within the Secondary Plan area: a) Low Density Residential b) Medium Density Residential c) Mixed Use Area d) Gateway Commercial e) Environmental Protection Area f) Waterfront Greenway 5.2.3 Drive-throughs are not permitted in any land use designation. 5.3 Low Density Residential Planned Function 5.3.1 The predominant use of lands designated Low Density Residential shall be for low-rise housing that provides a transition between higher density housing and Darlington Provincial Park. Page 115 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 12 Permitted Uses 5.3.2 The following uses are permitted within this designation: a) Residential Building Types 5.3.3 Permitted building types within this designation include: a) Detached dwellings; b) Semi-detached dwellings; and c) Street townhouses. 5.3.4 Detached and semi-detached dwelling units shall account for a minimum of 80 percent of the total number of units in the Low Density Residential designation, with units in other building types accounting for the remainder. Heights and Densities 5.3.5 The maximum height shall be 3 storeys. 5.3.6 Development on lands designated Low Density Residential shall have an overall minimum density of 25 units per net hectare. 5.3.7 Private streets and private rear lanes are not permitted within the Low Density Residential designation. 5.4 Medium Density Residential Planned Function 5.4.1 The predominant use of lands designated Medium Density Residential shall be for housing that provides a transition between low-rise development and higher mixed use development. Permitted Uses 5.4.2 The following uses are permitted within this designation: a) Residential b) Other uses, including small scale service and neighbourhood retail commercial uses, which are supportive of and compatible with residential uses, are also permitted in accordance with Clarington Official Plan Policies 9.3.1, 9.3.2, and 9.3.3. Building Types 5.4.3 Permitted building types within this designation include: a) All forms of townhouses; and, b) Apartment buildings. Page 116 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 13 Heights and Density 5.4.4 The minimum height shall be 3 storeys. The maximum height shall be 4 or 6 storeys, in accordance with Schedule B. 5.4.5 Development on lands designated Medium Density Residential shall have a minimum density of 50 units per net hectare. 5.5 Mixed Use Area Planned Function 5.5.1 The Mixed Use Area is intended to be a predominantly residential area with a mix of housing types and varying building heights, and the area will also accommodate commercial amenities for waterfront residents , visitors and employees in the Clarington Energy Business Park. It also may accommodate standalone commercial uses that support the Courtice Waterfront. Permitted Uses 5.5.2 The following uses are permitted within this designation: a) Residential; b) Retail and service commercial uses; and c) Institutional uses, including but not limited to public schools, community centres, cultural facilities, libraries, day cares, and places of worship. 5.5.3 In addition, the following destination-oriented commercial uses are also permitted within a mixed use or standalone building fronting Streets A, C, or D as delineated on Schedule A: a) Hotel; b) Conference centre and banquet hall; c) Winery, cidery, or brewery; d) Museum; e) Restaurant or retail establishments associated with one or more of the above uses; and f) Other destination-oriented commercial uses compatible with surrounding development, subject to a site-specific zoning by-law amendment. 5.5.4 In the area identified with the “Commercial Uses Required” overlay on Schedule A, mixed use buildings with one or more of the above commercial uses on the ground floor, or standalone commercial uses, shall be required. Building Types 5.5.5 The permitted building types within this designation include: a) All forms of townhouses; b) Apartment buildings; Page 117 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 14 c) Mixed use buildings with commercial uses and other active uses located on the ground floor and residential dwelling units on upper floors; and d) Commercial buildings. Heights and Density 5.5.6 The minimum height shall be 3 or 4 storeys, in accordance with Schedule B . 5.5.7 Notwithstanding policy 5.5.6, buildings with destination -oriented commercial uses described in policy 5.5.3 may be one storey but shall have a minimum height of 7.5 metres. Buildings with destination-oriented institutional uses, such as a theatre or community centre, may also be one storey but shall have a minimum height of 7.5 metres, subject to a Zoning By-law amendment, 5.5.8 The maximum height shall be 6 storeys, in accordance with Schedule B. 5.5.9 Heights above 6 storeys, to a maximum of 15 storeys, may be permitted in the locations identified on Schedule B subject to completing the following studies or assessments to the satisfaction of the Municipality: a) Land Use Compatibility Study to assess the potential adverse impact of existing and planned industrial and utility uses in the surrounding area and identify feasible measures to mitigate any impacts; b) Transportation assessment to confirm the additional height and density can be supported by the planned transportation capacity of the Secondary Plan; c) Servicing assessment to demonstrate the additional height and density can be supported by the planned servicing capacity of the Secondary Plan; and d) Housing assessment to monitor and encourage the implementation of a diverse and affordable housing stock. 5.5.10 Development on lands designated Mixed Use Area shall have a minimum density of 70 units per net hectare. 5.6 Gateway Commercial Planned Function 5.6.1 The planned function of the Gateway Commercial is to provide retail and service commercial uses aimed at people travelling to the Courtice Waterfront . Permitted Uses 5.6.2 The following uses are permitted within the Gateway Commercial designation: a) Retail and service commercial uses; b) Restaurants; c) Financial institutions; and Page 118 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 15 d) Service stations. Heights 5.6.3 The maximum height shall be 4 storeys. 5.7 Environmental Protection Area Planned Function 5.7.1 Lands designated Environmental Protection Area include natural heritage features, hydrologically sensitive features, lands within the regulatory flood plain of a watercourse, headwater drainage features and natural hazard lands. These lands contribute to the Municipality’s Natural Heritage System and are intended to be protected. The planned function of these areas is to preserve natural heritage features and their ecological functions, maintain hydrologically sensitive features, and prevent development within regulatory flood plains and natural hazard lands to reduce risk to life and property . Permitted Uses 5.7.2 No development shall be permitted in Environmental Protection Areas, except in accordance with Section 14.4 of the Clarington Official Plan. 5.8 Waterfront Greenway Planned Function 5.8.1 The lands designated Waterfront Greenway are intended to protect and regenerate the physical, natural and cultural attributes associated with the Lake Ontario Waterfront. Permitted Uses 5.8.2 The predominant use of land within the Waterfront Greenway shall be low intensity recreation uses and conservation. 5.8.3 Lands designated Waterfront Greenway shall be subject to the provisions of Section 14.3 and 14.8 of the Official Plan. 5.9 Environmental Constraints Overlay 5.9.1 The areas with an Environmental Constraints Overlay as shown on Schedule A have been identified as containing features consistent with Environmental Protection Areas designation. The underlying designation shall not apply until the limits of the Environmental Protection Area has been confirmed to the satisfaction of the Municipality in consultation with the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and in accordance with the policies in this Section. 5.9.2 The presence and precise delineation of the natural heritage features and hydrologically sensitive features shall be determined through an Environmental Impact Study and a Flood Plain Analysis prepared as part of the review of development applications in accordance with the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Official Plan. Page 119 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 16 5.9.3 If the Environmental Impact Study and Flood Plain Analysis establishes that development can proceed, then the underlying designation shall apply over those lands without the requirement for an amendment to this Plan. Further, it may be determined that only a portion of the lands within the Environmental Constraints Overlay may be suitable for development. 5.9.4 If the Environmental Impact Study and Flood Plain Analysis determines that development may not proceed, the permissions in the underlying designation shall not apply and lands will be considered to be designated Environmental Protection Area and will be zoned accordingly. 6 Urban Design 6.1 Objectives 6.1.1 Encourage a high quality and consistent level of urban design for the public and private realms through adherence to the principles, policies, and requirements of this Secondary Plan and in accordance with the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines. 6.1.2 Design spaces that are accessible for people of all ages and abilities. 6.1.3 Ensure compatibility between developments of varying scales and forms. 6.1.4 Support Darlington Provincial Park’s recreational amenities by mitigating potential adverse impacts from development. 6.2 General Policies 6.2.1 The Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines appended to this Plan as Appendix A shall be used as guidance in the interpretation and implementation of this Secondary Plan’s policies. 6.2.2 Development shall contribute to the creation of a high quality public realm which is safe, comfortable, visually-pleasing and animated, supports active transportation and community life, and contributes to the distinct character of the Courtice Waterfront. 6.2.3 Buildings on corner lots shall have articulated facades facing both streets . 6.2.4 Loading and service areas shall generally be located at the rear of the building, and enclosed loading and servicing areas shall be encouraged. 6.2.5 Garbage and recycling facilities shall be integrated within a building envelope, where applicable. 6.2.6 Where loading and servicing is visible at the rear or side of a building, it shall be screened. 6.2.7 Driveways shall be minimized and shared driveways shall be encouraged, where appropriate. Page 120 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 17 6.2.8 Mechanical and electrical equipment on the roof of an apartment building and industrial building should be screened with durable materials integrated with the design of the building. 6.2.9 Garbage and recycling storage for stacked townhouses shall be screened from public view and located within a shared rear lane where a rear lane is provided. 6.3 Low Density Residential Policies 6.3.1 The following urban design policies apply to lands designated Low Density Residential: a) Grade-related dwelling units, excluding additional dwelling units, shall have their main entrance visible and accessible from the sidewalk; b) Front single garages and double garages with living space directly above them may extend partially beyond the front wall of the house, but this condition shall not dominate the length of the block; c) Front and exterior side yard porches shall be encouraged; d) Development adjacent to Darlington Provincial Park shall minimize lighting and overlook impacts on the park; and, e) The interface of Darlington Provincial Park with residential lots shall consist of wooden fencing at least 1.8 metres in height. Gates into the adjacent Provincial Park are not permitted. f) Where the Low Density Residential Area abuts the future Courtice Waterfront Park, development shall be oriented to a north -south Local Road and have a fenced side yard and rear yard adjacent to the park. 6.4 Medium Density Residential Policies 6.4.1 The following urban design policies apply to lands designated as Medium Density Residential: a) Ground-floor units in apartment buildings shall have their entrances facing the street or a landscaped yard; b) Underground parking for apartment buildings is strongly encouraged; and c) Parking is generally not permitted in the front or exterior side yard of buildings. 6.5 Mixed Use Area Policies 6.5.1 To ensure development in lands designated as Mixed Use Area appropriately addresses public streets, supports an active public realm, and relates well to the existing and planned context, the following policies shall apply: a) Mixed use buildings with ground floor commercial uses and standalone commercial buildings fronting Streets A, C or D, as identified on Schedule A, shall be built close to the front property line to help frame the street, with generally a minimum setback of 1.5 metres and a maximum setback of 3 metres; Page 121 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 18 b) Access from sidewalks, other pedestrian facilities, and public open space areas to primary building entrances shall be convenient and direct, with minimum changes in grade, and shall be accessible and barrier free; c) Ground floors containing commercial uses shall generally have a minimum height of 4.5 metres; d) Long buildings, generally those over 40 metres in length, shall break up the visual impact of their mass with vertical recesses or other architectural articulation and/or changes in material; e) Buildings taller than 4 storeys shall provide built form transitions to low- rise development on adjacent properties through the stepping of heights or separation distances. f) Buildings over 4 storeys along Street A north of Street D shall incorporate stepbacks to reduce their perceived mass and contribute to a comfortable pedestrian realm, with stepbacks of at least 1.5 metres occurring at the fifth storey. Buildings of 5-6 storeys fronting Street A or D adjacent to the Courtice Waterfront Park do not require stepbacks. Buildings greater than 6 storeys facing the park shall incorporate stepbacks of at least 1.5 metres at the seventh storey ; g) The use of high-quality, enduring materials, such as stone, brick and glass, shall be strongly encouraged; h) Front patios for ground-floor residential units should be raised to provide for privacy and a transition between the public and private realms; and i) Parking shall be located in underground or above -ground structures or surface parking lots at the rear of the building. Above-grade structured parking adjacent to a public street(s) shall be lined with commercial and/or residential uses with direct access to the public street(s). 6.6 Prominent Intersection 6.6.1 As per Policy 5.4.10 of the Clarington Official Plan, the Prominent Intersection identified on Schedule A shall serve as a community focal point, and shall facilitate public spaces, café and restaurant patios, street trees/planters, and street furniture. 7 Housing 7.1 Objectives 7.1.1 Provide for a variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures that allow households of various sizes and incomes to find a home within the Courtice Waterfront. 7.1.2 Encourage the provision of affordable housing and rental housing. Page 122 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 19 7.1.3 Foster aging in place by encouraging a range of housing that can meet the needs of residents during all phases of life. 7.2 Policies 7.2.1 A variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures shall be provided in the Courtice Waterfront to meet the needs of a diverse population and households of various sizes, incomes and age compositions. This housing mix is encouraged to include purpose-built rental and seniors housing. 7.2.2 To support the Municipality’s affordable housing objectives, development shall include a variety of housing sizes and types. 7.2.3 Affordable housing, including community housing, supportive housing and other types of subsidized non-market housing units, are encouraged to be integrated within the Courtice Waterfront neighbourhood and combined in developments that also provide market housing to provide opportunities for a range of housing tenures and prices that support diversity. 7.2.4 New affordable housing and purpose-built rental housing should incorporate barrier-free, universal or flex design features in both common and living areas. 7.2.5 The Municipality will collaborate with the Region of Durham and community housing providers to encourage a supply of subsidized non-market housing units to be included within the housing mix in the Secondary Plan area. 7.2.6 To support the provision of affordable housing units, the Municipality will explore other potential incentives such as reduced application fees, grants and loans. The Municipality will also encourage Durham Region, the Provincial government and Federal government to consider financial incentiv es for affordable housing. 7.2.7 As an incentive for the provision of affordable housing, as defined in Section 24.2 of the Clarington Official Plan, reductions in the minimum parking requirement under the Zoning By-law may be considered by the Municipality on a site-by-site basis where housing that is affordable is provided as part of a development proposal. 7.2.8 A range of unit sizes are encouraged within apartment and multi -unit buildings, including those suitable for single people, and larger households and families. 7.2.9 In Low Density and Medium Density Residential, development is encouraged to include additional dwelling units. 7.2.10 The Municipality will fast track the approval of development applications that include affordable housing units. Page 123 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 20 8 Parks and Community Facilities 8.1 Objectives 8.1.1 Create a public realm of streets, parks and other open spaces that is inviting, comfortable and safe. 8.1.2 Establish a Municipal Wide Park at the waterfront that serves residents of all ages and abilities from across Clarington and attracts visitors from the Region with a range of facilities and access to Lake Ontario. 8.1.3 Design the Courtice Waterfront Park with a range of facilities and experiences that supports year-round use. 8.1.4 Use Environmental Protection Areas, naturalized stormwater management facilities and other public open spaces to enhance the character of, and connectivity within, the parks and open space network, where appropriate. 8.1.5 Integrate public art into the design of parks, streets and other public spaces. 8.2 General Policies 8.2.1 The parks and open space system, as a whole, shall provide a variety of opportunities for passive and active recreation and be comprised of well- designed spaces that contribute to the area’s identity and environmental functions. 8.2.2 Parkland dedication shall be done in accordance with the Planning Act. 8.2.3 Environmental Protection Areas, associated vegetation protection zones, and stormwater management areas shall not be conveyed to satisfy parkland dedication requirements under the Planning Act. 8.3 Municipal Wide Park 8.3.1 A Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, is planned for the Secondary Plan area, as identified on Schedules A and C. The Courtice Waterfront Park, including Environmental Protection Area lands along the Lake Ontario shoreline, shall be a minimum of 16 hectares and programmed with a variety of amenities and community recreation facilities intended to serve residents from across Clarington. 8.3.2 Development of the Municipal Wide Park and adjacent Environmental Protection Area lands and shall consider a range of opportunities, which may include, but not limited to the following: a) Realignment of the Waterfront Trail through the park; b) Accessible viewing platforms; c) Stairs or ramps to the beach, sensitively and safely integrated with natural features; d) Safety and environmental protection measures along the top of the bluff; Page 124 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 21 e) Measures to protect and maintain access to the shoreline; f) Places and facilities to support the launching of kayaks, canoes and paddle boards; g) A playground and a splash pad; h) Active recreation facilities, such as outdoor sport courts i) Winter recreation facilities; j) Picnic areas and shelters; k) Areas for naturalized landscaping; l) Interpretive signage; m) An outdoor cultural venue, such as a bandshell or amphitheatre; n) Potential locations for public art installations; o) Lawn space for informal games; p) Locations for seasonal food vendors and equipment rentals; q) Public washroom facilities; r) Vehicle and bike parking; and s) Transit stops and bike share stations. 8.3.3 Development of the Municipal Wide Park shall address the priorities and recommendations of the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan and the Clarington Waterfront Strategy. 8.3.4 The predominant use of lands within the Municipal Wide Park shall be low intensity recreation uses, major recreation uses, and cultural uses. 8.3.5 In addition, small-scale, seasonal commercial uses, such as food vendors, may be permitted. 8.3.6 As shown on Schedules A and C, the Courtice Waterfront Park shall be bordered by public streets, Environmental Protection Areas, the Waterfront Greenway, Darlington Provincial Park, and other natural heritage areas. As per Policy 6.3.1 f), development in the Low Density Residential Area where it abuts the park shall flank the park with a fenced side yard and rear yard. Development shall not back onto the park. 8.3.7 Schedule A also identifies a Municipal Wide Park west of Courtice Shores Drive and north of Street A. The Municipality may pursue development of a park in this location as an additional public amenity and to manage public access to adjacent Environmental Protection Areas. The park shall be designed primarily for passive enjoyment, with trails and seating. Parking to serve users of the park as well as the Waterfront Park may also be accommodated. Page 125 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 22 9 Community Culture and Heritage 9.1 Objectives 9.1.1 Conserve and adaptively reuse built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. 9.1.2 Assess, recover and protect archaeological resources. 9.1.3 Integrate public art in the design of the Courtice Waterfront Park and broader public realm. 9.2 Policies 9.2.1 The conservation and enhancement of significant cultural heritage resources shall be consistent with the policies of the Clarington Official Plan and all relevant Provincial legislation and policy directives. 9.2.2 The Municipality will determine if a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report is required prior to development on or adjacent to any properties that are identified on Clarington’s Cultural Heritage Resource List, and any properties that have been identified as having potential cultural heritage value or interest. 9.2.3 A Heritage Impact Assessment shall be conducted prior to development on or adjacent to properties that are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, or properties for which a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report has been conducted and determined that the properties meet the criteria for cultural heritage value or interest as prescribed in O. Reg. 9/06, as amended, or any successors thereto. 9.2.4 Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports and Heritage Impact Assessments shall consider and provide strategies for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage resources. 9.2.5 Public art and/or other interpretive features recalling the area’s cultural heritage shall be integrated into the design of public open spaces within the neighbourhood. 10 Transportation 10.1 Objectives 10.1.1 Provide a multi-modal transportation network that encourages walking, cycling and public transit use while accommodating cars and trucks efficiently. 10.1.2 Establish new and improved road and active transportation connections between the areas of Courtice to the north and east and within the Secondary Plan. New and improved connections will include CN rail corridor crossings. Page 126 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 23 10.1.3 Plan for a direct connection for pedestrians and cyclists between the Courtice GO Station and the waterfront to the satisfaction of CN Rail and the Ministry of Transportation. 10.1.4 Establish an interconnected network of trails and other active transportation facilities throughout the Secondary Plan area, linked to the broader municipal network and the Waterfront Trail. 10.1.5 Establish inviting, comfortable transit stops and ensure the road network facilitates the use of public transit, walking and cycling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 10.1.6 Provide safe access to the Lake Ontario shoreline and protect views and vistas to the lake. 10.2 General Policies 10.2.1 Schedule C identifies the road classification and active transportation facilities network planned for the area. The transportation policies contained in Section 19 of the Clarington Official Plan and the policies of this Secondary Plan shall apply to the transportation network. 10.2.2 Development shall be structured around an interconnected and grid-like network of streets that facilitate direct pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular movement throughout the Secondary Plan area. 10.2.3 Development will be structured to provide a pedestrian-oriented community by integrating pedestrian linkages and multi-use pathways to supplement the grid- like network of streets. 10.2.4 Wherever possible, future streets shall be aligned and designed to maintain and enhance views of the Courtice Waterfront Park and Lake Ontario. 10.2.5 An environmental assessment (EA) shall be initiated to evaluate options for future rail crossings. The EA will consider the approximate locations identified on Schedule A and design variations (for example, at-grade improvements, a bridge, a tunnel). 10.2.6 Until the necessary rail crossing(s) is in operation, development will require a Transportation Impact Study that demonstrates the current road capacity and existing rail crossings provide adequate safety and access, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 10.2.7 Where the length of a block exceeds 250 metres, a landscaped mid -block pedestrian connection may be required to enhance the pedestrian permeability of the area, the efficiency and variety of pedestrian routes, and access to transit. Mid-block pedestrian connections should have a minimum width that accommodates a multi-use path with landscaping on both sides to provide a buffer to any adjacent private spaces. 10.2.8 On-street parking will be encouraged at appropriate locations on all Key Local Roads and other Local Roads to provide for anticipated parking needs. Page 127 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 24 10.2.9 The Municipality, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and Metrolinx will work cooperatively to develop a long-term public transit strategy for the Courtice Waterfront. 10.2.10 The design of roads shall be based on a complete streets approach, in accordance with the transportation master plans, standards and guidelines of the Municipality of Clarington and Region of Durham, with further guidance provided in the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines (Appendix A to this Secondary Plan). 10.2.11 Darlington Park Road shall be designed in accordance with the road classification criteria in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official Plan. 10.2.12 All Roads shall be designed with the following lighting design standards: a) Appropriate lighting is to be provided to contribute to the safe function of the roadway as well as the safe and appropriate lighting of the pedestrian realm; and b) Lighting shall be downcast to reduce light pollution. 10.3 Collector Roads 10.3.1 Collector Roads shall be designed with a right-of-way width of 23 metres and in accordance with the road classification criteria in Appendix C, Table C -2 of the Clarington Official Plan and include the following design standards: a) Boulevards with a minimum width of 5 metres shall be provided on both sides of the street to accommodate a sidewalk or multi-use path and a planting and furnishing zone with space for street trees on both sides of the street; b) On-street parking may be accommodated on either side of the right-of- way within lay-by spaces that alternate with the planting and furnishing zone; and c) The roadway of Collector Roads generally shall accommodate two travel lanes, a centre turning lane where required, and cycling facilities, except where a multi-use path in an adjacent open space and aligned with the road provides a convenient alternative. Lane widths shall be sufficient to accommodate public transit and/or shuttle buses. 10.4 Key Local Roads 10.4.1 Key Local Roads identified on Schedule C are intended to have a special character based on their prominence, adjacent land uses and importance for circulation within the Secondary Plan area. The precise location of new Key Local Roads shall be determined through Plans of Subdivision. 10.4.2 Key Local Roads shall have a right-of-way width of 20 metres and shall contain sidewalks and a planting and furnishing zone on both sides to enhance the tree canopy and reinforce the Secondary Plan area’s pedestrian network and green Page 128 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 25 character. Sidewalks shall be separated from travel lanes by the planting and furnishing zone. 10.4.3 Key Local Roads shall be designed in accordance with the Local Road classification criteria in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official Plan. 10.5 Special Local Road 10.5.1 Street D is intended to be a unique and flexible public right -of-way that complements the Courtice Waterfront Park on one side and future land uses on the north side. It shall be designed to function at times as a car-free promenade for pedestrians and cyclists and as a shared street with vehicular access at other times. 10.5.2 The alignment of Street D may vary from the conceptual alignment shown in Schedules A, B and C without amendment to this plan, provided the street fully abuts the Courtice Waterfront Park and does not reduce the planned minimum size of the park. 10.5.3 Street D shall be designed in conjunction with the Courtice Waterfront Park on the south side and private development on the north side . It shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 15 metres and accommodate the following, to the satisfaction of the Municipality: a) A dedicated pedestrian zone on the north side, which may differ in materiality from the right-of-way to clearly articulate a pedestrian priority area; b) A roadway/promenade with rolled curbs that may include other traffic calming measures such as bollards, road curvature and interlocking paving; c) A landscaped “flex zone” on the south side to accommodate food trucks, other vendors and street furniture intended to enhance the waterfront experience for residents and visitors. 10.6 Local Roads 10.6.1 Local Roads shall generally be designed in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Clarington Official Plan and include the following design standards: a) On-street parking shall be accommodated on either side of the right-of- way; b) Sidewalks are encouraged to be provided on both sides of Local Roads; and c) A planting and furnishing zone with street trees shall be provided on both sides of Local Roads. 10.7 Rear Lanes 10.7.1 Rear lanes are encouraged to support safe and attractive streets by eliminating the need for driveways and street-facing garages. Page 129 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 26 10.7.2 Rear lanes can provide alternative pedestrian routes through a community and shall provide a safe environment for pedestrian and vehicle travel. 10.7.3 Public utilities may be located within public rear lanes subject to functional and design standards established by the Municipality. 10.7.4 All rear lanes shall be designed in accordance with the road classification criteria in Appendix C, Table C-2 and include the following design standards: a) Rear lanes shall allow two-way travel and incorporate a setback on either side of the right-of-way to the adjacent garage/building wall; b) Rear lanes shall provide a minimum pavement width of 6.5 metres; provide access for service and maintenance vehicles for required uses as deemed necessary by the Municipality and may include enhanced rear lane widths and turning radii to accommodate municipal vehicles including access for snowplows, garbage trucks and emergency vehicles where required; c) Rear lanes shall be clear of overhead obstruction and shall be free from overhanging balconies, trees and other encroachments; d) Rear lanes shall intersect with public roads; e) No municipal services, except for local storm sewers, shall be allowed, unless otherwise accepted by the Municipality; f) No Region of Durham infrastructure shall be permitted; g) Rear lanes shall be graded to channelize snow-melt and runoff; h) The design rear lanes shall incorporate appropriate elements of low impact design including permeable paving where sufficient drainage exists; and i) Access for waste collection and emergency service vehicles is to be accommodated. 10.8 Active Transportation 10.8.1 A conceptual active transportation network as shown on Schedule C has been designed to connect the Secondary Plan area to the Great Lakes Waterfront trail, Lake Ontario shoreline and the Tooley Creek lands, while protecting and enhancing the natural features and functions of these areas. 10.8.2 The active transportation network may include pathways, pedestrian bridges, lookouts and seating areas, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Trails identified on Schedule C shall be assessed as part of an Environmental Impact Study undertaken on adjacent lands, including but not limited to the Courtice Waterfront Park. 10.8.3 All development shall provide for the implementation of the active transportation network in accordance with the conceptual location of facilities Page 130 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 27 identified on Schedule C. In addition to sidewalks, dedicated cycling facilities and multi-use paths, the network will include Primary and Secondary Trails as defined in Section 18.4 of the Clarington Official Plan. The precise location, type and design of trails shall consider: a) Trail design and type will minimize environmental impacts and be designed to accommodate a range of users and abilities. b) Trails will be directed outside of natural areas where possible or to the outer edge of vegetation protection zones. c) Trails located adjacent to natural features and stormwater management facilities should incorporate interpretive signage at various locations to promote understanding and stewardship of the features and functions of the natural environment. 10.8.4 Proposed trails in or adjacent to Environmental Protection Areas shall be subject to Environmental Impact Studies. 10.8.5 A Pedestrian Crossing is shown conceptually on Schedules A and C. The Pedestrian Crossing is essential to providing active transportation access and connectivity to the Secondary Plan. It will enhance pedestrian and cyclist connectivity within the Secondary Plan area and provide access to the areas of Courtice to the north, including the Courtice GO Station. The location and feasibility of the Pedestrian Crossing will be determined through a future feasibility study initiated by the Municipality. 10.9 Site Access and Parking 10.9.1 Individual site access for residential uses from a Collector Road generally shall not be permitted. Rear Lanes or Local Roads shall be the preferred option for accessing development sites. Reverse frontage development is not permitted within the Secondary Plan area. 10.9.2 Parking regulations shall be provided in the Zoning By-law. The Municipality may modify the parking requirements subject to a parking study and site- specific zoning amendment. The Municipality shall encourage development not to exceed the minimum parking requirements in the Zoning By-law. 11 Servicing 11.1 Objectives 11.1.1 Ensure the Secondary Plan area is developed on the basis of full municipal sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water services. 11.1.2 Integrate stormwater management with the open space system while minimizing impacts on the natural environment. 11.1.3 Design buildings, infrastructure and all open spaces to mitigate the impacts of severe storms, and flooding. Page 131 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 28 11.2 General Policies 11.2.1 Utilities shall be located below grade in the street right-of way, or in easements, where required. For ease of access and maintenance, shared utility trenches are encouraged. 11.2.2 Telecommunications/communications utilities, electrical stations or sub- stations, mail boxes or super mail boxes and similar facilities should be incorporated and built into architectural or landscaping features, rather than being freestanding, wherever possible. They should be compatible with the appearance of adjacent uses and include anti-graffiti measures. 11.2.3 Building utilities, including but not limited to gas lines/metres and hydro boxes, shall be located at the rear or interior side of a building, and shall be integrated into the building or visually screened. 11.3 Stormwater Management 11.3.1 Stormwater management ponds and their associated open spaces shall generally be located in accordance with Schedules A and C of this Secondary Plan. 11.3.2 Stormwater management facilities, such as ponds and Low Impact Development features, shall be incorporated in the Secondary Plan area to mitigate the impacts of development on water quality and quantity, consistent with the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study and the policies of Section 20 of the Clarington Official Plan. Such facilities shall not be located within natural heritage features but may be permitted within the outer limits of the vegetation protection zone provided the intent of the vegetation protection zone is maintained and it is supported by an Environmental Impact Study. 11.3.3 The precise siting of stormwater management facilities shall make use of natural drainage patterns to minimize the risk of flooding. Stormwater management facilities will not drain lands located in another subwatershed. 11.3.4 Stormwater management facilities shall include the installation of naturalized landscaping and accommodate trails and seating areas, where appropriate. 11.3.5 Proposed stormwater management quality, quantity, erosion control and water balance for ground water and natural systems may be assessed during the development approval process to determine the impact on the natural heritage system and environmental features. 11.3.6 The submission of the following plans and reports shall be required to determine the impact of stormwater quality/quantity, erosion and water balance of the proposed development. All reports shall be prepared in accordance with the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study, including: a) Stormwater Management Report and Plan; Page 132 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 29 b) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; c) Servicing Plans; d) Grading Plans; e) Geotechnical reports; f) Hydrogeologic reports; and g) Other technical reports as deemed necessary. 11.3.7 The Stormwater Management Report and Plan identified in Policy 11.3.6 shall explore and consider the feasibility of and opportunities to implement such Low Impact Development measures as: a) Permeable hardscaping; b) Bioretention areas; c) Exfiltration systems; d) Bioswales and infiltration trenches; e) Third pipe systems; f) Vegetation filter strips; g) Green roofs (multi-unit buildings); h) Rainwater harvesting; and i) Other potential measures. 11.3.8 Stormwater management plans shall demonstrate how the water balance target set in the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study is achieved. 11.3.9 Stormwater management for all development shall be undertaken on a volume control basis and shall demonstrate the maintenance of recharge rates, flow paths and water quality to the greatest extent possible. Peak flow control and the maintenance of pre-development water balance shall be demonstrated. 11.3.10 High Volume Recharge Areas shall maintain a pre-development water balance. 11.3.11 Development of all detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings shall demonstrate the use of an adequate volume of amended topsoil or equivalent system to improve surface porosity and permeability over all turf and landscaped areas beyond three metres of a buildin g foundation and beyond tree protection areas. 11.3.12 The establishment of new flood control facilities to accommodate development within this Secondary Plan are not encouraged and will only be considered once all other reasonable alternatives have been fully exhausted in accordance with the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study or an update or addenda to that study. Other alternatives to flood control facilities could Page 133 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 30 include infrastructure improvements such as relief culverts, road crossings or land acquisition. 12 Implementation and Interpretation 12.1 Objectives 12.1.1 Ensure roads, road improvements, and municipal services required for any part of the Courtice Waterfront are in place and operative prior to or coincident with development. 12.1.2 Ensure each phase of development is contiguous to a previous phase. 12.1.3 Facilitate development through coordinated and timely infrastructure investments. 12.1.4 Ensure lot patterns are rational and efficient to achieve adequately sized lots and well-defined street frontages and discourage remnant parcels. 12.2 Policies 12.2.1 Applicants shall prepare and update phasing plans for submission with plans of subdivision. The phasing plan shall establish phases of development of the lands and shall provide for the staging of construction of public infrastructure and services in relation to phases of development. The phasing plan shall take into account the responsibility for construction of the public infrastructure and services and shall be considered by the Municipality in enacting amendments to the Zoning By-law and in recommending plans of subdivision for approval. 12.2.2 All new development within the Secondary Plan area shall proceed on the basis of the sequential extension of full municipal services through the Regional and Municipal capital works programs and plans of subdivision. 12.2.3 The Municipality encourages utility providers such as hydroelectric power, communications/telecommunications facilities and utilities, broadband fibre optics, and natural gas to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is or will be in place to serve the Secondary Plan area. 12.2.4 Approval of development applications shall be conditional upon commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of development to the timing and funding of the required road and transportation facilities, parks and community facilities. These works shall be provided for in the subdivision and site plan agreements. 12.2.5 Approval of development applications shall also be conditional upon commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of development to the timing and funding of required stormwater management, sanitary sewer and water supply facilities. These works shall be provided for in subdivision and site plan agreements. Page 134 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 31 12.2.6 Minor alterations to Schedule A may occur without amendment to this Secondary Plan through rezoning and plan of subdivision or site plan approval applications provided such minor alterations are in conformity with Policies 24.1.2 and 24.1.3 of the Clarington Official Plan and the general intent of this Secondary Plan is maintained, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. 12.2.7 The Secondary Plan recognizes that comprehensive planning requires the equitable sharing amongst landowners of costs associated with the development of land. It is a policy of this Secondary Plan that prior to the approval of any draft plan of subdivision for lands under multiple ownership or benefitting multiple landowners, applicants/landowners shall have entered into appropriate cost sharing agreem ents which establish the means by which the costs (including Region of Durham costs) of developing the prope rty are to be shared. The Municipality may also require, as a condition of draft approval, that proof be provided to the Municipality that landowners have met their obligations under the relevant cost sharing agreements prior to registration of a plan of subdivision. 12.2.8 Development applications shall include the following information : a) Net residential density by land use designation; b) Identification of total area of non-residential land uses; c) Number and type of units by land use designation; d) Total residential unit count; e) Estimated population; and f) Number of purpose-built additional dwelling units. 12.2.9 A land use compatibility study that assesses noise, vibration and air quality impacts and mitigation measures shall be required as part of a complete application for development. This study will determine the viability of sensitive uses within the proposed development, and the need for, types of, and extent of receptor-based mitigation measures. The Municipality may waive this requirement for lands that are not within th e area of influence of Regional infrastructure or other emission sources within the Clarington Energy Business Park and/or lands that are outside of 450 metres of the CN rail corridor . 12.2.10 The Municipality will monitor the policies of this Secondary Plan and propose updates as necessary. 12.2.11 Where examples of permitted uses are listed under any specific land use designation, they are intended to provide examples of possible uses. Other similar uses may be permitted provided they conform to the intent and all applicable provisions of this Secondary Plan. 12.2.12 It is the intent of the Municipality to permit some flexibility in accordance with Official Plan Policy 24.1.5 in the interpretation of the policies, regulations and numerical requirements of this Secondary Plan, except where this Secondary Plan is explicitly intended to be prescriptive, such as those regarding minimum Page 135 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 32 densities and minimum and maximum heights, and the size of the Courtice Waterfront Park. 12.2.13 This Secondary Plan refines and implements the policies of the Clarington Official Plan. Where there is a conflict between the Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan, this Secondary Plan shall prevail, including density and intensification policies. 12.2.14 All policies of the Clarington Official Plan shall apply to this Secondary Plan area. Policies that cite specific Clarington Official Plan policies have been provided for convenience only. 12.2.15 The land use boundaries shown on Schedule A to this Secondary Plan are approximate, except where they meet with existing roads, valleys or other clearly defined physical features. Where the general intent of this Secondary Plan is maintained to the satisfaction of the Municipality, minor boundary adjustments will not require an amendment to this Secondary Plan. 12.2.16 The Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines appended to this Secondary Plan as Appendix A provide specific guidelines for both the public and private realms. They clarify the Municipality’s expectations with respect to the form, character and qualities of development in the Courtice Waterfront area. Page 136 Schedule A - Land Use Plan Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan N Page 137 Schedule B - Heights Plan (Storeys) Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Numbers indicate minimum and maximum heights in storeys. The minimum height of standalone commercial uses in the Mixed Use Area (excluding hotels) shall be one storey - see Policy 5.5.7. * Buildings up to 15 storeys may be permitted subject to policy 5.5.9. N Page 138 Schedule C - Roads and Active Transportation Plan Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan N Page 139 Courtice Waterfront DECEMBER 2025 URBAN DESIGN & SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES DRAFT Appendix A Attachment 1c to Report PDS-002-26 Page 140 Page 141 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2 1.1. Overview & Purpose 3 1.2. Structure of the Guidelines 4 1.3. Interpretation and Implementation of the Guidelines 4 2. Vision and Community Structure 5 2.1. Community Vision 6 2.2. Community Character Statement 6 2.3. Community Structure 7 3. Private Realm Guidelines 8 3.1. Low Density Residential Development 9 3.2. Medium Density Residential Development 11 3.3. Development in Mixed Use Areas 13 3.4. Development in the Gateway Commercial Area 16 4. Public Realm Guidelines 18 4.1. Streets 19 4.2. Streetscapes 29 4.3. Parks and Open Space 29 4.4. Environmental Protection Areas 32 5. Green Design Guidelines 34 5.1. Energy and Water Conservation 35 5.2. Landscapes and Stormwater Management 36 Page 142 1. INTRODUCTION Page 143 3Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 1.1. OVERVIEW & PURPOSE The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Area, comprising 102 hectares, is bounded by Darlington Provincial Park to the west, Courtice Shores Drive to the east, Darlington Park Road to the north and Lake Ontario to the south (see Figure 1). The planned population for the area is approximately 5,000 occupying approximately 2,500 units of housing. Development is also expected to generate approximately 550 jobs. Bordering the Clarington Energy Business Park and located immediately south of the Courtice Transit- Oriented Community, north of Highway 401, the Courtice Waterfront is intended to complement the neighbouring areas by accommodating a mix of housing and commercial businesses and providing access to a range of recreation opportunities on the Lake Ontario waterfront and in the Tooley Creek valley. Residential, mixed-use and commercial development, together with new streets, pedestrian connections and open spaces, will extend the Courtice community to the lake. The Courtice Waterfront will feature a variety of low-rise, mid-rise and potentially high-rise residential buildings. Restaurants, shops and destination commercial uses, some in mixed-use buildings, will serve residents and draw visitors and Energy Park employees to the area. A municipal wide park intended for all residents of Clarington, will protect significant natural features, provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, and accommodate a range of recreation and cultural activities year-round. These guidelines build on the policies of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan as well as Priority Green Clarington, which promotes sustainable community design. Sustainable communities begin with conservation and sensitive integration of significant environmental features. Various aspects of community design are also fundamental to sustainability, including: street networks and block patterns that encourage walking and cycling; an interconnected system of parks and open spaces that supports healthy lifestyles and social wellbeing; and compact development that uses land and infrastructure efficiently. The Secondary Plan provides a policy framework for the development of the Courtice Waterfront to a high standard of urban design and sustainability. The Guidelines provide further direction on how this is to be achieved. Figure 1: Secondary Plan areas Robinson Creek Highway 401 Co u r t i c e S h o r e s D r i v e Baseline Road West Energy Drive Megawatt Dri v e Do w n R o a d Darlington Park Road Osborne Road Cr a g o R o a d CP Ra i l CN Ra i l Co u r t i c e R o a d Tr u l l s R o a d Pr e s t o n v a l e R o a d Hi g h w a y 4 1 8 WATER POLLUTION POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT DARLINGTONPROVINCIALPARK EFWEFW 418 OPGOPG 401401 Tooley Creek COURTICE WATERFRONT ENERGY PARK COURTICE TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITY DARLINGTONDARLINGTONNUCLEARGENERATINGSTATION LAKE ONTARIO Page 144 4 Courtice Waterfront 1.2. STRUCTURE OF THE GUIDELINES This document contains five main sections: Section 1 summarizes important background information and explains the purpose of the Guidelines. Section 2 describes the overall physical vision for the community, highlights structuring elements and explains how the Guidelines will be implemented. Section 3 contains Guidelines applicable to the private realm, addressing site design, built form, parking and other matters. They are organized based on the land use designations of the Secondary Plan. Section 4 contains the Public Realm Guidelines, which will apply to the design of the street network, individual streets, streetscapes, parks and other open spaces, and Environmental Protection Areas. Section 5 provides guidance for how development can promote environmental sustainability through measures related to energy efficiency, water conservation and stormwater management. 1.3. INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GUIDELINES The Courtice Waterfront Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines are intended to help implement the policies of the Official Plan and Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan and provide greater clarity on policy intentions respecting overall urban design, streetscapes, built form and environmental sustainability. The Guidelines are to be read in conjunction with the policies of the Official Plan – in particular Chapter 5, Creating Vibrant and Sustainable Urban Places, and Chapter 9, Livable Neighbourhoods – and the policies of the Secondary Plan – in particular the chapters on Land Use and Built Form (5), Urban Design (6), Parks and Community Facilities (8) and Transportation (10). The Guidelines also should be read in conjunction with the Clarington Zoning By-law as it applies to the Courtice Waterfront and the Clarington General Architectural Design Guidelines, Landscape Design Guidelines for Site Planning, Lighting Guidelines, and Amenity Guidelines for Medium and High Density Residences. The Guidelines build on zoning provisions with more detailed guidance respecting such matters as building setbacks and heights. Where there is conflict between these Guidelines and the General Architectural Design Guidelines, these Guidelines shall prevail. The Guidelines, in concert with Official Plan policies, Secondary Plan policies, the implementing Zoning By-law and the General Architectural Design Guidelines, will be used to evaluate development applications to ensure that a high level of urban design and sustainability is achieved. Page 145 2. VISION AND COMMUNITY STRUCTURE Page 146 6 Courtice Waterfront 2.1 COMMUNITY VISION The following components comprise the physical vision for the community: • Highly visible, accessible and protected natural heritage features. Development and infrastructure will respect and enhance existing natural heritage features and topography. Residents will enjoy parks and trail networks that provide increased access to natural heritage features while being environmentally sensitive. • Accessible public spaces and other amenities for people of all ages and abilities. The open space network will comprise a 15-hectare waterfront park, environmental areas, stormwater management ponds, and other green spaces centred on the Tooley Creek valley. Overlooking Lake Ontario, the Courtice Waterfront Park will accommodate a range of recreational and cultural activities. • Stormwater management features integrated into the open space network. The open space network will incorporate a naturalized stormwater management system by integrating a mix of low impact development features and ponds adjacent to the Tooley Creek valley. • An interconnected, pedestrian-oriented mobility network. The grid-like network of streets and active transportation connections planned for the Courtice Waterfront will maintain views toward the lake and convenient access to the Waterfront Park. The development sites defined by streets will have the flexibility to accommodate a range of housing types. Streets and multi-use paths will also help connect residents to other community amenities within and outside the Courtice Waterfront. • A diversity of housing forms and building typologies. The Courtice Waterfront community will develop with a diversity of housing choices to accommodate residents of all ages and households of all sizes. Attention to good urban design will ensure the desired range of housing types, from detached houses to apartment buildings, are integrated seamlessly to create a cohesive community with a distinct identity. The Courtice Waterfront will consist of low-rise, mid-rise and potentially high-rise buildings reflecting a variety of architectural styles. • Streetscapes defined by street trees, other landscaping and buildings that contribute to an inviting public realm. Streetscapes in the Courtice Waterfront will be designed to a high standard, incorporating complete street principles to provide safe and comfortable space for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and drivers. The facades of buildings and landscaped front yards will be dominant streetscape features. • Commercial uses that meet the needs of residents and attract visitors. Restaurants and shops on the ground floor of mixed-use buildings and unique standalone destination uses will complement the Waterfront Park, contributing to a complete community and drawing visitors from across the region. 2.2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER STATEMENT The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan envisions a diverse and inclusive community distinguished by a broad mix of land uses, housing forms, and business and employment opportunities; an interconnected green network of natural features, parkland and tree-lined streets; and a unique waterfront park with views and physical access to Lake Ontario and places to play and gather. Page 147 7Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 2.3. COMMUNITY STRUCTURE The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan provides a framework for future development based on the following high-level structuring elements: Waterfront Park, Natural Areas and Other Open Spaces: Green spaces will be a dominant feature of the Secondary Plan Area. The Tooley Creek valley and adjacent woodlands are a central feature that both separates and joins the Courtice Waterfront and the Energy Park, while the Lake Ontario shoreline defines the area’s southern boundary. These features will be protected and enhanced as the Waterfront Park is developed as a destination for recreation, community gatherings and passive enjoyment. Waterfront Greenway lands will complete the open space system, accommodating trails, land use buffers and stormwater management facilities. Transportation Network: The historic CN Rail corridor plays an important role in separating a planned highway-oriented commercial area from a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use neighbourhood. The planned network of streets, multi-use paths and other active transportation infrastructure will help define development sites, establish views to Lake Ontario and other natural features, and ensure easy access by all travel modes to and through the area. Residential, Mixed-Use and Commercial Areas: North of the Waterfront Park, areas for low-, medium- and high- density housing in a variety of forms will comprise the Courtice Waterfront neighbourhood. Commercial uses facing the Waterfront Park and potentially a north-south main street will be integrated with housing to create a more complete community and destination. Commercial uses north of the rail corridor will serve travelers on Highway 401 as well as locals. Figure 2: Land Use Plan Page 148 3. PRIVATE REALM GUIDELINES While the public and private realms often overlap and intersect, the private realm typically includes places and spaces to which access is controlled and/or restricted and lands which are not owned by the Municipality or another public agency. Page 149 9Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 3.1. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Buildings in the Low Density Residential Area, namely single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and townhouses will contribute to a diversity of housing in the Courtice Waterfront and provide a transition from denser development farther east to Darlington Provincial Park. The guidelines below focus on massing and the relationship of development to streets and open spaces, with the intention of ensuring development contributes to an attractive, comfortable and safe public realm. 3.1.1. GENERAL SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN The following guidelines should be applied in conjunction with the zoning provisions applicable to Low Density Residential Areas and should not conflict with them. A. The height and massing should be consistent within a building type to create a unified character for the community. B. A variety of architectural expression among publicly exposed elevations is encouraged, including variation in roof lines, architectural styles, and material articulation. C. There should be a variety of lot widths and dwelling sizes on each block. D. Detached and semi-detached houses and townhouses generally should have a front setback of 4-5.5 metres to the front wall of the house. Front garages should have a minimum front setback of 6 metres. E. Front yard setbacks along a street should be consistent. F. Building projections, such as covered porches, balconies and stairs are encouraged and may project into the front yard setback. G. The base of the porch and stair shall be enclosed with material that suitably complements the exterior cladding of the dwelling unit. H. The entrance to homes may be emphasized through stone porticos, two-storey porches and built-over porticos. I. Dwellings on a corner lot, including townhouses, should have side elevations that include windows and details consistent with the front elevation. Front porches should wrap around the corner of the house. J. There should be no more than six attached townhouses in a row where the garages are accessed from a Rear Lane or where front garages face a local street. K. The separation between rows of attached townhouses should be a minimum of 2.4 metres to allow for landscaping, fencing and outdoor storage screened from view. Where the separation between rows will also provide shared access and pedestrian circulation, the separation distance should be a minimum of 3 metres. L. Front driveways and garages for townhouses fronting Street A, Street C and Street D will not be permitted to prioritize these streets for pedestrians. M. Development adjacent to Darlington Provincial Park should seek to carefully control public exposure, lighting, and access to the Provincial Park. N. Properties backing onto Darlington Provincial Park should have deep rear yards. The back of rear yards should be planted with deciduous and coniferous trees, and a solid wood fence 2.4 metres high should be built. Detached houses with living space located above the garage Page 150 10 Courtice Waterfront 3.1.2. GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Attached front garages should not dominate the massing of the dwelling from the front. B. Garages generally should occupy a maximum of 50-60% of the lot frontage, depending on the width of the lot. C. Front garages are encouraged to be expressed as two-storey structures with usable space above to better integrate the garage into the overall design of the dwelling unit. D. Front garages are encouraged to be recessed from the front wall of the house by a minimum of 0.5 metres where the lot frontage is greater than 7.5 metres. E. Attached front yard garages should have materials, design elements and colour consistent with the architecture of the primary dwelling unit. F. The width of a driveway generally should correspond with the width of the garage, although in the case of single garages, a wider driveway is allowed where it does not prevent a minimum of 30% of the front yard being used for the purpose of landscaped open space. G. Front double-car garages are encouraged to have two separate openings and two doors. Single doors for double car garages should be articulated vertically and horizontally to give the appearance of two doors. Windows are encouraged to avoid a blank-wall effect. H. Driveways should be buffered from side property lines by a landscape strip. I. Lots serviced by a Rear Lane should locate garages or parking pads at the rear of the property. J. Garages fronting onto Rear Lanes should be carefully arranged in groupings for an attractive visual environment. Garages should be sited to allow for access and drainage from the rear yard of the unit to the Rear Lane. K. Both parking pads and garages accessed from a Rear Lane shall be set back from the lot line separating the rear yard from the Rear Lanes. Setbacks should consider the need for visitor parking, snow storage, and space for garbage and recycling bins. 3.1.3. LANDSCAPING, GARBAGE/RECYCLING AND UTILITIES GUIDELINES A. On lots not serviced by a Rear Lane and with a lot frontage greater than 9 metres, a minimum of approximately half of the front yard should consist of soft landscaping including an attractive combination of foundation landscaping, trees, and deciduous and coniferous ornamental planting. Other than the permitted driveway, paving in the front yard generally should be limited to walkways. B. Rear yards on corner lots should be screened from public view from the flanking street with a minimum 1.5-metre high fence made of durable, attractive wood or a hedge. Builders shall be encouraged to provide such screening. C. Utility box locations should be planned to minimize their visual impact on the public realm. House on a corner lot addressing both streets Page 151 11Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT Stacked townhouses fronting an open space 3.2. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A range of low-rise and mid-rise housing, from street townhouses to 6-storey apartment buildings, are planned in the Medium Density Residential Area (the maximum height over much of the area is 4 storeys, but a portion adjacent to the Mixed-Use Area has a maximum height of 6 storeys). Lot sizes may vary to accommodate a variety of housing forms within a porous pattern of streets and blocks that encourages walking and cycling. The guidelines below apply primarily to multiplex and multi-unit developments (i.e., stacked and back-to-back townhouses and apartment buildings). Where street townhouses are proposed, the guidelines in Section 3.1 will apply. 3.2.1. GENERAL SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN A. Buildings should be oriented to streets and help to frame them. Front setbacks generally should be 3 to 5 metres to accommodate front yard landscaping and, where appropriate, porches, front patios and stairs. B. Front yard setbacks along a street should be consistent. C. External side yard setbacks should be 3-5 metres. D. All buildings on corner lots shall address both edges with articulated facades and windows. Blank walls visible from streets or public spaces should be avoided. E. Buildings should be articulated with high-quality, sustainable materials and finishes to promote design excellence, innovation and building longevity. F. Architectural variation, texture, and materiality should be incorporated into the design of buildings to establish community identity and enhance visual interest. G. Front driveways and garages for townhouses fronting Street A, Street C and Street D will not be permitted to prioritize these streets for pedestrians. 3.2.2. GUIDELINES FOR APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND STACKED TOWNHOUSES Stacked townhouses and low-rise apartment buildings are permitted throughout the Medium Density Residential Area, and apartment buildings up to six storeys are permitted in an area between Street A and Street B. The following guidelines apply to such developments. A. Apartment buildings should be articulated with vertical recesses or other architectural elements to reduce their perceived mass and provide visual interest. B. Mid-rise buildings of 6 storeys fronting a Local Road should incorporate a minimum stepback of 3 metres at the sixth storey to mitigate shadow impacts on the pedestrian realm and ensure compatibility with low- rise buildings in the area. C. Building façades should incorporate bird-friendly design elements, such as sunshades or louvers, visual markers within large glazed areas, and non-reflective glazing, to minimize the potential for bird collisions. D. Apartment building lobbies should occupy a prominent location along the street and should exhibit architectural elements such as porticos, canopies or other weather protection elements. E. Ground-floor units in apartment buildings are encouraged to have their entrances facing the street or a landscaped yard. Front patios for ground-floor units may encroach in the setback zone but not closer than 2 Page 152 12 Courtice Waterfront metres from the street. Front patios should be elevated 0.6-1.0 metre from the street and partially screened from public view with a low wall or decorative fence and coniferous landscaping, although some patios may be located at grade for accessibility. F. Landscape design should incorporate trees and a mix of soft and hard landscaping. Existing mature trees should be retained, where possible. G. Clear, direct and accessible walkways should be provided from the sidewalk to the main entrance of buildings or units. H. Private outdoor amenity spaces should generally be provided in the rear; however, balconies and terraces may be provided at the front. Screening elements, including landscaping and fencing, should be provided between the private outdoor amenity spaces or rear yards of neighbouring units. I. Balconies on apartment buildings should be integrated into the overall design of the building façade and wholly or partially recessed a minimum of 1.5 metres. They may project 1.5 metres into the building setback zone. J. The wrapping of balconies around the corners of an apartment building is encouraged. K. Mechanical and electrical equipment, satellite dishes, and communications apparatuses on the roof of an apartment building should be screened with durable materials integrated with the design of the building. L. Underground parking for apartment buildings and back- to-back stacked townhouses is strongly encouraged. Parking may be located at the rear of buildings and is not permitted in the front or exterior side yard. M. Entrances to underground parking should be integrated with the building design, located away from building corners and with minimal interruption of walkways and sidewalks. N. Shared driveways between adjacent developments to access parking at the rear of buildings is strongly encouraged. O. Pick-up and drop-off access should be provided at the rear of apartment buildings, or in layby zones within the on-street parking lane, where provided. P. Garbage and recycling storage for apartment buildings should be located within the structure. Garbage and recycling storage for stacked townhouses should be located in the shared Rear Lane, screened from public view, or in underground parking areas. Q. Loading and service areas should be integrated into the building design or placed away from street frontages and screened from view by walls or solid panel fencing. R. Long-term bicycle parking and storage should be provided in secure spaces within apartment buildings or within underground parking garages. S. Utility meters, transformers and HVAC equipment for individual units should be located in compliance with utility authority requirements and located away from public view and/or screened with low walls and landscaping. Low-rise apartment building with partially inset balconies and buffered patios Pedestrian pathway between facing blocks of townhouses Page 153 13Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 3.3. DEVELOPMENT IN MIXED USE AREAS The Mixed Use Area in the Courtice Waterfront is intended to be a predominantly residential area with a wide mix of housing types, from street townhouses to 6-storey mid- rise buildings. Taller buildings up to 15 storeys may be permitted where it is demonstrated they will be compatible with industrial uses to the east, be supported by planned transportation and servicing capacity, and contribute to diverse and affordable housing stock. The area will also accommodate commercial amenities for waterfront residents and visitors and employees in the Energy Park. It also may accommodate standalone commercial uses with a regional draw. The guidelines below apply primarily to buildings not permitted in Low and Medium Density Residential Areas, including mixed-use buildings, mid-rise residential buildings of 7-10 storeys, high-rise buildings of 11-15 storeys, and standalone commercial buildings. Street townhouses will be subject to the guidelines in Section 3.1, and residential buildings of 4-6 storeys will be subject to the guidelines in Section 3.2. 3.3.1. GENERAL SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN A. Buildings should be oriented towards streets and open spaces to frame the public realm and support pedestrian-friendly environments. B. Residential buildings should have a consistent setback along the street between 3 and 5 metres to provide space for front yard landscaping and, where appropriate, porches, elevated patios and stairs. C. Mixed-use and standalone commercial buildings should have a consistent setback along the street between 2 and 4 metres to accommodate a generous pedestrian zone, restaurant patios and retail displays. D. Buildings should be articulated with high-quality, sustainable materials and finishes to promote design excellence, innovation and building longevity. E. Architectural variation, texture, and materiality should be incorporated into the design of buildings to establish community identity and enhance visual interest. F. Building façades should incorporate bird-friendly design elements, such as sunshades or louvers, visual markers within large glazed areas and non-reflective glazing to minimize the potential for bird collisions. G. Vehicular access and loading/servicing areas should be located away from streets and major open spaces to maintain a pedestrian-friendly public realm. H. Where high-rise or mid-rise buildings are adjacent to lower-scale buildings, transitions in the form of separation and/or stepped massing should be provided to maintain privacy and mitigate the potential for overlook and shadowing. I. Building frontages should be articulated, and where appropriate, breaks should be introduced along the streetwall to help break up the perceived mass of longer buildings and to mitigate wind impacts. J. The ground floor height of mixed-use buildings should be at least 4 metres to maintain flexibility to accommodate a range of active uses over the life of the building. K. Building façades visible from the public realm should be well-articulated and incorporate a rhythm of transparent glass and solid materials, while avoiding blank walls. Low-rise mixed-use building on the Halifax waterfront Page 154 14 Courtice Waterfront i. Buidings fronting a Local Road should incorporate a minimum 3-metre stepback at the sixth storey. ii. Buildings fronting a Collector Road should incorporate a minimum 3-metre stepback at the eighth storey. B. Long mid-rise buildings should break up their mass with offset facades, vertical recesses and/or changes in material or colour. Generally, mid-rise buildings should not exceed 70 metres in length. 3.3.3. MASSING OF HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS A. High-rise buildings should be architecturally interesting and create a cohesive design composition through their proportion, scale, massing and building materials. These building forms typically feature a defined base or podium that can support and frame the public realm, helping to create an inviting and comfortable pedestrian environment; a middle section, or tower, that can mitigate the perception of bulk and impacts on the public realm; and a top section that creates an interesting skyline. B. Podiums should have a minimum height of 2 storeys and a maximum height of 4 storeys. Above the building base, stepbacks should generally be incorporated to distinguish the tower from the building base. C. The building tower should be designed to ensure L. Principal entrances to commercial units should be designed to be oriented towards and highly visible from the public realm and located at the same level as the sidewalk. M. Ground-floor units in apartment buildings are encouraged to have their entrances facing the street or a landscaped yard. Front patios for ground-floor units may encroach in the setback zone, but not closer than 2 metres from the street. Front patios should be elevated 0.6-1.0 metre from the street and partially screened from public view with a low wall or decorative fence and coniferous landscaping, although some patios may be located at grade for accessibility. N. Balconies and other projections should be architecturally integrated into the structure and detailing of apartment buildings. Generally, balconies should be partially or wholly recessed to avoid being a dominant architectural feature and mitigate the visual impact of balconies used for private storage on the public realm. Balcony railings made entirely of transparent glass should be avoided. 3.3.2. MASSING OF MID-RISE BUILDINGS A. Mid-rise buildings greater than 6 storeys should incorporate stepbacks to maintain a consistent streetwall of 3-5 storeys or 4-7 storeys, depending on the street: Tall building with a 2-storey podium and commercial uses on the ground floor Tall buildings with townhouses in the podium Page 155 15Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT access to sky views and daylight, mitigate shadows and adverse microclimate conditions on the public realm and private amenity areas, and maintain privacy for occupants. Measures should include: iii. Staggering towers on a block and across blocks wherever possible. iv. Floorplates should not exceed 850 square metres. v. Towers facing one another, partially or entirely, including projections, should be separated by a minimum of 30 metres. Staggered towers should be a minimum of 25 metres apart. 3.3.4. ROOFTOP ELEMENTS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND UTILITIES A. Rooftop mechanical or telecommunications equipment, signage, and amenity space, where appropriate, should be integrated into the design and massing of the upper floors of the building and should be screened with durable materials integrated with the design of the building. B. Mechanical systems and utilities, such as drainage pipes, vents and meters, should be architecturally integrated into the façade and building design and screened from public view. 3.3.5. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, LANDSCAPING AND AMENITY SPACE A. Landscape design should incorporate trees and a mix of soft and hard landscaping. Existing mature trees should be retained, where possible. B. Clear, direct and accessible walkways should be provided from the sidewalk to the main entrance of buildings. C. Shared private outdoor amenity space should be provided within residential building sites, located at grade and/or on building rooftops. D. Common amenity spaces should be designed to maximize access to sunlight, minimize noise and air quality impacts from site servicing and mechanical equipment, and include elements that facilitate use year-round for people of all ages and abilities. E. The following features should be considered in the design of common amenity space: high-quality, universally accessible, and environmentally sustainable materials; four-season landscaping; seating; pedestrian- scale lighting; trees and other vegetation; shade structures; weather protection; privacy screening; children’s play structures; and barbecue equipment. Mid-rise apartment building with upper floors stepped back F. Where possible, interior amenity spaces should be located adjacent to shared outdoor amenity areas and provide windows and doors for direct physical and visual access between these spaces. G. Places for pet runs either at the rear or side of the building at-grade or on a shared rooftop space are encouraged. H. In residential or mixed-use developments, family-sized units should have access to secure outdoor play space and equipment, and should be located with windows and balconies overlooking outdoor play areas. 3.3.6. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION, PARKING, LOADING AND SERVICING A. Vehicular entrance locations should be minimized in width and consolidated and shared, where possible, in order to reduce the extent of curb cuts in the streetscape, maximize opportunities for soft landscaping, and reduce potential conflicts with pedestrians along the sidewalk. B. Where possible, vehicular access ramps should be provided from a secondary Local Road or Rear Laneway. C. Underground parking is strongly encouraged, with driveway entrances integrated into the building design and envelope. Page 156 16 Courtice Waterfront D. Surface parking may be located at the rear of buildings and is not permitted in the front or side yard of buildings, with the exception of accessible parking spaces, which may be located in a side yard. E. Above-ground structured parking should be wrapped with residential units or active uses or otherwise integrated into the design of a building to separate parking areas from the public realm. F. Waste and recycling collection areas should be located within the building structure. G. Loading and service areas should be integrated into the building envelope or placed away and screened from any street, park, amenity space or public open space by a wall or solid panel fencing. H. Utility meters, transformers and mechanical equipment should be located in compliance with utility authority requirements and should be located away from public view and/or screened with a decorative wall and landscaping. 3.4. DEVELOPMENT IN THE GATEWAY COMMERCIAL AREA The Gateway Commercial Area is planned for commercial uses catering to the travelling public, while also serving residents of the Courtice Waterfront and employees in the Energy Park. The guidelines below are intended to ensure development in the area contributes to a distinct identity for Courtice Waterfront and invites visitors. 3.4.1. GENERAL SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Multi-storey buildings accommodating two-storey commercial uses and/or office space on upper floors are strongly encouraged. B. The siting and massing of buildings should provide a consistent relationship, continuity, and enclosure to adjacent public roads. C. Restaurant patios may be located at the front or side of a building. D. Where located at a corner, buildings shall be designed to address both street frontages and be massed towards the corner location for visibility and visual interest. E. Primary entrances to buildings should be clearly visible and located on a public road or onto public open spaces. Secondary doors, such as those that face the parking area, emergency exits, or service doors should be designed to blend in with the building façade. F. Access from sidewalks and public open space areas to primary building entrances should be convenient and direct, with minimal changes in grade. G. A minimum of 50% of the street-level façade should be glazed. H. Bird friendly glazing should be used on all windows in every new building. Private amenity space in the courtyard of a residential development Page 157 17Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT Restaurant built to a 2-storey height and oriented to a street 3.4.2. ACCESS, PARKING AND SERVICING AREAS A. Driveways shared between adjacent developments are encouraged. B. Parking for retail, restaurants, financial institutions and service commercial uses is encouraged to be located at the side or rear of buildings. Two rows of parking may be permitted in the front yard provided it is buffered from the street with soft landscaping to a minimum depth of three metres. C. Driveways to service stations should be separated by landscape islands with a minimum depth of 3 metres. D. Servicing and loading areas should be located at the rear of buildings and be screened from public view as much as possible by walls and/or landscaping. E. Waste storage facilities within an external structure should be consistent in design, colour, and materials to that of the main dwelling and should be located to the rear of the building in a prominent location. Page 158 4. PUBLIC REALM GUIDELINES The public realm comprises publicly owned places and spaces that belong to and are accessible by everyone. The public realm includes municipal streets, active transportation facilities, streetscape elements, parks and other open space, multi-use paths and trails, Environmental Protection Areas and stormwater management facilities. Page 159 19Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 4.1. STREETS In addition to serving as infrastructure for access and circulation for various modes of urban transportation, streets play a vital role as social spaces and in supporting economic activity. Their design also contributes to the identity and character of places. 4.1.1. GENERAL GUIDELINES A. All roads will be planned and designed to facilitate the movement of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Arterial and Collector Roads will be designed to accommodate transit vehicles. All roads in the Energy Park will be designed to accommodate large trucks. B. The network of streets serving the Courtice Waterfront should be highly inter-connected for the efficient movement of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, respecting existing natural features and topography. C. North-south Local Roads in the Courtice Waterfront should establish view corridors to the Waterfront Park and Lake Ontario wherever possible, and east-west Local Roads should provide views to natural features associated with the Tooley Creek valley. The conceptual alignment of Local Roads shown in Schedule C of the Secondary Plan should guide the layout of streets; however, it is not intended to be prescriptive. D. Future Local Roads in the Energy Park should contribute to a grid network and support a pattern of lots that can accommodate a range of employment uses over time. E. Block lengths in the Courtice Waterfront generally should be no more than 250 metres. Where block lengths exceed 200 metres, mid-block pedestrian connections should be considered. F. Cul-de-sacs are discouraged since they reduce connectivity, increase walking distances and typically result in streetscapes dominated by driveways and garages. G. Rear Lanes are encouraged throughout the Courtice Waterfront to minimize the need for driveways on public streets. Rear Lanes may be required on blocks where medium or high density forms of housing are dominant, to prevent driveways from limiting landscaping in front yards and the street right-of-ways. Figure 3: Road and Active Transportation Network (Secondary Plan - Schedule C) Page 160 20 Courtice Waterfront 4.1.2. COLLECTOR ROADS Darlington Park Road, which may be re-aligned, will function as a Collector Road and be designed as such based on the Municipality's Engineering Standards. It should have a right- of-way of 23 metres and accommodate a multi-use path. Street A and Courtice Shores Drive will also function as Collector Roads and have 23-metre right-of-ways. The cross-sections below identify the appropriate roadway width and boulevard features for these roads STREET A – NORTH OF STREET D Street A is expected to become the main entry to the Courtice Waterfront community for drivers and at a minimum will form part of a critical active transportation connection between the Courtice Transit-Oriented Community north of Highway 401 and the Waterfront Park in the long term. The cross-section below illustrates the preferred approach to accommodating cyclists and pedestrians and shows the option to accommodate on-street parking bays. This cross- section would support commercial uses along Street A, notably in the vicinity of Streets C and D, where such uses will be required. Building setbacks will provide additional space for pedestrians, restaurant patios and retail displays. Benches and waste/recycling bins should be provided in the furnishing zone. Page 161 21Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT STREET A – ADJACENT TO WATERFRONT PARK Street A between Street D and Courtice Shores Drive will define the north edge of the Waterfront Park. The road should have a single travel lane in each direction, a sidewalk on the north side and a multi-use path on the south side, although there is the potential for the path to be located partly or entirely within the park. Parking bays should be located on one or both sides of the street, and angled parking on the south side may be considered through the design process for the park. Traffic calming measures, such as speed humps and pedestrian crossings may be appropriate to ensure traffic moves slowly and pedestrians can cross safely away from intersections. Benches and waste/recycling bins should be provided in the furnishing zone. Page 162 22 Courtice Waterfront COURTICE SHORES DRIVE Courtice Shores Drive will serve as a Primary Access Route to the waterfront for cyclists and pedestrians, and a Primary or Secondary Entry Road for vehicles. It should have two travel lanes, a sidewalk on the east side and a multi-use path on the west side, although the path may be located partly or entirely within the adjacent public open space. Parking on one or both sides should be accommodated for visitors to the green space of the Tooley Creek valley and along the waterfront. Page 163 23Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 4.1.3. KEY LOCAL ROADS Key Local Roads identified in the Secondary Plan are those intended to play a critical role in terms of access and circulation, forming development sites, and/or supporting ecomomic and social activity. As such, their locations are prescribed. The design of two Key Local Roads planned in the Courtice Waterfront should vary from typical standards, as described and illustrated below. STREET B Street B will provide a secondary entry to the waterfront and therefore will carry more traffic than other Local Roads. It is expected to be lined with traditional and stacked townhousing and potentially low-rise apartment buildings with landscaped front yards. Sidewalks should be provided on both sides, and driveways to individual units will be limited to allow for continuous rows of street trees on both sides. The roadway should be 10.5 metres to accommodate parking on one side. Traffic calming measures, such as speed humps and bump-outs, should be considered for the safety and comfort of pedestrians, cyclists and children at play. Page 164 24 Courtice Waterfront STREET C Street C will play an important role in linking Street A to Street B and has the potential to become a mixed-use street with small-scale, neighbourhood-oriented commercial uses located on the ground floors of apartment buildings. Sidewalks of at least 2.5 metres, lined with street trees, should be located on both sides to ensure ample space for pedestrians. Parking should be provided in bays on one or both sides of a two-lane roadway. Page 165 25Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 4.1.4. STREET D - SPECIAL LOCAL ROAD Street D will border the Waterfront Park and creates an opportunity for a unique right-of-way of 15-18 metres. The street will function like a mews for all travel modes when the waterfront has a limited number of visitors due to weather or time of day and can be closed to vehicles at other times to effectively extend the public space of the park on weekends and for special activities or events. The roadway should be no wider than 6.5 metres, its edges defined by rolled curbs or no curbs and by a combination of bollards and planters for the safety of pedestrians. The pedestrian realm on the north side should be landscaped and designed in anticipation of commercial uses on the ground floor of buildings spilling out. Benches should be included in the landscaping. The design and function of the south side should be considered in conjunction with the design of the park. It will have the potential to accommodate parking, food trucks, other vendors and other park amenities. The cross-section illustrated below anticipates a straight alignment of Street D. The right-of-way has the potential, however, to accommodate a roadway with curves, in which case the widths of the boulevard on the north side and the flex zone on the south side may deviate from the widths shown, provided the boulevard on the north side has a minimum width of 2.5 metres for pedestrians. Page 166 26 Courtice Waterfront 4.1.5. TYPICAL LOCAL ROADS All other Local Roads in the Courtice Waterfront generally should have a right-of-way of 18 metres, except where on- street parking for visitors is appropriate on both sides, in which case 20 metres will be required. Given the population density anticipated in the community (medium to high) and the proximity of the Waterfront Park, which will encourage walking, sidewalks should be located on both sides of the street. Cyclists will share a minimum 8.5-metre roadway with vehicles. Page 167 27Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 4.1.6. MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS Mid-block pedestrian connections will be used to break up long blocks and shorten walking distances. They should have a minimum width of 6 metres to accommodate a 3-metre wide multi-use path and landscaping on both sides. Pedestrian-scale lighting should be provided. 4.1.7. REAR LANES Rear Lanes are encouraged throughout the Courtice Waterfront community since they result in more pedestrian- friendly streetscapes. They are stongly encouraged through blocks where medium density forms of housing are dominant, to prevent front driveways from limiting landscaping in front yards and the street right-of-way. Rear Lanes may be required where development fronts Street A or a Key Local Road, where driveways to individual units will not be permitted. Rear Lanes, whether public or private, should have a minimum right-of-way of 8.5 metres to accommodate a roadway of 6.5 metres and one-metre verges on both sides for lighting and a buffer to garages or parking pads. 4.1.8. ROUNDABOUTS Roundabouts may be used as an alternative to traditional intersections with stop signs or traffic signals. They can help to calm traffic while also marking gateways and contributing to community identity through landscaping. A. The size and configuration of roundabouts shall meet Regional and Municipal standards. B. Landscape elements within roundabouts must not impede critical sightlines. C. Roundabouts should feature decorative paving and soft landscaping designed to a high standard and with durable, low-maintenance materials. D. The size of roundabouts should be minimized to avoid diverting and lengthening pedestrian routes through the intersection, and pedestrian crossings should be clearly marked. E. Public art should be considered in designing roundabouts. Rear lane providing access to servicing at the rear of a mid-rise building Roundabout at the intersection of two collector roads Page 168 28 Courtice Waterfront 4.2. STREETSCAPES Streets are not just for moving people and goods but are also places for social interaction, and their design contributes fundamentally to the character of a community. The Guidelines below apply primarily to the boulevards of streets to ensure the public realm of the Courtice Waterfront is optimized for residents, employees and visitors. A. Sidewalks should be designed to provide fully accessible, barrier-free connectivity throughout the community, as per Regional and Municipal standards. B. Sidewalks generally should have a minimum width of 1.8 metres unless prescribed to be wider in the guidelines under Section 4.1. C. The space between the sidewalk and the curb should be reserved for street trees, grass or other ground cover, street lighting and, where appropriate, transit shelters, seating and bicycle parking. D. Transit shelters, seating and wayfinding should be provided at all transit stops. E. Curb extensions (bump-outs) may be considered at intersections and mid-block locations to expand the pedestrian zone, accommodate transit shelters and seating, and shorten roadway crossings. F. Street trees should be large canopy species tolerant of droughts and salt and primarily native, non-invasive species that maximize biodiversity. Pollinator species are encouraged. G. Ornamental or flowering trees should be considered for key entry streets. H. Trees of the same species should be planted on both sides of the street, but tree monocultures are to be avoided. I. Adequate soil volumes, good soil structure, proper drainage and, where possible, irrigation should be provided to support the long-term health of street trees. The bridging of soil rooting areas below adjacent hard surfaces is encouraged. J. Street lighting will be guided by Municipal standards and should focus illumination downward to minimize light pollution and support dark night skies. K. The integration of public art into streetscape elements, such as benches, transit shelters and paving, should be considered. L. Utilities, such as gas, hydro, cable and telecommunications should be located underground, where feasible. M. Above-ground utilities should be integrated into the streetscape and be located so as to minimize conflicts with street tree planting. Alternative methods of screening or integrating utility services may be considered, including covers, wraps or public art features, in compliance with utility authority requirements. Streetscape with generous pedestrian zone, patio and street trees Page 169 29Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 4.3. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The Courtice Waterfront has a wealth of open space, including the environmentally significant natural spaces associated with the Lake Ontario shoreline and the Tooley Creek valley and tributaries. Adjacent to these are open fields and other green spaces designated "Waterfront Greenway." To these spaces will be added a new Municipal-wide Waterfront Park between Darlington Provincial Park and Courtice Shores Drive as an amenity for all Clarington residents. This section provides guidelines for the future Waterfront Park and Waterfront Greenway, as well as spaces and facilities that will enhance connectivity within the open space system. Section 4.4 addresses Environmental Protection Areas. Trillium Park, Toronto Figure 4: Open Space System Page 170 30 Courtice Waterfront 4.3.1. COURTICE WATERFRONT PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES The Courtice Waterfront Park will be a major new addition to the open space network along the north shore of Lake Ontario. The 15-hectare park will be an amenity for local residents and serve all of Clarington with a range of recreational and cultural opportunities and as a place to access the lake. It also has the potential to draw visitors from across the region. The guidelines below are intended to ensure the design and programming of the Waterfront Park meets the needs and desires of Clarington residents while protecting valued natural features. A. Facilities in the park should complement those in other areas of the Clarington Waterfront. B. Programming in the Waterfront Park should facilitate a range of active and passive recreational uses. As per Clarington's Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan, features and amenities should consider seasonality, year-round use, and existing features and amenities in nearby parks and facilities. C. The park should include a playground and splash pad with shade structures. D. Large playing fields are not an appropriate use in the park. However, lawn areas should accommodate pick- up sports and may be used for temporary fields. E. Courts for basketball, tennis, pickle ball and/or bocce should be considered. F. Facilities to encourage winter use of the park, such as fire pits, should be considered. G. The park should accommodate permanent or seasonal kiosks for food and beverage vendors and equipment rentals. H. Facilities for cultural programming, such as an open pavilion and covered stage, should be considered. I. The design and potential programming of Street D should be integrated into the design of the park. J. Multi-use paths within the Waterfront Park should follow desire lines between intersections and destinations within and beyond the park, including lookouts and trailheads within the Environmental Protection Areas. K. Multi-use paths should clearly delineate between zones for pedestrians and cyclists through markings, different paving or landscaping. L. Secure bicycle parking should be provided in and around the park. M. Facilities for easy access to the beach, including the transporting of kayaks and canoes, should be provided at the foot of Courtice Shores Drive. N. Public washrooms should be provided at the east end of the park, near the access to the beach, and in a central location, close to play areas. O. Plantings should generally consist of hardy, native species and provide a transition between park greenspace and natural areas. P. The park should include furnishings such as benches, other seating and tables. Picnic shelters should also be included. These elements should be coordinated in their design and built of durable, low-maintenance materials. Q. Public art should be integrated into the design of park facilities or landscape features. Public art that celebrates and/or interprets the area’s natural and cultural history is encouraged. R. Facilities for outdoor educational programming should be considered adjacent to significant environmental features. S. Utility infrastructure such as gas, hydro, cable, and telecommunications should be located away from the park and its edges and open space frontages. Kiosk cafe in a park Page 171 31Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT T. Alternative methods of screening or integrating utility services may be considered, including covers, wraps or public art features, in compliance with utility authority requirements. U. On-street parking adjacent to the park should be maximized to minimize the need for parking lots in the park. Parking lots, where required, should be small and landscaped. V. An operations yard for the park should be located away from active areas, preferrably at the west end of the park, where it can provide a buffer to Darlington Provincial Park. 4.3.2. WATERFRONT GREENWAY The Waterfront Greenway lands comprise a mix of public and private lands, including farmland. The public lands, except the landscape buffer surrounding the Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant, are publicly accessible but largely unprogrammed, with the exception of trails. A. Ongoing naturalization of Waterfront Greenway lands should be encouraged. B. Trails should be planned in public Waterfront Greenway lands adjacent to the Tooley Creek valley to provide and manage public access. C. Benches or other seating and shade structures should be located at rest stops or lookouts along trails and multi-use paths. D. Where permitted, stormwater management facilities on Waterfront Greenway lands should incorporate naturalized landscaping. Trail rest area with navigation and other information 4.3.3. MULTI-USE PATHS AND TRAILS The trail network provides a network of connections for pedestrians and cyclists and can be both a safe option for travelling to and from local destinations and for recreational activities. A. The trail network should prioritize connecting key destinations in the Waterfront Park and larger community. B. Multi-use paths in road boulevards and open spaces will generally be at least 3 metres wide. Paint or contrasting paving materials and signage should be used to delineate between zones for walking and cycling/rolling. C. The design of trails should be sensitive to nearby natural features. D. As an important part of the larger mobility network, access points to trails and paths should be highlighted along streets and in open spaces with signage and lighting. Trail heads should include navigation aids. Nature-based playground Page 172 32 Courtice Waterfront G. The interface of the Environmental Protection Area with residential lots should consist of fencing that meets Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority standards. Gates to the adjacent Environmental Protection Area are not permitted. 4.4.2. LAKE ONTARIO SHORELINE GUIDELINES A. Where appropriate, opportunities for passive recreation along the Lake Ontario Shoreline should be provided, along with trail connections to the future Waterfront Park, Waterfront Greenway and larger Courtice Waterfront. B. The naturalization and restoration of the function of the Lake Ontario shoreline should be pursued where possible. C. Shoreline protection and enhancement measures, such as groynes, piers and/or breakwalls, may be considered, subject to environmental assessments. D. Access to the Lake Ontario shoreline shall only be provided where it has been determined that there will be no long-term adverse impact on the ecological function of these areas. 4.4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREAS The Courtice Waterfront contains an extensive natural heritage system largely centered on the Tooley Creek and related valley lands. The Environmental Protection Areas identified in Figure 3: Open Space System will prioritize preserving ecological diversity, promoting environmental sustainability, and ensuring recreational uses are compatible. 4.4.1. GENERAL GUIDELINES A. Developments adjacent to Environmental Protection Areas should optimize public exposure and views to them through the provision and incorporation of parks and trails which provide access and additional linkages to the natural heritage system. B. While connectivity with Environmental Protection Areas is encouraged, trails should be directed outside of natural areas, or to the outer edge of buffer areas, and creek crossings should be minimized. C. Where parks, trails and adjacent development connect to Environmental Protection Areas, their interface, access, and usage should be managed in a way that preserves the area’s ecological integrity and adheres to the policies and guidelines of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA). D. The integration of parks, trails and infrastructure adjacent to an Environmental Protection Area should enhance natural features and functions. Encroachments into the natural feature should be avoided. Where encroachments cannot be avoided, compensation may be required. E. Trail and drainage infrastructure should incorporate the natural topography and drainage patterns. F. Development, including the road network, will consider drainage patterns and topography around Environmental Protection Areas. Watercourse crossings should be limited. Courtice Waterfront shoreline Page 173 33Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 4.4.3. WOODLANDS AND VALLEYLANDS A. Where appropriate, opportunities for passive recreation along the Tooley Creek Valleylands should be provided, along with trail connections to the future Courtice Waterfront Park and the planned Waterfront community. B. The naturalization, replanting and restoration of the function of woodlands and valleylands should be pursued where possible. C. Existing tree cover shall be preserved and expanded to connect and buffer protected woodlands and other natural areas and provide shade to the public realm. D. Direct access from private properties backing onto woodlands will not be permitted. E. Access to woodlands and valleylands shall only be provided where it has been determined that there will be no significant long-term impact on the ecological function of the areas. Tooley Creek Page 174 5. GREEN DESIGN GUIDELINES The overall design of Courtice Waterfront is intended to support environmental sustainability by protecting and enhancing natural features and including interconnected pedestrian and trail networks that encourage walking and cycling. Making progress toward the ultimate goal of a zero carbon community will also depend on a “green design” approach to infrastructure, buildings and landscapes that follows the guidelines in this section. Page 175 35Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFT 5.1. ENERGY AND WATER CONSERVATION A. Energy efficiency should be promoted through site and building designs that provide opportunities for passive design strategies and maximize the potential for passive solar and natural ventilation. B. Buildings should incorporate energy saving measures such as window shading, daylight design, daylight sensors, heat recovery ventilation, high efficiency mechanical equipment, and energy efficient appliances and lighting. C. The use of renewable energy sources for all or some of a building’s energy, heat and cooling needs is encouraged. If not used, provisions for future installations should be considered. D. Renewable energy technologies should be integrated into the design of building façades and roofs as well as outdoor spaces. E. Green roofs should be considered for commercial and multi-unit residential buildings. Where green roofs are not provided, reflective or light-coloured roofs should be incorporated to reduce solar heat absorption and energy demand. F. Solar panels on rooftops are also encouraged. South facing roofs should be designed to accommodate solar panels by maximizing flat expanses of roof with no penetrations or articulated rooflines. G. Buildings should be located and oriented to maximize energy efficiency, natural ventilation and sunlight penetration and minimize shadow and wind impacts on the public realm and surrounding properties. H. Building design should include environmental controls such as canopies, awnings, extended eves and louvers to regulate sun and wind exposure. I. Water collection and storage are encouraged, and all buildings should be designed to use water efficiently through such measures as ultra-low flow fixtures, waterless urinals, dual flush toilets, and grey-water recycling. J. Buildings should be designed with high performance envelopes. K. Low-carbon and sustainable material alternatives should be considered for the proposed structure or envelope of buildings. L. Green building material standards should be considered to reduce the impact on the environment and ensure materials are purchased/obtained from responsible ethical sources; and, where possible, materials should be sourced from certified local businesses. M. Buildings should use electric sources of hot water heating, as well as water heat recovery technologies. N. Renewable energy use to reduce electric energy supply in the public realm, such as solar-powered lighting for trails, parks and open spaces, is encouraged. Green roof Page 176 36 Courtice Waterfront 5.2. LANDSCAPES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Development in the Courtice Waterfront will be designed to manage stormwater through Low Impact Development techniques such as, but not limited to, bioswales, rainwater harvesting systems, infiltration trenches, the use of permeable surface materials, and naturalized stormwater management ponds. A. Landscaping should feature native and adaptive, non- invasive non-native species that are drought-tolerant and require little or no irrigation. B. The use of permeable surface materials should be considered within driveways to minimize run-off. The use of permeable paving and other pervious surface materials for hard landscaping and on-site parking is encouraged to maximize water infiltration. C. Rainwater harvesting systems for collecting rainwater and storing it for later use are encouraged. D. Rain gardens are encouraged to detain, infiltrate and filter runoff discharge from roof leaders. E. Rain gardens should be designed to complement the landscape, on a base of granular material and with tolerant plant material. They should be installed in areas where soil permeability is high. F. Vegetated Filter Strips, which are gently sloping and densely vegetated areas designed to treat runoff as sheet flow from adjacent impervious surfaces by slowing runoff velocities and filtering out sediments and other pollutants, are encouraged where feasible. They are best suited to treating runoff from roads, roof downspouts and low traffic parking areas, and can be used for snow storage. G. Stormwater management ponds should be developed as naturalized ponds, incorporating native planting, creating natural habitat for pollinator species, and enhancing biodiversity. H. Stormwater management ponds should integrate safe public access into their design through trails and seating. Fencing should be avoided and railings or densely planted areas should be used to discourage direct access. I. Stormwater management facilities should incorporate low impact development measures, including but not limited to, vegetated swales and planters, trees, shrubs and porous paving materials. J. Soil amendments, soakaway pits, infiltration trenches and chambers are encouraged on medium density, multi- family lots, with green roofs and rainwater harvesting as additional measures on mixed use blocks. Bioretention area along a local street Page 177 37Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines - DRAFTPage 178 Amendment No. 2 to the Durham Region Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to remove the ‘Special Study Area 2’ overlay and redesignate a portion of the Courtice Waterfront lands from ‘Waterfront Area’ to ‘Community Areas’. This Amendment will facilitate the creation of a new Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan in the Clarington Official Plan. The Secondary Plan provides a planning framework that will guide the development of a complete and mixed- use community consisting of residential, commercial, and recreation opportunities. Location: This Amendment applies to a 101-hectare area between Darlington Provincial Park to the west and Courtice Shores Drive to the east, south of Highway 401. The subject lands are entirely within the Courtice urban area boundary and located at the south and west edge of the Municipality of Clarington. Basis: ‘Special Study Area 2’ of the Durham Region Official Plan outlines that an amendment to permit the development of a mixed-use community at the Courtice Waterfront must satisfy requirements regarding land use compatibility, transportation connectivity, and the execution of a land conveyance agreement with the Municipality of Clarington for the establishment of a public Waterfront Park. These requirements have all been addressed through the preparation of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan and associated technical studies: •A Land Use Compatibility Study has been completed and accepted by the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington; •A Traffic Impact Study addresses transportation connections; and •An agreement for the conveyance of land for the Waterfront Park has been successfully executed with the Municipality of Clarington. Actual Amendment: Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a strike- through. Attachment 2 to Report PDS-002-26 Page 179 1. By amending existing Section 9.1.2 b) as follows: “9.1.2 b) Special Study Area 2 – Deleted applies to lands designated as Waterfront Area south of Highway 401, west of Courtice Road/Courtice Shores Drive, east of Darlington Provincial Park and north of the Lake Ontario shoreline in the Municipality of Clarington. An amendment to this Plan to allow the development of a mixed-use community shall be subject to satisfaction of the following: i) land use compatibility considerations, due to the proximity of existing Regional facilities including future expansions, planned Regional facilities, railways, transportation and related infrastructure has been addressed to the satisfaction of the Region; ii) Transportation connections and access/egress has been addressed to the satisfaction of the Region, the Municipality of Clarington and CN Rail; and iii) An agreement has been executed for the conveyance of land for a public Waterfront Park with the Municipality of Clarington.” 2. Existing Region of Durham Official Plan, Map 1 Regional Structure – Urban & Rural Systems, is amended by deleting ‘Special Study Area 2’ and designating the Courtice Waterfront lands ‘Community Areas’ and ‘Waterfront Area’ as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and forming part of this Amendment. Page 180 * ** * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** * * N× * * * * Hydro Line Hydro Line Hydro Line Hydr o L i n e Hydro Line Hydro Li n e TransCanadaGas Pipeline Trans-NorthernOil Pipeline TransCa n a d aGas Pip e l i n e Pipeline Pipeline NGS NGS C.N.R. KingstonC.N.R. Kingston/GO C.N.R . B a l a C.N . R . B a l a Y.D.H.R C.P.R . H a v e l o c k C.P.R. B e l l e v i l l e C.P.R. Havelock We s t n e y R d Whites Rd Baseline Rd Ganaraska Rd Br o c k R d Th i c k s o n R d Bowmanville Av St e v e n s o n R d Brock St Bloor St Taunton Rd En f i e l d R d Winchester Rd To w n l i n e R d Re g i o n a l R d 1 La k e R i d g e R d Regional Rd 15 KingstonRd Li b e r t y S t Ha r m o n y R d King Av RegionalRd23 Al t o n a R d Alexander Knox Rd Co u r t i c e R d Seventh Con Rd Th o r n t o n R d Ho p k i n s S t Regional Rd 18 Finch Av An d e r s o n S t Mi l l S t Regional Rd 39 Reach St Third Con Rd Regional Rd 20 Ninth Con Rd Baldwin St Regional Hwy 48 Rossland Rd Bayly St Dundas St Co n 3 Regional Hwy 2 Regional Rd 6 Salem Rd Ch u r c h S t Goodwood Rd Ri t s o n R d Myrtle Rd Regional Rd 12 Si m c o e S t Regional Hwy 2 Regional Rd 3 Da r l i n g t o n - C l a r k e T o w n l i n e R d Yo r k D u r h a m L i n e Regional Rd 10 Isl a n d R d Regional Rd 19 Nash Rd Columbus Rd Regional Rd 8 Shirley Rd Victoria St Regional Rd 21 Regional Rd57 Zephyr Rd Sandford Rd Regional Rd 13 Regional Hwy 47 Si m c o e S t Regional Hwy 47 A B C D D E E S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 12 13 18 29 31 32 33 30 14 26 07 22 19 11 17 20 15 23 16 28 21 24 05 02 01 03 27 34 35 08 36 10 4 09 Leaskdale Cherrywood GreenRiver Whitevale Brougham Greenwood Kinsale Balsam MitchellCorners Haydon Tyrone Caesarea Nestleton Solina MapleGrove Newtonville MacedonianVillage Ashburn Myrtle MyrtleStation Brownsville Burketon Enfield Enniskillen Hampton KendalKirby Leskard Raglan Glasgow Goodwood CoppinsCorner Siloam SandyHook Sanford Zephyr Udora Utica Manchester Epsom Greenbank Seagrave Blackstock NestletonStation Sonya Manilla Wilfrid PortBolster Gamebridge Claremont #1 #2 #3A #3B #1 #3 #2 N o r t h u m b e r l a n d C o u n t y Simcoe County Regional Municipality of York P e t e r b o r o u g h Co u n t y C i t y o f T o r o n t o City of Kawartha Lakes Scugog Uxbridge Ajax Pickering Whitby Oshawa Clarington Brock D1 401 401 401 401 35 115 35 115 77 48 7A 7A 127 7 12 127 407 407 412 407 12 12 7 418 Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation 0 5 10 15 Kilometres Regional Structure – Urban & Rural Systems Map 1. Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham Lake Simcoe Lake S c u g o g Lake Ontario Note: 1) This map forms part of the Official Plan of The Regional Municipality of Durham and must be read in conjunction with the text. 2) Roads are for reference purposes only. 3) Regional Official Plan Consolidation December 13, 2024. Sources: 1) Greenbelt Boundary (Urban River Valley removed): Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, © King's Printer for Ontario, 2022. Reproduced with permission. 2) Oak Ridges Moraine data: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, © King's Printer for Ontario, 2006. Reproduced with permission. Specific Policy Areas Special Study Areas Special Areas Municipal ServiceS Nuclear Generating StationNGS Future Airport Existing Airport Rail Proposed GO Rail Existing GO Rail Proposed GO Station Existing GO Station Infrastructure Prime Agricultural Areas Shoreline Residential Rural Employment Areas Country Residential Subdivision Hamlets Rural System Greenbelt Boundary(excluding Urban River Valleys) Oak Ridges Moraine Waterfront Areas Major Open Space Areas Greenlands System Former Hamlet Areas Delineated Built Boundary Rapid Transit Corridor - Employment Employment Areas Community Areas Waterfront Place Rural Regional Centres Regional Corridor Rapid Transit Corridor Regional Centres UGC / PMTSA Overlap Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) Urban Growth Centres (UGC) 2051 Urban Expansion Areas Urban Area Boundary Urban System Designate 'Community Areas' Exhibit 'A', Amendment No. 2 To the Region of Durham Official Plan, Map 1. C.N.R. Kingston S #2 'Community Areas' Delete 'Special Study Area 2' 'Waterfront Areas' Designate 'Waterfront Areas' Page 181 Amendment No. 146 to the Clarington Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to prohibit Anaerobic Digesters in the existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan. Location: This Amendment applies to a 129-hectare area located immediately south of Highway 401 and north of the CN rail corridor, between Courtice Road and Crago Road. Basis: In 2020, Clarington declared itself an unwilling host community for any anaerobic digestion or waste pre-sort facilities. When the draft Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan was presented at the Statutory Public Meeting in May 2025, Claringto n Council directed that language prohibiting anaerobic digesters be incorporated into the Secondary Plan. Actual Amendment: Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a strike- through. 1.By amending existing Policy 3.2.4 of the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan as follows: “3.2.4 Stand-alone warehouses, distribution facilities, truck terminals, truck service centres, gas stations, anaerobic digesters and storage units are strictly prohibited in all areas of the Energy Park.” Attachment 3 to Report PDS-002-26 Page 182 Attachment 4 to Report PDS-002-26 Sequence of Events Summary April, 2018 Award the contract to Urban Strategies May 14, 2018 Kick-Off Meeting: Steering Committee Meeting #1 October 5, 2018 Steering Committee Meeting #2 November 19, 2018 Steering Committee Workshop #3 November 19, 2019 Joint Steering Committee Meeting #1 February 7, 2020 Joint Steering Committee Meeting #2 March 5, 2020 Meeting with landowner representative April 21, 2021 Joint Steering Committee Meeting #3 July 21, 2021 Joint Steering Committee Meeting #4 February 9, 2022 Joint Steering Committee Meeting #5 April 28, 2022 Joint Steering Committee Meeting #6 Statutory Public Meeting September 11, 2025 Ongoing meetings with landowner commence, occurring approximately every 3 weeks Steering Committee Meeting #7 April 24, 2025 Notice of Statutory Public Meeting sent to Interested Parties Draft OPA and Secondary Plan materials available to the public May 12, 2025 Statutory Public Meeting Planning and Development Committee meeting and Recommendation Report to Council Page 183 Attachment 5 to Report PDS-002-26 Summary of Technical Studies Report Key findings and Next Steps Natural Environment Existing Conditions Report December 2020 Prepared by GHD This study focuses on existing significant natural heritage features within the Courtice Waterfront study area, including wetlands, woodlands, valley lands, and significant wildlife habitat. A phased approach was taken to carry out the study. Phase 1 involved the collection and review of existing information, including previously completed reports, maps, and Official Plan schedules. In phase 2, GHD biologists conducted multi-season site visits to collect new site-specific information. A report based on phase 1 and 2 was prepared in phase 3. The topography in the study area is predominantly gently rolling, with highest elevations in the north, and steep eroding banks along the south-western portion. The southeast portion connects to Lake Ontario in the form of beaches. The banks and cliffs along the lakeshore are of some importance to wildlife but not considered provincially rare vegetation community types. Results of field surveys: • A total of 142 plant species have been identified. • Six (6) of the bird species detected during the surveys are considered significant at the national and/or provincial level. • One significant reptile species was indirectly detected by staff: snapping turtle. • One significant species of mammal has been detected during field surveys: the tri-coloured bat. • The woodlands identified on site are all outside of designated settlement areas A 30-metre buffer from the Tooley Creek mainstem in the study area is recommended in the report. The maintenance of other tributaries and buffers will be discussed into the development plan stage. Phase 1 Technical Report July 2021 Prepared by Urban Strategies Inc. The purpose of this Technical Report is to provide a summary of studies conducted in Phase 1 of the Secondary Planning process, including a land use analysis, policy analysis, market analysis, stakeholder interviews. The report identifies issues and opportunities for both the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park areas and provides a draft of a vision and guiding principles to develop the two areas as distinct but compatible places. The draft vision of the Secondary Plan area contains a large municipal waterfront park, a residential neighbourhood, commercial destinations and amenities, office and prestige industrial buildings, vital regional infrastructure, and a network of environmen tal and recreational amenities. Page 184 Access to and within the Courtice Waterfront is limited, with new or enhanced connections across these corridors being necessary to support redevelopment. This area provides a unique waterfront destination with the potential mix of uses, with a major new park as the central theme. The redevelopment of this area will provide transportation connections that benefit the broader Courtice area, overcoming the existing barrier effect of the 401 and rail corridors. At the time of preparing the technical report, t here was pressure for more land use flexibility in the Energy Park, with a shortage of serviced employment land in Clarington. Land Use Compatibility Study January 2022 Prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. A Land Use Compatibility Study was conducted focusing on air quality, odour, dust, noise, and vibration. Potential environmental impacts from the following sources were considered: - Industrial air quality, odour, and dust emissions; - Transportation-related air pollution; - Industrial noise and vibration; and - Transportation-related noise and vibration (road, rail, and air traffic). A compatibility and mitigation assessment was completed to examine the potential for the above impacts to affect the development of sensitive uses. Several existing and proposed industrial land uses in the Energy Park lands were examined which have the potential to have significant air quality and noise emissions. Air quality and noise impacts from Highway 401 and the CN railway corridor were examined. The report concludes that with the implementation of sufficient buffer separations, physical mitigation measures, and warning, the development of sensitive uses in the Courtice Waterfront is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding land uses in terms of acceptable air quality, noise, and vibration levels. Dust and odours may be perceptible from the Durham York Energy Centre, the Durham Waste Sorting and Anaerobic Digestion Facility, the Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant, and Miller Compost, thus warning clauses are recommended to be included in agreements for residential units within the study area. Areas where future studies and mitigation measures may be required: • Mandatory air conditioning should be used for all sensitive uses . • Within 450 m of Highway 401, transportation noise studies should be conducted at the time of future planning applications. • Within 300 m of the Highway 401 centreline, traffic related air pollution studies should be conducted as part of future planning applications. • Within 75 m of the CN railway right-of-way, vibration studies should be conducted as part of future planning applications. • A series of noise and odour warning clauses will be required for new residential development. Page 185 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Drainage Report October 2025 Prepared by D.G. Biddle & Associates Limited An analysis of servicing needs of the Courtice Waterfront was completed through a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Drainage Report. There is an existing 300mm watermain located on the south side of the CN Railway, extending across the study area. A new watermain network is proposed to be constructed within new municipal roads, connecting to existing watermains. A new network of gravity sewers, with a sanitary lift station at the topographic low point, will be required. Soakaway pits and infiltration trenches are being proposed on municipal property within the study area to promote infiltration and reduce stormwater runoff. Two stormwater management ponds are proposed to serve the area. Since the remaining parkland areas will remain relatively undisturbed, natural drainage can continue to Lake Ontario and Tooley Creek. There are two existing watercourse crossings of Tooley Creek in the vicinity of the study area; the CN railway crossing at the northern limit of the study area, and the Darlington Park Road crossing . To provide improved access to the study area, new crossings of Tooley Creek will be required. Natural Environment Report October 2025 Prepared by Beacon Environmental Limited The purpose of this Natural Environment Report is to characterize natural heritage resources and functions associated with the study area, as well as assess potential impacts of the proposed development and recommend appropriate mitigation efforts to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects on significant natural heritage features and their functions. Impact assessment: • Vegetation removal. • Potential increase in surface runoff and decrease in infiltration. • The subject property is divided by a watercourse that drains to Tooley Creek. Three new watercourse crossings will be required. • Four territories for Bobolink, a threatened avian species, were recorded on the southeast portion of the property. A portion of this habitat will be removed to accommodate for the proposed development. • Bank Swallows, a threatened avian species, were observed nesting and foraging within a barn on the subject property. The barn will be removed to accommodate for development. • Anthropogenic effects including noise, light, garbage dumping, and the introduction of non-native species. Recommended mitigation measures: • Vegetation Protection Zones that match or exceed Official Plan regulations. o Wetlands: + 30 m o Significant woodlands: + 15m; and o Watercourse: + 15 m. Page 186 • The impacts of the three new watercourse crossings will be addressed through detailed design. • Timing of vegetation removal to avoid peak nesting period of local avian species. • Prior to the removal of Bobolink breeding territories, a plan should be developed to ensure compliance with Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks regulations. • Barn Swallow habitat replacement to occur by constructing a structure within 300m of the existing barn buildings. • Water balance requirements to be met through design. • Chain-link fence installation between subject property and natural feature boundaries to reduce anthropogenic effects. Traffic Impact Study October 2025 Prepared by WSP Canada Ltd. A Traffic Impact Study assessed the transportation demand that will be created by approximately 4,800 residents (2,500 units) and 3,400 jobs to the area. The study included: • Transportation demand modelling; • Analysis of alternative road network scenarios; • Future traffic operations assessment; • Darlington Provincial Park assessment; and • Multi-modal assessment. The Study concluded that most intersections are anticipated to operate well under the 2051 future model in the tested road network scenarios. There are a few exceptions, including Baseline Road & Holt Road , Courtice Road & Highway 401 EB and WB Ramps, and Courtice Road/Energy Drive & Megawatt Drive. The Study offers recommended improvements to remedy the anticipated capacity issues. Page 187 Public Comment Summary Table Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response S-1 J. Boate Commented that the Courtice Shores waterfront is not accessible by means other than a vehicle and requested that a multi-use path be incorporated into the plans to support accessibility. The Secondary Plan provides for a multi-modal transportation network that includes cycling facilities on all Collector Roads. In addition, a future pedestrian crossing is shown conceptually on Schedules A and C. The pedestrian crossing will enhance pedestrian and cyclist connectivity within the Secondary Plan area and provide access to the areas of Courtice to the north, including the Courtice GO Station. S-2 J. Boate Highlighted the recent 30th anniversary of the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail and noted that in 2017 the trail was designated as a legacy trail with Clarington having 40 km of its length. J. Boate urged Committee to consider the trail in the decisions of the waterfront. Acknowledged. S-3 S. Conway Explained that their vision of the waterfront includes a fresh sandy beach, multi-use park, an amphitheatre, and fun food such as permanent trailers. S. Conway expressed concerns regarding the high-density proposal, increased traffic, increased taxes, transit, affordable housing, and the Ontario Land Tribunal process. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, along with the broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, offer new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. Attachment 6 to Report PDS-002-26 Page 188 The preparation of the Secondary Plan was guided by extensive public engagement and several technical background studies addressing land use compatibility, the natural environment, servicing and stormwater, and traffic and transportation. The Secondary Plan establishes policies to promote compatibility among land uses and building forms and to support the creation of new affordable housing. The Secondary Plan provides a multi- modal transportation network designed to safely accommodate walking, cycling, public transit and automobiles. S-4 J. Derlatka Expressed concerns regarding the negative impacts on Darlington Provincial Park, the number of housing units, and affordable housing. J. Derlatka provided an overview of the average cost of a home in Clarington and suggested slowing down development and saving green space. J. Derlatka requested that a traffic study be completed at a time of normalcy. J. Derlatka expressed concerns regarding the loss of wildlife habitat, beaches, creeks, and park areas. J. Derlatka stated that a petition was circulated, which obtained over 850 signatures to support saving the greenspace. Comments acknowledged and considered. Ontario Parks, part of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, was engaged throughout the Secondary Plan process. The Secondary Plan directs higher density housing away from Darlington Provincial Park and includes policies aimed at mitigating potential adverse impacts. The Secondary Plan establishes policies to support and incentivize the creation of new affordable housing. Page 189 The Plan designates lands along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario as Environmental Protection Area. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. A Traffic Impact Study assessed the proposed transportation network and intersection operations and provided recommendations to inform future areas of study. S-5 R. Guetter (Weston Consulting on behalf of 1725596 Ontario Ltd.) Outlined support for the plan and congratulated the planning team for their efforts. R. Guetter expressed happiness about the progress made, welcomed comments and feedback on improving the plan, and shared excitement about creating a destination that transitions a significant portion of the waterfront from private to public use. Acknowledged. S-6 J. Jones Expressed concerns regarding residential zoning and opposed the housing development. J. Jones stated that the area should be all park, trails, and be used all season. J. Jones requested that Committee connect with the provincial government on expanding Darlington Provincial Park. J. Jones questioned why Bowmanville is no longer the focus of being developed first. J. Jones stated that Clarington is an unwilling host of an anaerobic digester; however, is Comments acknowledged and considered. Only part of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan area is publicly owned; the rest is privately owned. The Courtice Waterfront Park and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Page 190 concerned that a digester would qualify under the plan. J. Jones added that an evacuation plan should be considered. Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. Staff are recommending Official Plan Amendment 146 to prohibit Anaerobic Digesters in the existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan. S-7 K. Kemp Thanked Council and planning Staff for their hard work on the project. K. Kemp explained that their family bought the farm years ago. K. Kemp suggested that creating several trails leading to the waterfront would be a great idea. K. Kemp explained that there is a park by the waterfront, which is one of the largest transitions from private to public hands for the community's enjoyment. K. Kemp added that development in the area is necessary to generate development charges, which will help fund further development and infrastructure. K. Kemp explained that the plan used a comprehensive approach, which includes enhancing employment opportunities and reducing commuting. K. Kemp added that the plan will improve access to the waterfront, has a nearby gazebo for shade, and food options. Acknowledged. S-8 L. Racansky Expressed concerns regarding residential development north of Highway 401, lack of parks, erosion, accessibility, and the safety of the trail. L. Racansky stated that protecting natural features could improve the poor air quality caused by the negative impacts of climate change and added that the incinerator will add more pollution. L. Racansky stated that flowering plants and shrubs should be planted around the trail to attract pollinators and swallows. L. Racansky Comments acknowledged and considered. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These Page 191 questioned the purpose of the park and whether there will be plants, not trees, planted. areas will support critical environmental functions while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-9 S. Rae S. Rae expressed concerns regarding communication with the MPP, lack of recreational areas and park space, and the number of housing units. S. Rae requested that the plan include a park like Sunnybrook Park in Toronto. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. Development of the proposed neighbourhood within the Secondary Plan supports the creation of the Courtice Waterfront Park. S-10 T. Rekar Expressed concerns regarding high-density housing, a walkable community in the winter season, crime, decreased property values, and traffic. Comments acknowledged and considered. The preparation of the Secondary Plan was guided by extensive public engagement and several technical background studies addressing land use compatibility, the natural environment, servicing and stormwater, and traffic and Page 192 transportation. The Secondary Plan establishes policies to promote compatibility among land uses and building forms. The proposed trail network (including the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail) will be expanded and enhanced, with many new segments added and existing portions realigned to bring more of the route closer to the Lake Ontario shoreline. A key focus of the plan is to improve safety and user experience by increasing the number of off-road connections, reducing interactions with vehicle traffic. A Traffic Impact Study assessed the proposed transportation network and intersection operations and provided recommendations to inform future areas of study. S-11 M. Whitefield Expressed concerns regarding the density and height of the proposed development and the impact on the flood plain, climate, unsupported infrastructure, roads, education, health care, and safety. M. Whitefield stated that there is a lack of public feedback and engagement. M. Whitefield requested that the matter be tabled as more homes by the waterfront are not required. M. Whitefield questioned the position of the local MP and the Minister of Conservation and Parks on the plan. M. Whitefield expressed concerns regarding the lack of schools with no proposals for a new one in sight. Questioned who is paying for the bridge access to the waterfront, if the Comments acknowledged and considered. The preparation of the Secondary Plan was guided by extensive public engagement and several technical background studies addressing land use compatibility, the natural environment, servicing and stormwater, and traffic and transportation. Page 193 province has committed to the project, and who is paying for the erosion process. The Secondary Plan establishes policies which protect the significant natural features, promote environment sustainability, prohibit development within the flood plain and ensure necessary infrastructure is phased appropriately. Clarington is committed to the development of “complete communities” to meet people’s needs for daily living. This means creating communities where people can live, work, learn, and play without needing to travel far. S-12 N. Philip Outlined current enjoyment of the Courtice waterfront and Darlington Provincial Park for their quiet, serene, not crowded and peaceful trails they have. Expressed opposition to the proposed development of residential buildings of up to 15 storeys, approximately 2500 new units, more roads, less green space and an industrial area that will take away from the beauty and reduce wildlife. Requested other areas in Courtice be considered for residential development. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Secondary Plan will ensure the protection of the Courtice waterfront within the Secondary Plan area, provide enhanced access to Lake Ontario and facilitate the development of an extensive trail network that connects to existing trails. S-13 J. Boate Requested safe cycling and pedestrian access to the Courtice Waterfront. The Secondary Plan provides for a multi-modal transportation network that includes cycling facilities on all Collector Roads. In addition, a future pedestrian crossing is shown conceptually on Schedules A and C. The pedestrian crossing will enhance pedestrian and cyclist connectivity Page 194 within the Secondary Plan area and provide access to the areas of Courtice to the north, including the Courtice GO Station. S-14 A. Livingstone Expressed opposition to the destruction of the Waterfront. Commented that the waterfront is a beautiful place that many residents use and enjoy all year long. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Secondary Plan will ensure the protection of the Courtice waterfront within the Secondary Plan area, provide enhanced access to Lake Ontario and facilitate the development of an extensive trail network that connects to existing trails. S-15 A. A Expressed opposition to the development and loss of the small-town status. Acknowledged. S-16 J. Clements Expressed opposition to new housing at the Courtice Waterfront. Requested a beach, somewhere open to the public to spend their time, make memories and keep the small town alive. Requested funds be used to fix potholes, educate kids, and put on events for the community. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, along with the broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. S-17 E. Cornett Expressed dismay and opposition to building high rises in the Courtice waterfront area. Requested the area be developed as a recreational area with parks and a trail system. Comments acknowledged and considered. Only part of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan area is publicly owned; the rest is privately owned. Page 195 The Courtice Waterfront Park and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. Development of the proposed neighbourhood within the Secondary Plan supports the creation of the Courtice Waterfront Park. S-18 D. Cullen Expressed opposition to developing high-density housing in this area, which would permanently alter the character of the shoreline, impact local wildlife, and restrict public access to a place that should be preserved for everyone. Commented that the lake is a treasured natural space that provides beauty, peace, and recreation for residents and visitors. Concerned that the type of housing proposed would be premium housing and not affordable housing. Requested that any development at the lake allows all residents to enjoy it. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Courtice Waterfront Park and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. The Secondary Plan sets out clear policies to encourage affordable housing within the community. Future development will provide a mix of housing sizes and types, helping to meet the Municipality’s goals for affordability and ensuring options for a wide range of residents. S-19 R. Kolisnyk Expressed opposition to new development in the area. Commented that the Municipality should protect the environment and biodiversity by refusing to develop this area. Comments acknowledged and considered. Page 196 Noted that a better location for development would be near the proposed Courtice GO train. Expressed concern the natural environment and animal habitat is being destroyed . Requested that a safe pathway winding along the highways could be made to connect the waterfronts of the existing areas such as Whitby, Oshawa and Bowmanville. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. The proposed trail network (including the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail) will be expanded and enhanced, with many new segments added and existing portions realigned to bring more of the route closer to the Lake Ontario shoreline. S-20 C. Morvai Expressed opposition to condo buildings at the Courtice Waterfront. Acknowledged. S-21 B. & M. Walker Expressed opposition to the development of residential and condo buildings at the waterfront. Requested that Clarington Council work to preserve the wild and nature life in this area beside Darlington Provincial Park for future generations. Comments acknowledged and considered. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical Page 197 environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-22 S. Wale Expressed opposition to developing the Courtice Waterfront with more unaffordable and unappealing houses . Noted concern for more displaced animals. Commented that there are already not enough schools, hospitals, public transit options, gas stations, grocery stores, etc. to serve the community. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Secondary Plan sets out clear policies to encourage affordable housing within the community. Future development will provide a mix of housing sizes and types, helping to meet the Municipality’s goals for affordability and ensuring options for a wide range of residents. Clarington is committed to the development of “complete communities” to meet people’s needs for daily living. This means creating communities where people can live, work, learn, and play without needing to travel far. S-23 K. Hughes Expressed concern about allowing residential development along the Courtice Waterfront. Commented that development would destroy the natural habitats and enjoyment of the area by residents. Requested that Darlington Provincial Park be expanded to this area. Comments acknowledged and considered. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the Page 198 future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-24 R. Clarry Expressed opposition to development at the Courtice Waterfront. Commented that residents of Clarington deserve to have a waterfront that they can enjoy and feel welcome. Concerned about the loss of land that supports wildlife and farming. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a Page 199 role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-25 D. LeBlanc Expressed opposition to residential at the Courtice Waterfront. Requested family uses along the water and bike trails. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. S-26 A. Medlock Expressed concern regarding the proposed development of Courtice’s waterfront. Commented that Courtice’s waterfront is an irreplaceable asset. Its proximity to Darlington Provincial Park and its naturalized shoreline provides vital habitat for local wildlife, a peaceful refuge for residents, and a connection to the natural world. Commented that land to the north, that is not ecologically sensitive, and already close to infrastructure like schools, roads, and businesses, is better suited for responsible development. Prioritizing these areas allows us to meet housing needs without sacrificing the most environmentally and culturally valuable land that we have. Noted concern that the development would not be affordable, would displace wildlife and that infrastructure would be funded by taxpayers. Comments acknowledged and considered. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-27 T. Norman- Beljo Expressed opposition to development at the Courtice Waterfront and requested that the waterfront be protected instead of overdeveloped. Requested the preservation of what makes the area special today for generations to come. Comments acknowledged and considered. Page 200 Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-28 D. York Expressed opposition to residential at the Courtice Waterfront and requested the area be a nature park. Comments acknowledged and considered. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-29 S. Young Expressed opposition to the inclusion of residential units in the draft Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan. Requested the creation of a vibrant park and protection of the area around Darlington Provincial Park. Comments acknowledged and considered. Page 201 The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. Development of the proposed neighbourhood within the Secondary Plan supports the creation of the Courtice Waterfront Park. S-30 B. Zimny Expressed concern about the proposed development of waterfront lands in the Courtice area. Outlined concern about the potential environmental impact – siltation in nearby waterways, the destruction of vital habitats, and the creation of artificial "green space" that cannot replicate true ecological systems – given the site's proximity to a provincial park. Comments acknowledged and considered. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-31 E. Coates Expressed opposition to the plan for the Courtice Waterfront. Requested a natural area with more trails and picnic benches, and protection of existing wildlife. Comments acknowledged and considered. Page 202 The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. S-32 D. Fasken Expressed opposition to development at the Courtice Waterfront and requested the area be maintained as an accessible green space for families to explore and for wildlife. Comments acknowledged and considered. The Municipal Wide Park, known as the Courtice Waterfront Park, and broader open space system will provide public access to and along Lake Ontario, new trails and accommodate a wide range of active and passive recreational and cultural activities year-round. S-33 E. Longo Expressed opposition to development at the Courtice Waterfront and requested that the beauty of the Clarington Waterfront be preserved. Noted concern about loss of land near nature, displacement of animals, and pollution of the lake. Comments acknowledged and considered. Lands in the Secondary Plan designated Environmental Protection Area along the Tooley Creek and Lake Ontario are essential parts of the future open space network. These areas will support critical environmental functions, including animal habitat, while providing beautiful spaces for residents and visitors to enjoy. Lands designated Waterfront Greenway will also play a Page 203 role in this network, protecting and linking natural areas. S-34 R. Guetter (Weston Consulting on behalf of 1725596 Ontario Ltd.) Policy 5.5.9: The landowners previous comment not addressed - "6 up to 15 storeys". More than 6 storeys is only permitted within the Mixed Use Area designation. Policy 5.5.9 describes that up to a maximum of 15 storeys will be permitted, subject to conditions, in the locations on Schedule B. S-34 Section 5: "additional dwelling units" has been removed from the list of permitted building types. Additional Dwelling Unit policies have been added to the Clarington Official Plan to clearly identify their permissions in single detached, semi- detached, and townhouses. They have therefore been removed from this plan since they are permitted as of right by the Official Plan. S-34 With Policy 12.2.11 added, would it be amendable to strike out "subject to a site-specific zoning by-law Amendment" from Policy 5.5.3 f)? A site-specific zoning by-law amendment will still be required to permit other destination-oriented uses that are distinct from those listed. S-34 Policy 5.5.7: suggest there may be single storey commercial, please adjust to 1 storey. Revised policy 5.5.7: Notwithstanding Policy 5.5.6, buildings with destination-oriented commercial uses described in Policy 5.5.3 may be one storey but shall have a minimum height of 7.5 metres. Buildings with destination-oriented institutional uses, such as a theatre or community centre, may also be one storey but shall have a minimum height of 7.5 Page 204 metres, subject to a Zoning By-law amendment. S-34 Policy 6.3.1 and 6.4.1: some parts have been deleted. Assuming because these parts were now captured in the separate urban design guidelines document? Urban Design policies were consolidated and streamlined. S-34 Policy 6.5.1: Comment not addressed: "where possible". We may need some flexibility here to account for all possible scenarios and lot patterning. Any comfort that can be provided to ensure that sites that could have unique challenges can be developed without an amendment to this plan is appreciated. Policy 6.5.1 i) revised: Parking shall be located in underground or above- ground structures or surface parking lots at the rear of the building. Above- grade structured parking adjacent to a public street(s) shall be lined with commercial and/or residential uses with direct access to the public street(s). S-34 Schedule A: Consider shifting Street D connection west to connect to cul-de-sac, and Mixed Use Area extended westwards. Darlington Provincial Park is located further to the west, perhaps just the setback is appropriate. Street D configuration has been revised. Mixed Use Area cannot extend westwards due to conflicts with Darlington Provincial Park. S-34 Schedule A: The area east of Tooley Creek should be labelled as Municipal Wide Park. Schedule A revised to show Municipal Wide Park lands east of Tooley Creek. S-34 Policy 5.5.3: Consider adding additional uses such as; Community Centre, Recreational, Gymnasium or Sports Facility, Sports Rental Facility, Library, Childcare Facility, Performance Space or Theatre. Should you require a stipulation that indicates certain uses such as private gyms be on the second floor of buildings, we are comfortable with that. Policy 5.5.7 revised: Notwithstanding Policy 5.5.6, buildings with destination-oriented commercial uses described in Policy 5.5.3 may be one storey but shall have a minimum height of 7.5 metres. Buildings with destination-oriented institutional uses, such as a theatre or community centre, may also be one storey but shall have a minimum height of 7.5 metres, subject to a Zoning By-law amendment. Page 205 S-34 Policy 5.5.6: There may be instances of 1 storey as discussed. We recommend this be revised to enable flexibility with no need for an amendment. See above. S-34 Policy 8.3.3: Given the interface at the southwest corner of the site where residential uses abut the Waterfront Park adjacent to Street D, additional clarity may be considered for this policy to ensure there is no conflict with residential uses immediately adjacent to the Waterfront Park. Revised policy (now 8.3.6): As shown on Schedules A and C, the Courtice Waterfront Park shall be bordered by public streets, Environmental Protection Areas, the Waterfront Greenway, Darlington Provincial Park, and other natural heritage areas. As per Policy 6.3.1 f), development in the Low Density Residential Area where it abuts the park shall flank the park with a fenced side yard and rear yard. Development shall not back onto the park. S-34 Policy 10.6.2: We understand that the Municipality is working on revised wording for this policy to provide additional flexibility and look forward to further reviewing. Revised policy (now 10.5.3): Street D shall be designed in conjunction with the Courtice Waterfront Park on the south side and private development on the north side. It shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 15 metres and accommodate the following, to the satisfaction of the Municipality: a) A dedicated pedestrian and landscaping zone on the north side, which may differ in materiality from the right-of-way to clearly articulate a pedestrian priority area; b) A roadway/promenade with rolled curbs that may include other traffic calming measures such as bollards, Page 206 road curvature and interlocking paving; c) A landscaped “flex zone” on the south side to accommodate food trucks, other vendors and street furniture intended to enhance the waterfront experience for residents and visitors. Page 207 Agency Comment Summary Table Agency Details of Submission Staff Response Region of Durham (April 30, 2025) As a property owner within the Energy Park, it is requested that the Region be included in consultations related to any potential changes to employment area land use designations. This area is no longer included in the Secondary Plan area. The Courtice Transit Oriented Community (CTOC) District Energy System (DES) Project concept has been endorsed by Regional Council and Clarington Council. Further work on this project is actively underway. It is recommended that the Secondary Plan note the potential for future connections between the Energy Park and DES. Policy 4.3.5 encourages District Energy to be utilized should it be initiated. To allow for the safe operation and expansion of Regional infrastructure in this area, that supports future growth in Clarington and beyond, the Municipality should avoid any language in the Secondary Plan policies that would restrict the current and planned uses and expansions at the Courtice WPCP, DYEC and Mixed Waste Pre-sort and Anaerobic Digestion Facility. Specifically, Policy 5.2.3 includes waste processing facilities among the land uses not permitted in any land use designation. It should be clarified that this policy applies to private facilities, not public/Regional Facilities, which should be permitted in any land use designation/zone. This area is no longer included in the Secondary Plan area. A separate Official Plan Amendment is being recommended that prohibits an Anaerobic Digestion Facility in the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan. The Region of Durham’s development agreements will include clauses that require clear identification of the locations of the Courtice WPCP, DYEC, and Mixed Waste Pre-sort and Anaerobic Digestion Facility to future purchasers, including the current and plan ned uses and expansions. It is recommended that the Municipality do the same. Acknowledged. The prepared Land Use Compatibility Study contemplated building heights of no more than 6-storeys. Policy 5.5.7 of the Secondary Plan indicates that an additional land use Policy 5.5.8 a) explicitly requires the Land Use Compatibility study to assess impact of planned facilities, in Attachment 7 to Report PDS-002-26 Page 208 compatibility study(ies) would be required for development proposals above 6-storeys (up to 15-storeys) to assess potential impacts of existing and planned industrial uses in the surrounding area. Increased building heights bring greater concern of potential interactions between Regional Facilities and proposed residents. Clarity should be provided in how the land use compatibility study(ies) will incorporate opportunities for growth and increased capacity at Regional Facilities.' addition to existing. This language ensures that any planned increases/growth will be assessed. Additionally, the WPCP is referenced as a “utility” within the Secondary Plan. To ensure that all Regional Facilities are captured in policy 5.5.7, the text should be amended to include both industrial and utility uses. This area is no longer included in the Secondary Plan area. The previous version of the Secondary Plan proposed Residential land between the New Park Road and CNR corridor on top of existing Region servicing easements for a watermain, a large sanitary sewage forcemain and a future forcemain twinning. Easement limits should be confirmed and should be considered undevelopable. Easement limits are not assessed through the Secondary Plan process. Developers will be required to assess easement limits at time of development application. Easements extend ~25 metres into the parcels. 30 m setback recommended by Land Use compatibility study in this area. This comment will be shared with the landowner, as a member of the steering committee. It is recommended that the reference to “Darlington Energy Centre” in Policy 5.7.3 be changed to “Ontario Power Generation – Darlington Energy Centre” to prevent confusion with the nearby DYEC. Language revised. Sub-policies related to detailed studies for alternative and renewable energy generation, cogeneration facilities, and alternative fuels manufacturing (Policy 5.8.3) should be clarified as being for any new or expanded uses. The existing This area is no longer included in the Secondary Plan area. Page 209 DYEC should not be subject to these policies unless there is an expansion to the facility. A portion of the future site of the Durham Mixed Waste Pre - sort and Anaerobic Digestion Facility is designated as “Waterfront Greenway”. This area is intended for development of office spaces to support the more industrial aspects of the facility on the eastern portion of the property and incorporate more gateway-like features into the facility. Please clarify. This area is no longer included in the Secondary Plan area. In the absence of a completed TIS, there is no technical basis on which the Region can assess whether the proposed transportation network and Secondary Plan policies are adequate to support the proposed land uses. Changes to draft Secondary Plan policies and schedules are being proposed depending on the findings and recommendations of the TIS. It would be preferrable to complete the TIS prior to finalizing the Secondary Plan to minimize the need for subsequent amendments. Acknowledged. We understand that the project teams for this TIS are working with the CTOC TIS project team to coordinate the future travel demand between the two Secondary Plans. This coordination is important as the Secondary Plan has potential impacts on Courtice Road, which is a Regional road north of Highway 401. Further, the Region operates all existing and planned traffic signals, including signalized intersections at the Highway 401 ramp terminals and at the Courtice Road/Energy Drive/Megawatt Drive/Courtice Shores Drive intersections. Ensuring appropriate connectivity for all travel modes to the existing community north of Highway 401, future Courtice GO Station, and surrounding CTOC is also a key issue. Acknowledged. The existing Courtice Road underpass is limited to two traffic lanes with no active transportation facilities, and MTO has no Acknowledged. Page 210 plans to replace or expand it for the foreseeable future. The TIS will need to demonstrate whether there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the forecast traffic volumes at this location, particularly with the planned growth within the CWEP and CTOC Secondary Plans. A sentence should be added to Policy 10.1.4 noting that the realignments of the existing Waterfront Trail on dedicated active transportation facilities, from the route identified at the time of the Secondary Plan preparation, are proposed within the secondary plan area including in the Courtice Waterfront Park as recognized in policy 8.3.1 a). 10.1.4 is an objective statement, not a prescriptive policy. Policy 10.2.6 requires a new grade-separated railway crossing, but it is not clear whether the intent is to have only one road crossing of the rail corridor or two. The policy should be clarified to ensure that two road crossings of the rail corridor (at least one grade-separated) are maintained to provide redundancy for emergency egress (Durham Regional Police Services and Durham Paramedic Services). Policies regarding railway crossings have been modified. Policies 10.2.5 and 10.2.6 clarify that an EA is required to determine the appropriate crossings and that development can't proceed until a TIS has been completed. The description of the roundabout in Policy 10.2.14 should be for the intersection of Energy Drive/Courtice Road/Megawatt Drive/Courtice Shores Road. Consideration for the roundabout should be noted as being subject to an Intersection Control Study conducted by the Municipality of Clarington that would review the merits of a roundabout vs. maintaining or upgrading the existing signalized intersection. This area is no longer included in the Secondary Plan area. Section 3 – Community Structure – The street network is described as having “special collector streets”, but the only collector road designation proposed is Megawatt Drive. The Region recognizes that the designations for roads as collector roads is to be determined. This determination is based on locations for grade separated crossings which, presumably, will be confirmed though the upcoming TIS. As such, the description should describe, “a network of This policy was modified in advance of the Statutory Public Meeting: "Street Network: Collector and key local roads will facilitate movement to and through the area…." Page 211 proposed arterial and collector roads, each with their own character (with certain road designations still to be confirmed), will facilitate movement to and through the area.” Policy 10.2.7 and Schedule C identify that the classifications of Courtice Shores Drive, Darlington Park Road, and Street A will be determined after an Environmental Assessment for the planned grade-separated railway crossing is competed. However, given the planned land uses in the area and the configuration of the road network, it appears that Street A, Darlington Park Road, and Courtice Shores Drive north of Street A would function as collector roads regardless of the ultimate location of the new grade separation and could be classified as such in the Secondary Plan without further study. Roads have been classified as collectors, as recommended. Policy 10.2.13 should reference Schedule C in addition to A and B. Policy was modified as suggested. Potential Pedestrian Crossings are shown conceptually on Schedules A and C, but a symbol for Pedestrian Crossings is only shown on Schedule A. It is recommended that the dual - arrow symbol label be made as “Potential Pedestrian Crossings” on Schedule A to be consistent with Policies 8.4.3 and 8.4.4. It is also recommended that the symbol be added to Schedule C for clarity underneath the green dashed symbol for Multi-Use Paths and Other Key Active Transportation Connections. Policy was modified to match the schedules. Pedestrian Crossings have been added to Schedule C. Active Transportation policies were moved to Section 10.10. Policy 10.10.5 was modified to clarify the importance of these crossings. Schedule C – The Potential Pedestrian Crossings symbol (on Schedule A and recommended to be added to Schedule C as per above comment) should be added at Courtice Road/Highway 401. Active Transportation will be directed to the Pedestrian Crossing west of this intersection. The Municipality can't ensure that the crossing be widened in the near future since it's under Provincial jurisdiction. Schedule C – The Multi-Use Paths and Other Key Active Transportation Connections symbol should be added along This is no longer within the Secondary Plan area. Page 212 Energy Drive through the Secondary Plan Area, consistent with policy 10.3.2. Schedule C – Consistent with the Regional Cycling Plan’s Primary Cycling Network, the Highway 401 underpass of Courtice Road should be enhanced to support pedestrian and cyclist connectivity, either through a future rehabilitation of the underpass structure or creation of a separate grade- separated structure, between the secondary plan area and CTOC. Active Transportation connectivity between CTOC and this Secondary Plan area will primarily be directed to the Pedestrian Crossing west of Courtice Rd. An active transportation connection has been added on Schedule C along Darlington Road to provide a connection to the Energy Park. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (May 08, 2025) Staff notes that the TYLin Floodplain Mapping Update for the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study has been updated on the constraints plan. It is also noted that the extent of the floodplain has been qualified in the staff report to be potentially open to refining the limits of the floodplain through the submission and approval of an Environmental Impact Study and Flood Plan Analysis. Staff note the analysis will be required to demonstrate no upstream or downstream flooding impacts, while ensuring the continued necessary flood conveyance requirements. Acknowledged. Section 5.5.8 identifies a maximum height of 6 storeys, to a maximum of 15 storeys may be permitted subject to the completion of specifically listed studies. Further, Section 5.6 includes mixed land uses to a maximum height of 4 storeys. Staff note that the general area is within an Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas as per the Sourcewater Protection Plan. Section 6.4-6.6 identify the preference for underground parking. As underground structures often require ongoing dewatering, it is recommended that groundwater investigations be required to be undertaken as a requirement. The investigations should demonstrate that the policies of the Sourcewater Protection This level of detail can be addressed at the Development Application stage. Applicants are required to address the Robinson-Tooley Subwatershed Study which outlines groundwater recharge areas and provides recommendations. Page 213 Plan under the Clean Water Act (2006) will be met, and that clean water will continue to provide contributions to the receiving wetland and other features. While the report is identified under Section 11.3.6, it is with respect to stormwater management and not potential impacts associated with dewatering activities. CLOCA staff recommend that Section 7.2.9 include a statement that additional residential units not be permitted in areas that are subject to flooding, slope hazards, or do not have safe access. This plan does not have specific policies for ADUs. As this is new development, there are no existing dwellings that might be within a hazard that could be permitted to add an ADU. It is recommended that Section 8.1.4 add the term ‘naturalized’ to stormwater management facilities, to be consistent with Provincial Policies and consistent with Section 5.1 (g) of the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines in support of the Secondary Plan. Policy amended as suggested. CLOCA staff suggest adding wording within Section 10 that speaks to the design of road crossings over tributaries, to have regard for CLOCA requirements as well as wildlife crossing opportunities. Environmental studies are required to address the Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Subwatershed Study, which contains recommendations for wildlife crossings. Staff are satisfied with Section 11.3.12 with respect to discouraging the establishment of new flood control facilities to accommodate development, that other alternatives should be considered (including land acquisition), and that the flood control facilities only be considered after all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. Acknowledged. CLOCA staff support Section 11.3.3 which states that stormwater management facilities will not drain lands located within another subwatershed. This is not consistent with the information provided in the FSR. Please refer to the attached Acknowledged. Comment referred to the consultant completing the Functional Servicing Report. Page 214 Technical Memo with respect to the proposed Diversion of the Burk Watershed flows to Tooley Creek. Hydro One Networks Inc (June 23, 2025) Thank you for sending us notification regarding Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan. In our assessment, we have confirmed that Hydro One has existing high voltage Transmission Right of Way and Distribution facilities within your study area. At this time we do not have sufficient information to comment on the potential resulting impacts that your project may have on our infrastructure. As such, we must stay informed as more information becomes available so that we can advise if any of the alte rnative solutions present actual conflicts with our assets, and if so; what resulting measures and costs could be incurred by the proponent. Note that this response does not constitute approval for your plans and is being sent to you as a courtesy to inform you that we must continue to be consulted on your project. In addition to the existing infrastructure mentioned above, the applicable transmission corridor may have provisions for future lines or already contain secondary land uses (e.g., pipelines, watermains, parking). Please take this into consideration in your planning. Acknowledged. Also, we would like to bring to your attention that should Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan result in a Hydro One station expansion or transmission line replacement and/or relocation, an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be required as described under the Class Environmental Assessment for Transmission Facilities (Hydro One, 2024). This EA process would require a minimum of 6 months for a Class EA Screening Process (or up to 18 months if a Full Class EA were to be required) to be completed. Associated costs will be allocated and recovered from proponents in accordance with the Transmission Acknowledged. Page 215 System Code. If triggered, Hydro One will rely on studies completed as part of the EA you are current undertaking. Consulting with Hydro One on such matters during your project's EA process is critical to avoiding conflicts where possible or, where not possible, to streamlining processes (e.g., ensuring study coverage of expansion/relocation areas within the current EA). Once in receipt of more specific project information regarding the potential for conflicts (e.g., siting, routing), Hydro One will be in a better position to communicate objections or not objections to alternatives proposed. If possible at this stage, please formally confirm that Hydro One infrastructure and associated rights-of-way will be completely avoided, or if not possible, allocate appropriate lead-time in your project schedule to collaboratively work through potential conflicts with Hydro One, which ultimately could result in timelines identified above. In planning, note that developments should not reduce line clearances or limit access to our infrastructure at any time. Any construction activities must maintain the electrical clearance from the transmission line conductors as specified in the Ontario Health and Safety Act for the respective line voltage. Be advised that any changes to lot grading or drainage within, or in proximity to Hydro One transmission corridor lands must be controlled and directed away from the transmission corridor. Please note that the proponent will be held responsible for all costs associated with modifications or relocations of Hydro One infrastructure that result from your project, as well a s any added costs that may be incurred due to increased efforts to maintain said infrastructure. We reiterate that this message does not constitute any form Acknowledged. This project is located west of existing transmission lines. Page 216 of approval for your project. Please note that your project may require you to submit a Compatibility Review for Hydro One to fully assess the impact to our assets. To learn more about this process please visit Compatible Land Uses (hydroone.com) MECP Ontario Provincial Parks (July 14, 2025) In general, we would like to express our support for the protection of significant natural features and greenspace along the Lake Ontario waterfront included in the vision, goals and policies of the draft Secondary Plan and associated documents. We appreciate that in multiple areas the Secondary Plan and Guidelines consider and speak to mitigation of potential impacts of future development to the provincial park. Recognition of the provincial park and the need to minimize negative impacts on the provincial park regulated area aligns with Section 3.9.1(d) of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 under the Planning Act. Acknowledged. Darlington Provincial Park (the “Provincial Park”) is a 209 hectare recreational class park that provides a wide range of recreational opportunities, such as camping, swimming, picnicking, hiking, and natural heritage appreciation. The Park protects significant natural and cultural heritage features, including Lake Ontario shoreline, the majority of McLaughlin Bay provincially significant coastal wetland and species at risk, such as the endangered Piping Plover. Crown land within the Provincial Park boundary is managed by Ontario Parks, MECP and is subject to the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 (PPCRA) and its regulations. The Darlington Provincial Park Management Plan (Amended 2014) guides protection, development and management of the Park. The Provincial Park is important to local recreation and tourism in the Clarington area. It is popular partly due to its proximity to the Greater Toronto Area and ease of access, Acknowledged. Page 217 being the only provincial park located immediately adjacent to Hwy 401. It is among Ontario’s most popular provincial parks for recreation, welcoming 178,000 visitors in 2024. Total visitation has increased approximately 30% in recent years. The Provincial Park operates year-round for day use and from May to October for camping. Day-use, camping and picnic shelter rentals are fully reservable during the main operating season. The Provincial Park offers 323 campsites in three separate campgrounds which are located on the east side of the Provincial Park in close proximity to proposed development. Some campsites are within 50 m of the eastern park boundary. There is one official access point to the Provincial Park through the park’s front gate. Visitors are required to display a valid park permit, and the majority of the Provincial Park’s operating costs are funded by user fees. For your consideration, as the Provincial Park is a recreational class park that provides a wide range of recreational opportunities, the Secondary Plan could incorporate an objective that speaks to supporting recreation by mitigating potential adverse impacts from development and human activity on recreational values of the Provincial Park (e.g., camping, beach recreation, natural heritage appreciation). Objective 6.1.3 was added: "Support Darlington Provincial Park's recreational amenities by mitigating potential adverse impacts from development." We appreciate that the draft 2025 Secondary Plan and associated Guidelines specifically touch on mitigation of potential adverse impacts from adjacent low density residential development on the Provincial Park (e.g., access, lighting and overlook impacts in Section 6.3.1 of the Secondary Plan). We also appreciate that low density housing immediately adjacent to the park boundary will be Tree planting requirements in the Secondary Plan will provide visual buffers from development. Lighting standards for the Municipality of Clarington guide development to limit light pollution. Page 218 used to provide a transition between higher density housing and the Provincial Park. The revised Secondary Plan (2025) Schedules A and B indicate potential for increased density and taller buildings closer to the Provincial Park boundary and campgrounds. Proposed medium density (3-4 storey) residential areas are a short distance from the eastern boundary, with potential for up to 15 storey buildings within approximately 400 m of the boundary. We feel it is important to continue to incorporate ways to minimize potential future conflicts between Provincial Park users and any potential adjacent residents (e.g., residential areas near the Provincial Park’s campgrounds may experience frequent campfire smoke, campers in the Provincial Park may experience reduced privacy and increased noise and artificial light). We recommend incorporating mitigation measures beyond the low density residential area, which immediately borders the Provincial Park, into the medium density residential and mixed use areas. It is proposed that access to the Provincial Park may be routed through the residential area along the Proposed New Darlington Park Access Road. All vehicles accessing the Provincial Park travel the same route to access the front gate, including park users, park staff, contractors, deliveries, and emergency vehicles. The Provincial Park experiences high visitation, particularly during peak season (e.g., June to September) and shoulder season weekends (e.g., May long weekend). Traffic volume along this route can be high at peak periods, occasionally backed up along Darlington Park Road to Courtice Road. Additional traffic accessing the municipal park and new proposed development may intensify this and there is potential for traffic congestion within the new residential area. It is recommended that road network design and evaluation of alternative access routes consider recent A Traffic Impact Study was undertaken to evaluate the proposed transportation network. The study assessed potential impacts on Darlington Provincial Park in conjunction with anticipated traffic generated by the Courtice Waterfront Park and the new neighbourhood. Page 219 traffic data collected during these peak periods and incorporate mitigations to avoid potential traffic congestion. The draft 2025 Secondary Plan does not include a concept of the municipal park design and amenities, which was included as Schedule D in the draft 2022 Secondary Plan. We are interested in any future opportunities for input on the municipal park design. Avoiding features that facilitate access to the Provincial Park boundary, such as nearby parking facilities, may help to mitigate the potential for increased challenges associated with trespassing on Provincial Park property. Additionally, distancing municipal park amenities and access points from the Provincial Park may help to mitigate potential impacts of development and human use, such as noise and artificial light, on the Provincial Park campgrounds. Some amenities being considered in the draft 2025 Secondary Plan and associated Guidelines, such as a bandshell or amphitheatre, are more likely to bring associated uses to the area that could impact adjacent campers (e.g., concerts, fireworks). A plan for the Courtice Waterfront Park is currently underway and is being incorporated into the Clarington Waterfront Strategy. The Municipality will ensure that Ontario Parks are included in consultation for the Clarington Waterfront Strategy. Page 220 DRAFT REPORT PREPARED BY HEMSON FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON COURTICE WATERFRONT SECONDARY PLAN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS January 7th, 2026 1000 - Attachment 8 to Report PDS-002-26 Page 221 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 A. Growth Forecasts for Build-Out of CW 1 B. Key Data and Assumptions 5 2. CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS 7 A. Developer Funded Capital (Local Service Capital) 8 B. DC-Funded Capital 9 3. OPERATING COST ANALYSIS 12 4. REVENUE ANALYSIS 15 A. Assessment 15 B. Municipal Property Tax Revenue 15 C. Development Charge Revenue 17 5. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT 19 Page 222 Introduction and Background | 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND As part of the Courtice Waterfront (CW) Secondary Plan presented by the Municipality of Clarington, Hemson Consulting Ltd. has been retained to complete a fiscal impact analysis. This report summarizes Hemson’s evaluation of the capital costs, operating costs, and revenue sources associated with the secondary plan area. A. GROWTH FORECASTS FOR BUILD-OUT OF CW The total area of the CW Secondary Plan Area (CW Area) is 147.9-hectares, of which 37.4- hectares are developable (See Figure 1 and Figure 2). The focus of this analysis and of residential and commercial development in the CW is the northwestern segment, which includes both low- and medium – density residential areas, as well as higher – density mixed use and commercial areas, with a target gross density of 90.6 people and jobs per hectare. The remaining area which includes Environmental Protection Areas, a Rail Corridor, a Waterfront Greenway, and a Municipal Park encompassing both Tooley Creek and the Lake Ontario shoreline, each of which will not be subject to any residential development. A minimum of 1,431 units is estimated at full build-out of the CW Area. For the purpose of the fiscal impact analysis, the minimum projections of residential units, population, and employment are used throughout in forecast of costs and revenues associated with the CW Area build-out; see Tables 1 and 2 for a summary of the development potential of the site (Table 1) and the anticipated minimum forecast development used in the fiscal impact analysis (Table 2). Page 223 Introduction and Background | 2 Figure 1. Map of CW Area Source: Municipality of Clarington Page 224 Introduction and Background | 3 Figure 2. CW Area Land Use Plan Source: Municipality of Clarington Page 225 Introduction and Background | 4 Densities across the CW Area are expected to range as follows, based on minimum projections of units, population, and jobs: Residential unit densities: from 25 units per gross hectare for low-density residential to 70 units per gross hectare for mixed-use residential. Population and employment densities: from 51 persons and jobs per gross hectare for Low Density Residential Area development to 103 persons and jobs per gross hectare for Mixed Use Area Development. As shown in Table 1, the CW Area is anticipated to add approximately 2,580 residential units to accommodate a population of approximately 4,790. The addition of approximately 560 new jobs within the CW Area are projected to generate approximately 16,700 square metres of new non-residential floor space at build-out, based on an estimated floor space per worker of 30 square metres. Table 1: Summary of CW Area Growth to Build Out (Target)1 Land Use Residential Units Population Jobs People + Jobs Persons Per Unit (PPU) Non-Res. Floor Space2 (m2) Low Density Residential 98 307 - 307 3.14 - Medium Density Residential 823 2,114 - 2,114 2.57 - Mixed Use 1,658 2,364 239 2,603 1.43 7,177 Gateway Commercial - - 318 318 - 9,541 Total 2,579 4,785 557 5,342 16,719 1 Forecast provided by Municipality of Clarington 2 At 30m2 per worker. Table 5 provides a summary of the “projected minimum” development: 1,430 residential units, accommodating a population of 2,830 and 560 jobs in approximately 16,700 square metres of non-residential space. The projected minimum amounts have been used for the purpose of the fiscal impact analysis to determine the low-end of the fiscal impact, and thus higher levels of development will generally produce a higher level of positive (or less negative) fiscal impacts. Page 226 Introduction and Background | 5 Table 2: Summary of CW Area Growth to Build Out (Projected Minimum)3 Land Use Residential Units Population Jobs People + Jobs Persons Per Unit (PPU) Non-Res. Floor Space4 (m2) Low Density Residential 70 219 - 219 3.14 - Medium Density Residential 588 1,510 - 1,510 2.57 - Mixed Use 774 1,103 239 1,342 1.43 7,177.11 Gateway Commercial - - 318 318 - 9,541.80 Total 1,431 2,832 557 3,390 16,718.91 3 Forecast provided by Municipality of Clarington 4 At 30m2 per worker. B. KEY DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS The results of the analysis are advanced in nature and are intended to illustrate the potential fiscal impact of new development on municipal budgets at full build-out of the CW Area, based on the projected minimums development. Actual impacts will be influenced by several factors, including the cost and timing of infrastructure projects and the rate of development. The analysis is based on the following key inputs: Municipality of Clarington Financial Data: actual expenditures and non-tax revenues for 2024, as reported in the Financial Information Returns (FIRs) and municipal budget documents, were used to establish current municipal expenditures per capita and employment; Current value assessments (CVAs): derived from the current assessment roll to estimate future property tax revenues, using data from recently constructed (last ten years) units and buildings; and Development assumptions: derived from the CW Draft Preferred Land Use Plan to estimate future total costs and revenues. Minimum projected amounts for residential units, population, and jobs are used exclusively. Page 227 Introduction and Background | 6 Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in constant 2025 dollars. This report is organized as follows: Section 2 provides the analysis of the capital costs associated with the anticipated servicing needs of the CW Area to build-out. Developer-funded, DC-funded, and Municipality-funded costs are examined, as well as the long-term lifecycle costs associated with the new infrastructure. Section 3 examines the additional annual operating costs arising from the new infrastructure, as well as the associated population and employment growth in the CW Area. Section 4 provides a forecast of the assessment growth and Municipality property tax revenue potential of the CW Area at full build-out and compares this potential with Municipality-wide averages. Section 5 summarizes the long-term annual tax-supported costs and revenues associated with the CW Area and provides concluding observations on the fiscal impact analysis. Page 228 Capital Cost Analysis | 7 2. CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS The fiscal impact analysis examines growth-related capital costs to be funded through direct developer contributions and development charges (DCs) on new development; no non-growth shares of the project to be funded by the Municipality have been identified. The potential long-term lifecycle costs associated with the new infrastructure is also examined. Given that the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan is a primarily greenfield development and therefore will require net new infrastructure during the build-out, no existing infrastructure is being replaced or upgraded during development, and therefore none of the capital costs are allocated as replacement shares; all costs are fully development-related. Anticipated capital costs to support growth within the CW Area are summarized in Table 3 and total $49 million to full build-out of the area. These capital costs will be paid for through a combination of development charges and local services, without the need of property tax funding. The Average Annual Cost values shown on Table 3 are the amounts necessary to replace the assets at the end of useful life, providing monies to maintain assets in a state of good repair (SOGR). To estimate the Municipality’s incremental increase in capital replacement contributions, useful life assumptions were applied. Assumptions for long-term inflation (2.0%) and borrowing (3.5%) were also used. The costs have been assigned against the development as part of this fiscal impact analysis. Page 229 Capital Cost Analysis | 8 Table 3: Capital Cost Summary Asset Type Gross Cost Average Annual Cost Source Stormwater $6,150,000 $59,715 Hemson DCBS Transportation Services $23,207,352 $375,941 Secondary Plan Infrastructure Details Recreation & Parks $5,824,522 $102,390 Draft CW Secondary Plan Fire Protection $1,654,309 $93,805 Hemson DCBS + Capital Provision Indoor Recreation $9,582,684 $155,232 Hemson DCBS + Capital Provision Public Works $1,147,278 $56,243 Hemson DCBS + Capital Provision Library Services $1,478,372 $57,770 Hemson DCBS + Capital Provision Total $49,044,518 $901,096 Note: DC Study costs have been indexed to current $. A. DEVELOPER FUNDED CAPITAL (LOCAL SERVICE CAPITAL) This analysis estimates the amount of additional funding for the future lifecycle replacement capital cost (or state of good repair costs) required as a result of the installation of local services capital by developers. Local services capital typically includes local roads, streetlights, and sidewalks, as well as any water, sanitary, and storm sewer infrastructure that is internal to a development. For the purposes of this analysis, any sanitary sewers, storm sewers and associated infrastructure along local roads are considered to be local services capital. In addition, parkland improvements provided by developers through Section 42 of the Planning Act is considered to be local services capital. To estimate the Municipality’s incremental increase in capital replacement contributions, useful life assumptions were applied. Assumptions for long-term inflation (2.0%) and borrowing (3.5%) were also used. This information was used to estimate an annual replacement contribution that would be required by the end of each asset’s useful life. As shown in Table 4, the anticipated replacement costs are estimated at approximately $268,500 per year, which translates to $79.24 per capita and employment when allocated across the CW development forecast. Page 230 Capital Cost Analysis | 9 Table 4: Summary of Replacement Costs and Annual Tax-Supported Replacement Contribution for Local Services Capital Asset Type Replacement Cost Useful Life Annual Provision Per Capita + Employment Municipality Stormwater $37,281,274 90 years $59,715 $17.62 Municipality Transportation Services $28,318,433 50 years $208,864 $61.62 Total $65,599,707 $268,580 $79.24 B. DC-FUNDED CAPITAL For the purposes of this analysis, DC-eligible capital costs include collector and arterial roads and related infrastructure to be developed in the CW Area. DC-eligible general services capital costs have also been estimated based on service levels set out in the Municipality’s 2025 DC Background Study. Table 5 compares the total anticipated DC-eligible costs with anticipated revenues associated with the build-out of the CW Area under the recently updated (2025) DC rates imposed by the Municipality. Overall, DC revenues exceed DC costs by approximately $139,200. This notional DC revenue “surplus” is primarily associated with the Municipal Road infrastructure. As Roads and Related Infrastructure account for 57% of current Municipal DC rates, it is the primary source of revenue from DCs in the CW Area during it’s build-out. It is important to stress that development of the subject lands will generate additional road activity which will necessitate improvements to roads across the Municipality, these needs are reflected in Clarington’s DC Background Study. The difference may also be due to the categorization of costs as local vs. DC-eligible services in the analysis (it is noted that municipalities are granted some flexibility in the determination of local services). The development-related infrastructure needs for general services are based on the level of service standards and capital program costs set out in the respective DC Background Studies. Page 231 Capital Cost Analysis | 10 DC revenue calculations incorporate the inability of the Municipality to impose DCs for social housing and public health as of November 28, 2022. The calculations also do not account for DC revenue losses arising from other Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act changes: rental housing discounts, exemptions for affordable housing, attainable housing, non-profit housing, and inclusionary zoning, changes to historical service level calculations, fixed interest rates on frozen DCs, and potential ineligibility of certain capital costs (e.g. land acquisition). Any such revenue loss is assumed to be minor or indeterminable for the CW Area at the present time. Table 5. DC-Eligible Costs and Revenues Under Current (2025) DC Rates DC Service Category Total Cost DC Revenues Under Current Rates Net Revenue Transportation & Public Works $11,461,140 $14,690,282 $3,229,142 Indoor Recreation & Parks $15,407,207 $12,837,868 ($2,569,339) Library Services $1,478,372 $1,301,971 ($176,402) Land Acquisition $0 $54,461 $54,461 General Government $0 $474,374 $474,374 Fire Protection $1,654,309 $781,317 ($872,992) Total $30,001,028 $30,140,273 $139,245 i. Lifecycle Costs Once again, useful life assumptions were used to estimate the Municipal long-term incremental increase in capital replacement contributions associated with the new DC- funded infrastructure. As shown in Table 6, at full build-out these replacement costs are estimated at approximately $632,500 per year, which translates to $186.60 per capita and employment when allocated across the CW Area development forecast. Page 232 Capital Cost Analysis | 11 Table 6. Summary of Replacement Costs and Annual Tax-Supported Replacement Contribution for DC-Funded Capital Asset Type Replacement Cost Useful Life Annual Provision Per Capita + Employment Transportation Services $22,652,704.61 50 years $167,076.49 $49.29 Recreation & Parks $13,882,277 25 years $102,390 $30.21 Indoor Recreation $21,046,793 50 years $155,232 $45.80 Library Services $3,549,842 10-50 years $57,770 $17.04 Public Works $2,215,287 15-50 years $56,243 $16.59 Fire Protection $3,439,161 10-50 years $93,805 $27.67 Total $66,786,065 $632,516 $186.60 Page 233 Operating Cost Analysis | 12 3. OPERATING COST ANALYSIS Tax-supported operating costs arising from the construction of new developer- and DC- funded capital, and the addition of households, people and jobs in the CW Area, were estimated based on data from the Municipality and Region’s 2024 FIR, CW Draft Revised Land Budget and projected development minimums. Utility-supported Water and Wastewater services are not included in this analysis. Table 7 summarizes the gross operating costs anticipated to be associated with development in the CW Area. Cost drivers were applied to FIR operating cost data net of any amortization and interest on long-term debt. Where appropriate, costs are driven by the planned infrastructure investments (e.g. Roads and Related, Parks), whereas many services are considered to be driven by population growth, population and employment growth, or household growth. For all services, incremental cost savings are common and factors of 50% and 75% were applied accordingly. The total additional annual operating cost associated with development of the CW Area is calculated at approximately $2.1 million. Table 8 summarizes the anticipated non-tax revenues and resulting net operating costs. These non-tax revenues include grants, user fees, and service charges as per the FIR. It is assumed that these revenues will remain consistent on a per-capita basis in the CW Area. Annual non-tax revenues associated with the CW Area at build-out are calculated at approximately $435,000. The total net annual operating cost associated with the CW is approximately $1.67 million. This translates to about $492.77 per capita and employee in the CW Area. Page 234 Operating Cost Analysis | 13 Table 7. Anticipated Additional Operating Costs Based on 2024 Financial Information Return Service Municipality Cost / Unit Unit of Measure CW Quantity CW Total Operating Cost General Government $33.95 Pop + Emp (50%) 3,390 $115,078 Fire $380.84 Households (75%) 1,431 $545,132 Protective Inspection and Control $11.16 Pop + Emp (75%) 3,390 $37,816 Building Permit and Inspection Services $57.79 Households (75%) 1,431 $82,724 Emergency Measures $0.10 Pop + Emp (75%) 3,390 $341 Roads and Related $135.78 Pop + Emp (75%) 3,390 $460,253 Parking $4.46 Pop + Emp (75%) 3,390 $15,107 Storm - Urban $16.98 Households (75%) 1,431 $24,308 Storm - Rural $32.49 Households (75%) 1,431 $46,500 Erosion Control & Region Services $1.30 Households (75%) 1,431 $1,861 Cemeteries $7.78 Population (75%) 2,832 $22,025 Social Services $0.00 No impact 2,832 $0 Parks $51.30 Population (75%) 2,832 $145,289 Recreation $138.05 Population (75%) 2,832 $391,022 Libraries $34.88 Population (75%) 2,832 $98,782 Museums & Cultural Services $4.95 Population (50%) 2,832 $14,026 Planning and Development $31.01 Pop + Emp (50%) 3,390 $105,098 Total $2,105,363 Notes: Unit costs based on 2024 FIR operating expenditures, Census estimates of population (109,379), Households (38,265), and Draft 2025 DC Background Study estimate of employment (33,376) Page 235 Operating Cost Analysis | 14 Table 8. Anticipated Grant, User Fees, and Service Charges and Resulting Net Operating Costs Service Municipality Non-Tax Revenues Per Unit Unit of Measure CW Total Non-Tax Revenues CW Total Net Operating Costs Per Pop + Emp General Government $5.26 Pop + Emp (3,390) $17,845 $97,233 $28.68 Fire $11.38 Households (1,431) $16,285 $528,847 $156.02 Protective Inspection and Control $0.45 Pop + Emp (3,390) $1,512 $36,304 $10.71 Building Permit and Inspection Services $0.15 Households (1,431) $210 $82,513 $24.34 Emergency Measures $0.00 Pop + Emp (3,390) $0 $341 $0.10 Roads and Related $30.86 Pop + Emp (3,390) $104,601 $355,652 $104.92 Parking $1.41 Pop + Emp (3,390) $4,776 $10,331 $3.05 Storm - Urban $2.10 Households (1,431) $3,006 $21,303 $6.28 Storm - Rural $0.00 Households (1,431) $0 $46,500 $13.72 Erosion Control & Region services $0 Households (1,431) $0 $1,861 $0.55 Cemeteries $3.09 Population (2,832) $8,738 $13,287 $3.92 Social Services $0.00 No impact $0 $0 $0.00 Parks $5.99 Population (2,832) $16,967 $128,322 $37.86 Recreation $63.28 Population (2,832) $179,240 $211,783 $62.48 Libraries $1.60 Population (2,832) $4,532 $94,251 $27.81 Museums & Cultural Services $1.59 Population (2,832) $4,497 $9,529 $2.81 Planning and Development $21.48 Pop + Emp (3,390) $72,815 $32,283 $9.52 Total $435,024 $1,670,339 $492.77 Page 236 Revenue Analysis | 15 4. REVENUE ANALYSIS This section describes the analysis of the future assessment, property tax revenues, and development charge revenues in the CW Area. A. ASSESSMENT The major source of new revenue generated by new development in the CW Area will be annual property taxes. To estimate future property taxes, forecasts of new residential and non-residential assessment were prepared. Assessed values for residential units were determined with reference to the current value assessment (CVA) of homes constructed in Clarington between 2014 - 2024 that are of similar quality and size to those that are likely to be constructed in CW Area. Three categories of CVAs are used to calculate residential property tax revenues: Low Density Residential. Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential (corresponding to all Mixed Use Area Units in the CW Area). Similarly, the non-residential assessment forecasts were based on values per square metre of gross floor area of recently constructed buildings in Clarington. The CVAs used in the analysis are as follows: Low Density Residential Units $500,000 per unit Medium Density Residential Units $375,000 per unit High Density Residential Units $250,000 per unit Non-Residential Buildings $3,200 per sq.m. B. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE The property tax revenue forecasts at build out of the CW Area were developed by applying the current (2025) Municipal tax rates for the applicable land classes to the projected assessments. The projected total of non-residential floor area in the CW Area is estimated based on an assumed average space requirement of 30 square metres per worker. Based on the projection of 557 new jobs within the CW Area, total non-residential floor area is estimated at 16,700 square metres at full build-out. Page 237 Revenue Analysis | 16 As shown in Table 9, the total CVA of new buildings within the CW Area is forecast at approximately $502.3 million, primarily associated with Medium Density Residential Development (~$220.5 million) and High Density Residential Development (~$193.4 million). After applying the Municipality’s 2025 tax rates to each property class, total annual Municipal property tax revenue is calculated at approximately $2.5 million, or an average of $752.03 per person or employment in the area (see Table 10). Table 9. Summary of Annual Municipal Tax Revenues at Build Out Land Use Forecast Assessment (2025) Total Assessment Municipality Tax Rate (2025) Annual Municipality Tax Revenue Per Unit / m2 Residential Units Per Unit Low Density 70 $500,000 $34,937,500 0.004671510 $163,211 $2,335.76 Medium Density 588 $375,000 $220,500,000 0.004671510 $1,030,068 $1,751.82 High Density 774 $250,000 $193,375,000 0.005138660 $993,688 $1,284.67 Non-Res. m2 Per m2 Population- Related 16,710 $3,200 $53,472,000 0.006773690 $362,203 $21.68 Total $502,284,500 $2,549,170 Generally, development of the CW Area is anticipated to generate higher taxation revenues per capita and employment than the most recent (2024) Municipality-wide averages (see Table 10). This reflects the higher assessed values of newer homes, which are typically larger and constructed with more modern materials and amenities. The significantly higher non-residential assessment per employee reflects the anticipated high quality of non- residential building and jobs planned for CW. Table 10: Municipal Property Tax Revenue Comparison with Municipality Average CW Area Municipal Average (2024) Annual Revenue Per Capita/Job Annual Revenue Per Capita/Job Residential $2,186,967 $772.23 $65,623,144.00 $603.37 Non-Residential $362,203 $650.27 $10,435,421.00 $321.32 Total $2,549,170 $752.03 $76,058,565.00 $538.51 Page 238 Revenue Analysis | 17 C. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVENUE Table 11 summarizes the development charge revenue that would be generated up to full build-out of the CW Area, using current (2025) development charge rates. The development charge revenue calculations assume 60% of High Density Residential development in the Mixed Use Area will be in two-bedroom or larger apartments with the remaining 40% of developed units being one-bedroom or smaller apartments. The applied calculations also account for the inability of the Municipality to impose DCs for social housing and public health. The calculations do not account for DC revenue loss arising from the following changes arising from the More Homes Built Faster Act 2022: rental housing discounts, exemptions for affordable housing, attainable housing, non-profit housing, and inclusionary zoning, changes to historical service level calculations, fixed interest rates on frozen DCs, and potential ineligibility of certain capital costs (e.g. land acquisition). Any such revenue loss is assumed to be minor or indeterminable for the CW Area at the present time. Page 239 Revenue Analysis | 18 Table 11: Development Charge Revenue Generated in CW (Current Rates) Residential Non-Residential Low Density Medium Density Mixed Use Area Mixed Use Area Gateway Commercial Total Municipal DCs Library Service $103,460 $713,832 $484,679 $0 $0 $1,301,971 Emergency & Fire Services $56,350 $388,080 $263,779 $31,383 $41,725 $781,317 Parks & Indoor Recreation $1,020,460 $7,037,184 $4,780,224 $0 $0 $12,837,868 Operations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 General Government $34,020 $234,612 $159,134 $20,007 $26,600 $474,374 Land Acquisition $3,780 $25,872 $17,647 $3,074 $4,087 $54,461 Roads & Public Works $1,740,760 $1,429,050 $8,154,090 $1,445,094 $1,921,288 $14,690,282 Total CW Area DC $2,958,830 $9,828,630 $13,859,554 $1,499,559 $1,993,701 $30,140,273 . Page 240 Summary of Fiscal Impact | 19 5. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT Table 12 provides an overall summary of the estimated fiscal impacts associated with the full build-out of the CW Area. Revenues are projected at $752 per capita and employment per year, while expenditures are estimated at $759, resulting in an annual deficit of approximately $7 per capita and employment, or a -0.9% difference. This result indicates that the CW development will likely be fiscally neutral, and thus additional revenues (largely property taxes and development charges) should generally cover the additional municipal costs generated by the development, especially if the development exceeds the minimum targets used in this analysis. Table 12: Overall Findings Revenue or Expenses Total Amount $/Person & Employee Revenue Assessment $ 2,549,170 $ 752 Sub-Total Revenue $ 2,549,170 $ 752 Expenses Developer Constructed Assets - AMP Contribution $ 268,580 $ 79 DC Funded Assets - AMP Contribution $ 632,516 $ 187 Net Operating Impacts $ 1,670,339 $ 493 Sub-Total Expenses $ 2,571,435 $ 759 Net Difference ($) $ (22,265) $ (7) Net Difference (%) -0.9% -0.9% Before reviewing the key implications, it is important to reiterate that the main purpose of the analysis is to inform decisions regarding the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan as it relates to the CW Area. The fiscal impact analysis results should not be viewed as precise forecasts of what will occur at full build-out of the CW Area. The results point to incremental operating cost efficiencies within the CW Area. Due to economies of scale arising from the high density and localized nature of development, the cost to service new residents and employees is expected to be lower on a per capita basis than the cost to services existing populations. As well, the relatively high assessed values of new apartment units, commercial, and institutional developments in the CW Area are expected to generate higher property taxes per capita/employee than existing development Page 241 Summary of Fiscal Impact | 20 in the Municipality. Overall, the CW Area is anticipated to be fiscally sustainable over the long-term. That said, several areas of caution must be noted: First, the analysis uses minimum estimates of total units and populations at full build- out, and as such estimates could be considered conservative relative estimates of costs and revenues that would be estimated using the target amounts. It is also possible that estimates based on targets for units and populations as opposed to minimum estimates may show relatively lower cost per unit, reflecting greater economies of scale. Second, the analysis assumes full municipal funding of new infrastructure lifecycle costs. In reality, contributions toward lifecycle funding for existing infrastructure may not currently meet 100% of calculated needs. Moreover, infrastructure renewal requirements are expected to grow as existing infrastructure ages and is adapted to address climate change. Third, the fiscal projections of development charge revenue assume the use of the Municipality’s recently-passed development charge rates, but do not account for the anticipated passage of new DC by-laws during the build-out period. Therefore, the total CW Area DC revenue is likely to exceed estimates when new rates are inevitably implemented. In addition, any future legislative changes that restrict the ability to levy development charges could materially affect the financial outlook set out in this report negatively. Finally, the fiscal impact analysis evaluates the fiscal impact at full build-out of the CW Area. However, costs associated with financing CW Area infrastructure—such as debt costs incurred to cover servicing expenditures prior to development—are not included in the analysis. Page 242 Page 1 of 2 Municipality of Clarington January 16, 2026 Land Development and Building File 9365 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attn: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services RE: Comments on Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan – Report PDS-002-26 Clarington Planning and Development Committee – Item 6.2 1725596 Ontario Limited 113 Down Road (Courtice Waterfront) Weston Consulting is the planning consultant for 172556 Ontario Ltd. (“client”) the owners of the lands municipally known as 113 Down Road & PT LT 31 CON BROKEN FRONT DARLINGTON PT 1 in the Municipality of Clarington (herein referred to as the “subject lands”) municipally addressed as 113 Down Road. We have been actively participating in the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”) process and are pleased to submit a letter of support for the Secondary Plan on behalf of the owner. The subject lands form a significant component of the Secondary Plan, generally bound by the CN Railway corridor to the north, Darlington Provincial Park to the west, Lake Ontario to the south, and Tooley Creek to the east. Since the Secondary Plan was expanded to include the Subject Lands in 2019, our client has worked closely with the Municipality of Clarington as a key stakeholder and has been actively involved in its evolution to date. On behalf of our client, we support the recommendations in Report PDS-002-26. Our client is committed to contributing to the vision of the Secondary Plan through Zoning By -law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications that will deliver a vibrant, mixed-use community to the Courtice Waterfront and will result in a municipal wide park of a significant size. These applications are currently under review with the Municipality, and we are working in close collaboration with Staff to see them advance. We would like to sincerely thank the Municipality of Clarington Staff for their efforts and collaboration on advancing the Secondary Plan to this stage, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide this letter of support. We look forward to the opportunity to continue working with Staff on implementing the vision of the Secondary Plan through the ongoing Zoning By -law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigne d (rguetter@westonconsulting.com) or Nicholas Klymciw (nklymciw@westonconsulting.com). Page 243 Page 2 of 2 Yours truly, Weston Consulting Per: Ryan Guetter, BEST, MCIP, RPP President c. 172556 Ontario Ltd. Paul DeMelo, Kagan, Shastri, DeMelo, Wine, Park Lawyers LLP Lisa Backus, Municipality of Clarington Amanda Crompton, Municipality of Clarington ` Page 244 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: PDS-003-26 Authored By: Alicia da Silva, Planner I, Community Planning Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: Report Subject: Intention to Pursue Heritage Designation – Multiple Properties Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-003-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That the Clerk issue a Notice of Intention to Designate the following properties as a cultural heritage resource as individual designations under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; a. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Veterans Avenue; b. 36, 38 Second Street; and c. 49, 51, 53, 55 Lambs Lane. 3. That the Clerk prepare the necessary by-laws if no objection(s) are received within 30 days after the date of publication of the Notice of Intention or staff will report back to Council regarding objection(s); and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-003-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 245 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-003-26 Report Overview Ontario Heritage Act Ontario Heritage Act resources are appropriately conserved and continue to be an integral part of Clarington’s Ontario Heritage Act 1. Background Introduction 1.1 Cultural heritage is important to reflect the history, traditions, and values of a community. It also contributes to a sense of place that fosters a community's identity and cohesion. 1.2 Clarington’s two Official Plans, Envision Durham, the Region of Durham Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan contain policies that promote the protection and conservation of significant cultural heritage resources. These policies align with the goals of enhancing community health and safety and improving the quality of life for residents. 1.3 Council holds the responsibility to designate a property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) when it concludes that the property meets the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O.Reg 9/06), indicating cultural heritage value or interest. A property is required to meet two or more criteria outlined in O.Reg.9/06 to be designated. Bill 23 and the Municipal Register 1.4 The OHA was amended by the More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23), which came into effect on November 28, 2022. Bill 23 amended the OHA in that a non-designated property on the Municipal Register be removed from the Register after two years if no Notice of Intention to Designate has been issued. Page 246 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-003-26 1.5 Clarington has 50 listed properties on the Municipal Register that must be evaluated and a Notice of Intention to Designate the property (if warranted) given prior to January 1, 2027 or they will be automatically removed from the list. 1.6 Evaluation of the listed properties is underway in accordance with the criteria under the OHA. PDS-035-25 recommended designation of five properties under Part IV of the OHA, with designation by-laws being passed by Council in November 2025. PDS-067-25 recommended designation of one property under Part IV of the OHA, with designation by-laws being passed by Council in December 2025. 1.7 The Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC) is actively reviewing the remaining listed properties and will provide recommendations to Council to ensure all properties are assessed before the legislated deadline. Council provided budget for the completion of the evaluations in 2023. Properties Proposed to be Designated 1.8 The Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC) conducted a preliminary evaluation of the following properties which are listed on the Municipal Register. See Figures 1-18 below. Page 247 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-003-26 Figure 1: Map of Subject Properties in Bowmanville, Ontario Page 248 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-003-26 Figure 2: 1 Veterans Avenue Figure 3: 2 Veterans Avenue Figure 4: 4 Veterans Avenue Figure 5: 5 Veterans Avenue Figure 6: 6 Veterans Avenue Figure 7: 7 Veterans Avenue Page 249 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-003-26 Figure 8: 8 Veterans Avenue Figure 9: 9 Veterans Avenue Figure 10: 10 Veterans Avenue Figure 11: 11 Veterans Avenue Figure 12: 12 Veterans Avenue Figure 13: 36 Second Street Page 250 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-003-26 Figure 14: 38 Second Street Figure 15: 49 Lambs Lane Figure 16: 51 Lambs Lane Figure 17: 53 Lambs Lane Figure 18: 55 Lambs Lane Page 251 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-003-26 1.9 Using the CHC’s subcommittee preliminary evaluation information as a starting point, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) conducted their own evaluation and completed a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for the subject properties. Each report concluded that the subject property contained significant heritage attributes, indicating it meets the designation criteria outlined in O.Reg 9/06 and recommended the properties be designated. The CHC and ARA collectively recommend designation of the subject properties. 1.10 The Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features for the subject properties can be found in Attachments 1-17 of this report. Included in the Statement of Significance where available, was information about the first owner of the property including how/where they Served as well as other interesting facts about the individual. 2. Protecting Cultural Heritage Resources 2.1 The conservation of significant natural, cultural, and archaeological resources is a matter of provincial interest identified in the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 2024, which is reinforced by the OHA. 2.2 The PPS includes policies that promote the protection of heritage properties. According to Section 4.6, protected heritage properties can contain both built heritage re sources or cultural heritage landscapes and shall be conserved. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Designation provides a mechanism to achieve the necessary protection. 3. Legislation Ontario Heritage Act 3.1 The OHA empowers a municipality to pass a by-law to designate properties that it considered to be of cultural heritage significance, in consultation with its Heritage Committee. The CHC supports the designation of the subject properties. 3.2 The OHA outlines the process to designate a property. Now that the CHC has recommended the designation to Council, the next step in the designation process (should Council support the designation) is publishing the Notice of Intention to Designate in the locally circulated newspaper and the municipal website. A summary description of the heritage designation process is found in Attachment 18 of this report. 3.3 Once a property is designated by by-law under Part IV of the OHA, the property owner is required to obtain consent for any proposed significant alterations to the building’s heritage features that are listed in the designation by-law, or for demolition of all or part of the structure, or its significant attributes. Page 252 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-003-26 Envision Durham: Durham Region Official Plan 3.4 Envision Durham, the Durham Region Official Plan, outlines objectives for complete communities, which includes promoting the conservation, protection and enhancement of built and cultural heritage resources and landscapes. This section encourages municipalities to utilize the OHA to conserve, protect and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality. 3.5 Envision Durham prioritizes the recognition, conservation, and enhancement of cultural heritage such as downtowns, historical areas, scenic lookout areas, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association with the community. Clarington Official Plan 3.6 Promoting cultural heritage conservation is identified as a goal to foster civic pride and a sense of place, strengthen the local economy and enhance the quality of life for Clarington residents. Section 8 of the Clarington Official Plan, 2018 directs the designation of cultural heritage resources under Part IV of the OHA, with assistance from the CHC, in support of achieving the Municipality’s cultural heritage objectives. 4. Communications 4.1 Prior to completing the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for the listed properties, a letter was sent to the property owners of the subject properties inviting them to a heritage information session. They were also notified that the municipality was starting the heritage evaluation process for their property. 4.2 Staff communicated with the subject property owners sharing that Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports had been completed on their properties and providing a copy of the reports. Property owners were invited to contact Planning and Infrastructure Services staff to discuss the consultant’s evaluation. They were also invited to attend the Clarington Heritage Committee meeting when the report was being discussed. 4.3 Following the CHC meeting, property owners were notified of the Committee’s recommendations. Property owners were also notified that a staff report would be presented to the Planning & Development Committee January 19, 2026, recommending the designation of the subject properties under Part IV of the OHA. Property owners have not expressed objection to designation. Page 253 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-003-26 5. Properties Recommended for Designation This section provides an overview of each property recommended for designation. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville 5.1 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 Veterans Avenue are in the Town of Bowmanville. These properties each contain a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. 5.2 As outlined in their respective Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, each property has design value as a representative example of purpose -built post-WWII Victory Housing. Each property has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act, as well as for its association with Camp 30. The properties are important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. 5.3 The respective Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report indicates each property meets the designation criteria (see above description) and recommends the property be designated. The reports were circulated to the CHC and the property owners and were reviewed by Staff. 5.4 The CHC passed Motion 25.65 in November of 2025 to recommend to Council the designation of 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville under Part IV of the OHA. Staff notified the property owner of the Committee recommendation. 5.5 See Attachments 1- 7 and 9-11 for the detailed Statements of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features. 9 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville 5.6 9 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. 5.7 As outlined in the Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, the property has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative as well as for its association with Camp 30. Its historical value is also attributed to the first occupant of the house, Reginald Rackham. Reginald Rackham purchased the property in April 1947. Mr. Rackham served in the RCAF in St. John, Quebec during World War II, and after his discharge he returned to Bowmanville as a physical education instructor at the Ontario Training School for Boys. He joined the OPP in 1949 and became the head of its photography and fingerprint division. Page 254 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PDS-003-26 Reginald Rackham was involved in many high-profile cases and helped to establish 17 OPP identification units across the province. 9 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. 5.8 The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report indicates the property meets the designation criteria (see above description) and recommends the property be designated. The report was circulated to the CHC and the property owner and was reviewed by Staff. 5.9 The CHC passed Motion 25.65 in November of 2025 to recommend to Council the designation of 9 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville under Part IV of t he OHA. Staff notified the property owner of the Committee recommendation . 5.10 See Attachment 8 for a detailed Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features. 36 and 38 Second Street, Bowmanville 5.11 36 and 38 Second Street are located on the north side of Second Street in the Town of Bowmanville. The properties each contain a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. 5.12 As outlined in their respective Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, the properties have design value as representative examples of purpose-built post-WWII Victory Housing. The properties have historical value for their association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act, as well as for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers. The properties are important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. 5.13 The respective Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports indicate the properties meet the designation criteria (see above description) and recommends the properties be designated. The reports were circulated to the CHC and the property owners and were reviewed by Staff. 5.14 The CHC passed Motion 25.65 in November of 2025 to recommend to Council the designation of 36 and 38 Second Street, Bowmanville under Part IV of the OHA. Staff notified the property owner of the Committee recommendation. 5.15 See Attachment 12 and 13 for the detailed Statements of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features. Page 255 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report PDS-003-26 49, 51, 53 and 55 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville 5.16 49, 51, 53 and 55 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville, are located in the Town of Bowmanville. These properties each contain a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. 5.17 As outlined in their respective Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, the properties have design value as a representative example of purpose -built post-WWII Victory Housing. The properties each have historical value for their association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act, as well as for its association with Camp 30. The properties are important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. 5.18 The respective Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report indicates each property meets the designation criteria (see above description) and recommends the property be designated. The respective reports were circulated to the CHC and the property owners and were reviewed by Staff. 5.19 The CHC passed Motion 25.65 in November of 2025 to recommend to Council the designation of 49, 51, 53 and 55 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville under Part IV of the OHA. Staff notified the property owner of the Committee recommendation. 5.20 See Attachments 14-17 for the detailed Statements of Significance and List of Character- Defining Features. 6. Financial Considerations 6.1 Potential future financial consideration may be to hire external heritage consultants to provide evidence at the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) in support of designation if an appeal is made. External legal services may also be required in the event of any appeals to the OLT. 7. Strategic Plan 7.1 The Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-27 outlines the objectives to cultivate a strong, thriving, and connected community where everyone is welcome. Designation of the subject properties contributes to achieving one of the priorities (Connect 4.1) that promotes and supports local arts, culture, and heritage sectors. 8. Climate Change 8.1 Not Applicable. Page 256 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PDS-003-26 9. Concurrence 9.1 Not Applicable. 10. Conclusion 10.1 The Clarington Heritage Committee and Staff are in support of the designation of the following properties under Part IV of the OHA: a. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Veterans Avenue; b. 36, 38 Second Street; and c. 49, 51, 53, 55 Lambs Lane. 10.2 Should no objections be received by the Municipal Clerk within 30 days of publishing the Notice of Intention to designate, the proposed by-law designating the properties will be forwarded to Council for approval. Alternatively, if an objection(s) is received, Staff will provide a report to Council. 10.3 Upon designation, the owners of the properties will be presented with a bronze plaque signifying the significance of the properties to the community and the Municipality as a whole. 10.4 It is respectfully recommended that the Recommendations be adopted as presented . Staff Contact: Alicia da Silva, Planner I, adasilva@clarington.net, 905-623-3379 ext. 2340 and Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net, 905 -623-3379 ext. 2413. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Statement of Significance for 1 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 2 – Statement of Significance for 2 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 3 - Statement of Significance for 4 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 4 - Statement of Significance for 5 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 5 - Statement of Significance for 6 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 6 – Statement of Significance for 7 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 7 - Statement of Significance for 8 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Page 257 Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report PDS-003-26 Attachment 8 – Statement of Significance for 9 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 9 – Statement of Significance for 10 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 10 - Statement of Significance for 11 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 11 - Statement of Significance for 12 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Attachment 12 - Statement of Significance for 36 Second Street, Bowmanville Attachment 13 - Statement of Significance for 38 Second Street, Bowmanville Attachment 14 - Statement of Significance for 49 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Attachment 15 - Statement of Significance for 51 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Attachment 16 - Statement of Significance for 53 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Attachment 17 - Statement of Significance for 55 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Attachment 18 - Designation Process by Municipal By-Law Infographic Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 258 1 1 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 1 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 1 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical m assing, and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building follows a simple and compact form with frame construction and clad with horizontal siding. 1 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings of various sizes and a simple, single, rectangular entrance door opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. There is a front gable peak which also appears to be a common design element found in the Victory Housing neighbourhood which is located over paired rectangular windows. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 1 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 1 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant was veteran William John “W.J.” Ross McKnight, who purchased the property in April 1947 for $4,000. McKnight served overseas with the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment for f ive years, where he Attachment 1 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 259 2 attained the rank of Sergeant-Major. McKnight was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his action in July 1943 at Valguarnera, Sicily, in which he charged an Axis outpost and cleared it of enemy combatants. McKnight was also active in Branch 179 of the Royal Canadian Legion, where he served as President during the 1950s. McKnight resided in the subject property for over 25 years until his death in 1973. 1 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project.. Contextual Value 1 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one-storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings f ollowed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 1 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 1 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings Page 260 3 •Exterior brick chimney 1 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 1 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 261 1 2 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 2 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 2 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction and clad with horizontal siding. 2 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings of various sizes and a simple, single, entranceway opening located on a closed in portico topped by a gable peak. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 2 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 2 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 2 Veterans Avenue was G ordon T.McPherson, who purchased the property in April 1947. It is unclear if Gordon McPherson served with the Canadian Armed Forces overseas, or if he was part of the domestic war effort, however a newspaper article verified Gordon McPherson’s purchase of the subject property, where he paid a $200 deposit on August 7, 1946. Attachment 2 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 262 2 Gordon was a Freemason at the Cannington Masonic Lodge and was a steward at St. Paul’s United Church. Gordon died June 24, 1975. 2 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 2 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one-storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings f ollowed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 2 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 2 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves •Enclosed portico with front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney Page 263 3 2 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory house •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 2 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 264 1 4 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 4 Veterans Avenue is located on the north side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 4 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with wood frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 4 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings of various sizes and a simple, single, rectangular entrance door opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. There is a front gable peak which also appears to be a common design element found in the Victory Housing neighbourhood which is located over paired rectangular windows. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 4 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 4 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 4 Veterans Avenue was Alfred Samells, who paid a $200 deposit on the purchase of the property on August 7, 1946. Attachment 3 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 265 2 Alfred ‘Alf’ or ‘Sammy’ was a member of Branch 178 of the Canadian Legion and died in 1997. 4 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project Contextual Value 4 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 4 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 4 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 4 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Page 266 3 Land Act and Camp 30. T he property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 4 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 267 1 5 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 5 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 5 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 5 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening located on a closed in portico topped by a gable peak. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or highly decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House design. The building has an exterior br ick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 5 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 5 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 5 Veterans Avenue was Raymond Kowal, who purchased the property in April 1947. Raymond Kowal served overseas with the 6th Hussars in the Italian Campaign from 1941 until 1945, He was decorated several times for his service and received the 39-45 Star, the Italian Star, the Defence of England Medal, the Middle West Star, the Victory Medal, and the Canadian Attachment 4 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 268 2 Voluntary Service Medal. After his discharge in 1946, he joined the OPP and worked mostly as a traffic officer. 5 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 5 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 5 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 5 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 5 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Page 269 3 Land Act and Camp 30. T he property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 5 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 270 1 6 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 6 Veterans Avenue is located on the north side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 6 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 6 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 6 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 6 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative the first occupant of 6 Veteran’s Avenue was Robert T.Hayes, who purchased the property in April 1947. Robert Hayes enlisted with the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment in 1939 and was sent to Sicily as part of the 1st Canadian Division in 1943. After the cessation of World War II, Robert Hayes was stationed in Kingston and then moved to Bowmanville after his discharge. Attachment 5 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 271 2 6 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 6 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 6 Veterans Avenue and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 6 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 6 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: Page 272 3 •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 6 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 273 1 7 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 7 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 7 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 7 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening located on a closed in portico topped by a gable peak. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 7 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 7 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company as intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative The first occupant of 7 Veteran’s Avenue w as Carl A. Rogers, who purchased the property in April 1947. 7 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training Attachment 6 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 274 2 School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 7 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 7 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 7 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves •Enclosed portico with gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 7 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction Page 275 3 •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 7 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 276 1 8 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 8 Veterans Avenue is located on the north side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 8 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 8 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening topped by a gable peak. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or highly decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 8 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 8 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company as intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 8 Veterans Avenue was Charles W. Wright, who purchased the property in April 1947. Charles served in the Royal Canadian Air Force during World War II. Attachment 7 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 277 2 8 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 8 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 8 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 8 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves •Front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney Page 278 3 8 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 8 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 279 1 9 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 9 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 9 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and an off centre gable peak located on the facade. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 9 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or highly decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 9 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and Reginald Rackham. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. T he Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 9 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 9 Veterans Avenue was Reginald Rackham, who purchased the property in April 1947. Reginald Rackham served in the RCAF in St. John, Quebec during World War II, and after his discharge he returned to Bowmanville as a physical education instructor at the Ontario Training School for Boys. He joined the OPP in 1949 Attachment 8 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 280 2 and became the head of its photography and fingerprint division. Reginald Rackham was involved in many high-profile cases and helped to establish 17 OPP identification units across the province. 9 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 9 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 9 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 9 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Simple and compact rectangular form •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney Page 281 3 9 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 9 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 282 1 10 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 10 Veterans Avenue is located on the north side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 10 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post-WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction and clad with horizontal siding. 10 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings of various sizes and a simple, single, entranceway opening located on a closed in portico topped by a gable peak. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 10 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 10 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 10 Veterans Avenue was Edward Tice, who purchased the property in April 1947. Edward Tice was a gunner in the Fourth Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery, which was sent to England in 1941. Attachment 9 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 283 2 10 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 10 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 10 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 10 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Simple and compact rectangular form •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 10 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Page 284 3 Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 10 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 285 1 10 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 11 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 11 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post-WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical m assing, and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building follows a simple and compact form with frame construction and clad with horizontal siding. 11 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings of various sizes and a simple, single, rectangular entrance door opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all t he Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 11 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 11 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 11 Veterans Avenue was W. Bertram Syer, who purchased the property in April 1947. Bertram Syer was part of the RCAF inspection division and attained the rank of Sergeant before being discharged in 1945. After leaving the military, he worked as an electrical refrigeration technician and was also involved with the Bowmanville Chamber of Commerce. Attachment 10 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 286 2 11 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 11 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one-storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings f ollowed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 1 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 11 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post-WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 11 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Page 287 3 Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory house •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 11 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 288 1 12 Veterans Avenue, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 12 Veterans Avenue is located on the south side of Veterans Avenue in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 12 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 12 Veterans Avenue showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or highly decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior br ick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 12 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 12 Veterans Avenue was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 12 Veterans Avenue was William “Bill” Tait, who purchased the property in April 1947. Bill enlisted in “D” Company of the Midland Battalion in 1940, He was sent to fight in the Italian campaign as part of the 8th Army in 1943. In 1944, he had been promoted to Corporal and was serving with the 1st Toronto Irish Regiment, “B” Company and had been wounded by shrapnel in the Attachment 11 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 289 2 left foot. He was wounded a second time by a German m ine, also in Italy, and was promoted to Lance Sergeant before being discharged at the end of the war. 12 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 12 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. Specifically, along Veterans Avenue the asymmetrical façade composition is consistent along the north side of the road and opposite on the south side of the road, ultimately acting as mirror images of each other. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 12 Veterans Avenue, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 12 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post-WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney Page 290 3 12 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 12 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 291 1 36 Second Street, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 36 Second Street is located on the north side of Second Street in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 36 Second Street has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical m assing, and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building follows a simple and compact form with frame construction and clad with horizontal siding. 36 Second Street showcases unadorned rectangular window openings of various sizes and a simple, single, rectangular entrance door opening located in an enclosed portico topped with gable peak. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. There is a front gable peak which also appears to be a common design element found in the Victory Housing neighbourhood which is located over paired rectangular windows. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 36 Second Street has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. T he Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 36 Second Street was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 36 Second Street was George Carter, who purchased the house in 1947. George Carter Attachment 12 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 292 2 enlisted in 1940, and served overseas in the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps. He was discharged in 1945. 36 Second Street has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 36 Second Street is important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one-storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings f ollowed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 36 Second Street, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 36 Second Street has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window openings •Enclosed portico with rectangular entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney Page 293 3 36 Second Street has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Veterans Avenue 36 Second Street is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Second Street The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 294 1 38 Second Street, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 38 Second Street is located on the north side of Second Street in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 38 Second Street has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with wood frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 38 Second Street showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entrance door opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or highly decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all t he Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 38 Second Street has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. T he Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 38 Second Street was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 38 Second Street was Richard Patfield, who purchased the property from the Town of Bowmanville in 1947. Richard Patfield enlisted in 1941, was wounded in Italy in 1943, and returned to Bowmanville at the end of the war, where he worked for Goodyear. 38 Second Street has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Attachment 13 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 295 2 Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 38 Second Street is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area.38 Second Street, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 1 Veterans Avenue has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 1 Veterans Avenue has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback Page 296 3 •Location on Veterans Avenue 1 Veterans Avenue is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Veterans Avenue The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 297 1 49 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 49 Lambs Lane is located on the east side of Lambs Lane in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 49 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 49 Lambs Lane showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. An exterior brick chimney is found on all the Victory Houses in the surrounding streetscape and within the Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 49 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The Victory Housing subdivision containing 49 Lambs Lane was originally part of Lots 11 and 12 in Plan H50080 (Simpson & Lockhart Plan), which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville along with adjacent Plan 595 in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of four uniform lots established along the east side of Lambs Lane, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 49 Lambs Lane was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 49 Lambs Lane was Frederick Dorken, who joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1940, and saw combat during the Battle of Britain. He served as an air gunner and wireless operator and returned to Canada after flying 30 combat missions. After World War II, he worked as a tinsmith Attachment 14 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 298 2 before enlisting in the Royal Canadian Navy, where he served as a Shipwright f or 27 years. 49 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 49 Lambs Lane is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 49 Lambs Lane and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 49 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 49 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Page 299 3 Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Lambs Lane 49 Lambs Lane is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Lambs Lane The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 300 1 51 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 51 Lambs Lane is located on the east side of Lambs Lane in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 51 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof. The subject building features a simple and compact form with wood frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 51 Lambs Lane showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. There is a front gable peak which also appears to be a common design element found in the Victory Housing neighbourhood which is located over paired rectangular windows. An exterior brick chimney is found on all the Victory Houses in the surrounding streetscape and within the Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 51 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The Victory Housing subdivision containing 51 Lambs Lane was originally part of Lots 11 and 12 in Plan H50080 (Simpson & Lockhart Plan), which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville along with adjacent Plan 595 in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of four uniform lots established along the east side of Lambs Lane, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 51 Lambs Lane was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 51 Lambs Lane was World War II veteran Bill Porter, who purchased 51 Lambs Lane with his wife Catherine Thompson Porter in 1947. Attachment 15 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 301 2 51 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 51 Lambs Lane is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 51 Lambs Lane and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington Description of Heritage Attributes 51 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney 51 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House Page 302 3 •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Lambs Lane 51 Lambs Lane is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Lambs Lane The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 303 1 53 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 53 Lambs Lane is located on the east side of Lambs Lane in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 53 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof. The subject building features a simple and compact form with wood frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 53 Lambs Lane showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entranceway opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or highly decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. An exterior brick chimney is found on all houses, and the front gable peak appears to be a common design element found on Victory Houses in the surrounding streetscape and within the Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 53 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The Victory Housing subdivision containing 53 Lambs Lane was originally part of Lots 11 and 12 in Plan H50080 (Simpson & Lockhart Plan), which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville along with adjacent Plan 595 in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of four uniform lots established along the east side of Lambs Lane, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 53 Lambs Lane was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 53 Lambs Lane was Edward A. Baker, who purchased the property in 1947. Edward Allan Baker was born on December 28, 1918, and enlisted from Clarke Township as a Private and was stationed in England, although his role in the war is Attachment 16 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 304 2 unknown. (Canadian Statesman 1945b; 1946a). Edward Baker paid a deposit of $100 on August 27, 1947, for the subject property. Edward, who went by Allan, r emained in the Canadian Army and was stationed in both England and at Camp Borden after the end of World War II, where he served in the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (RCEME) corps. Edward Baker died on June 17, 2010, in Haliburton, Ontario. 53 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 53 Lambs Lane is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 53 Lambs Lane and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 53 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney Page 305 3 53 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Lambs Lane 53 Lambs Lane is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Lambs Lane The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 306 1 55 Lambs Lane, Bowmanville Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features Description 55 Lambs Lane is located on the east side of Lambs Lane in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 55 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one-storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof. The subject building features a simple and compact form with wood frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 55 Lambs Lane showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entrance door opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. There is a front gable peak which also appears to be a common design element found in the Victory Housing neighbourhood which is located over paired rectangular windows. An exterior brick chimney is found on all houses and the front gable peak appears to be a common design element found on Victory Houses in the surrounding streetscape and within the Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 55 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s veteran’s housing subdivision. The subject property is one of 12 uniform lots established along both sides of Veterans Avenue, and one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Canada. 55 Lambs Lane was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 55 Lambs Lane was Donald W. Allin, who purchased the property in December 1947. Don Allin served in the RCAF during World War II as an airman and later a Corporal and was a l ocal businessowner Attachment 17 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 307 2 after returning to Bowmanville after the war. He was involved in many local organizations, such as the Lion’s Club, the Royal Canadian Legion, and the Durham School Board. He served as a Municipal Councillor for both Bowmanville and Newcastle from 1971 until 1978. 55 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal government in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post-war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Contextual Value 55 Lambs Lane is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one- storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 55 Lambs Lane, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 55 Lambs Lane has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post- WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration •Simple and compact rectangular form •Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves and front gable peak •Rectangular window and entranceway openings •Exterior brick chimney Page 308 3 55 Lambs Lane has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attribute that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Frame construction •Overall massing and setback •Location on Lambs Lane 55 Lambs Lane is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: •One-storey Victory House •Location along Lambs Lane The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at their meeting on November 18th, 2025: •The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds from its trust to construct the veterans’ housing subdivision, marking the first time the town acted as a builder. •The subdivision’s long backyards reflect the post-war context, when food shortages led residents to grow much of their own produce. Page 309 Designation Proposed Council consults with the Heritage Committee Council Decision: Proceed with Designation? Notice of Intention to Designate: Designation by-law passed Notice of Designation: •Served on property owner •Served on the Ontario Heritage Trust •Right to objection •Published in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act •Served on property owner •Served on the Ontario Heritage Trust •Served any person who objected •Right to appeal •Published in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act NO YES If NO objection within 30 days NO IF Property not designated If objection within 30 days Council to Reconsider Designation of Property Notice of Withdrawal Appeal to Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) within 30 days after publishing the Notice of Designation OLT Hearing and Decision Designation Process by Municipal By-Law Council Decision: Designate property YES If NO appeal the Designation By-Law comes into effect Attachment 18 to Report PDS-003-26 Page 310 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2025 Report Number: PDS-004-26 Authored by: Brent Rice, Chief Building Official Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: Report Subject: Appointment of a Deputy Chief Building Official Recommendation: 1. That Report PDS-004-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That Brad Muma be appointed as a Deputy Chief Building Official for Municipality of Clarington, with authority to exercise all powers and perform all duties of the Chief Building Official as prescribed under the Building Code Act, effective immediately; 3. That the By-law attached to Report PDS-004-26, as Attachment 1, to amend the Building By-law 2024-006, to add Brad Muma as a Deputy Chief Building Official be approved; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-004-26, and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 311 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-004-26 Report Overview 1. Background 1.1 The Building Code Act requires that each municipality appoint a Chief Building Official (CBO) to administer and enforce the Ontario Building Code within its jurisdiction. The Act also permits municipalities to appoint one or more Deputy Chief Building Officials (DCBOs) to carry out the statutory responsibilities of the CBO when necessary. 1.2 In September 2022, Brendan Grigg was appointed as a Deputy Chief Building Official. Having multiple DCBOs ensures continuous coverage, compliance with the Bu ilding Code Act, and supports succession planning within the Building Division. The appointment of multiple DCBOs is a common practice among municipalities to maintain operational stability and uninterrupted service delivery. 1.3 Brad Muma was recently hired by the Municipality of Clarington as Supervisor of Inspection. Brad possesses the required qualifications to act as a Deputy Chief Building Official and brings extensive experience in the building industry, making him well-suited for this statutory role. 1.4 Following this appointment, Brendan Grigg will continue to lead the Plans Examination group, while Brad Muma will oversee the Building, Plumbing, and HVAC Inspection group. This structure ensures effective leadership and operational efficiency within the Building Division. 2. Financial Considerations 2.1 Not Applicable. 3. Strategic Plan 3.1 The appointment of an additional Deputy Chief Building will enhance the Lead priorities of the Strategic Plan to promote additional resources to support organizational development, and corporate-wide service delivery continuity. Page 312 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-004-26 4. Climate Change 4.1 Not Applicable. 5. Concurrence 5.1 Not Applicable. 6. Conclusion 6.1 It is respectfully recommended that that Brad Muma be appointed as a Deputy Chief Building Official. Staff Contact: Brent Rice, Director of Building and Chief Building Official, 905-623-3379 ext. 2303 or brice@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft By-law to appoint Brad Muma as Deputy Chief Building Official Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 313 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-004-26 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2026-XXX Being a by-law to amend By-law 2024-006, the Building By-law, to appoint Brad Muma as Deputy Chief Building Official for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. Whereas the Municipal Act 2001, S. 2001, c.25 as amended, authorizes the Council of any municipality to appoint certain officers and employees as may be necessary for the purposes of the corporation, or for carrying into effect or enforcing any Act of By-Law of the Council; And whereas the Building Code Act, SO. 1992, c.23 s.3(2) provides that the Council of each Municipality shall appoint a Chief Building Official and such Inspectors as are necessary for the enforcement of the Building Code Act in the areas in which the Municipality has jurisdiction; And whereas the Council of the Municipality of Clarington deems it desirable to appoint a Deputy Chief Building Official; And whereas the Council of the Municipality of Clarington has approved the recommendations of Report PDS-004-26regarding the appointment; Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Schedule “A” to By-law 2017-086 is amended by adding the following to Row 2: Column 2 (Name) = Brad Muma Column 3 (Municipal Title) = Deputy Chief Building Official Column 4 (Provincial BCIN) = 42038 2. That this by-law shall come into force and effect on the date the by-law is deemed passed under Part VI of the Municipal Act. Passed in Open Council this XX day of MMMM, 2026. _____________________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor Page 314 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-004-26 _____________________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk By signing this by-law on XXXX XX, YYYY, Mayor Adrian Foster will not exercise the power to veto this by-law and this by-law is deemed passed as of this date Page 315 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: PDS-008-26 Authored By: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Services Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: PLN 1.1.37 Report Subject: Bill 68: Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and an ERO Posting consulting on the proposed consolidation of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into seven regional conservation authorities Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-008-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That Report PDS-008-26, including the Draft Staff Responses forming Attachment 3, be endorsed as the Municipality’s comments to the Province on the proposal for the consolidation of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into seven regional conservation authorities (Environmental Registry of Ontario Posting: 025-1257) and forwarded to the Minister of Environment, Conservation, and Parks; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-008-26, be advised of Council’s decision. Page 316 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-008-26 Report Overview Plan to Protect Ontario Act, 2025 Conservation Authorities Act boundaries and criteria for the consolidation of Ontario’s 36 existing conservation authorities and topics open for consultation, and (ii) present staff’s to Council’s ratification, 1. Background 1.1 On November 6, 2025, the Ontario government released Bill 68, the Plan to Protect Ontario Act, 2025. This report focuses on the amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (Schedule 3 of Bill 68) which enable the Province to create the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency to oversee conservation authorities and support the transition to a regional, watershed-based framework for conservation authorities in Ontario. 1.2 Concurrently, on November 7, 2025, the Province initiated consultation on the proposed boundaries and criteria for the consolidation of Ontario’s 36 existing conservation authorities into seven regional conservation authorities via Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) posting ERO #025-1257. Feedback will help inform further changes to the Conservation Authorities Act that may be introduced later. A 45-day comment window was provided, ending on December 22, 2025. Page 317 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-008-26 1.3 The Province acknowledges that Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities play a vital role in watershed management and protecting communities from natural hazards like floods. Conservation authorities deliver programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, and management of natural resources. 2. Conservation Authority Consolidation Proposal Summary and Key Comments 2.1 The following section provides a high-level summary of relevant changes introduced by Bill 68 and key comments. Detailed staff comments on the proposed changes are provided in Attachment 3. Bill 68 Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act 2.2 Bill 68 established the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, a provincial board - governed agency, which will now oversee conservation authorities, have power to issue directions to conservation authorities, and be authorized to establish and require the payment of fees and take steps to recover its costs and expenses. 2.3 The Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks will provide oversight of the agency and will also retain policy responsibility for the Conservation Authorities Act and associated regulations. Proposal to consolidate conservation authorities 2.4 Information released by the Province to support of the consolidation proposal indicates the current system of 36 conservation authorities is fragmented, with each conservation authority following different policies, standards, fees and levels of staffing and technical capabilities. The current system has resulted in unpredictable and inconsistent turnaround times for approvals across conservation authorities, creating uncertainty and delays for builders, landowners and farmers seeking permits, and undermining conservation authorities’ ability to protect communities from floods and natural hazards. 2.5 The Province proposes to improve the conservation authority system by consolidating 36 existing conservation authorities into seven. The intent is that the boundaries would still align with watershed boundaries, and would serve to reduce duplication in administration, free-up resources for frontline conservation, and better align conservation authorities’ services with provincial priorities on housing, the economy, infrastructure and climate resilience. 2.6 The Province has stated the proposed seven regional conservation authorities would continue to focus on managing natural hazards and watershed health, drawing on decades of local knowledge and partnerships. With better tools and more resources for front-line staff, the regional conservation authorities would operate with greater consistency and transparency, deliver faster services to municipalities and permit applicants. Page 318 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-008-26 2.7 Currently, the Municipality of Clarington is primarily located within the jurisdiction of two conservation authorities: Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), and Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA). Small areas along Clarington’s northern boundary are within the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (KRCA) and Otonabee Region Conservation Authority (ORCA), as shown in Attachment 1. 2.8 The changes would place Clarington entirely within the proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority, which includes watershed s draining into Lake Ontario in the west, the Bay of Quinte in the east, including the Trent and Cataraqui systems. This is a vast area that would encompass seven existing conservation authorities, and over 50 lower- and single-tier municipalities. The proposed extent of the Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority is shown in Attachment 2. 2.9 The Province has indicated no changes would be proposed to the overall extent of conservation authority jurisdiction within the Province, and that the following criteria was applied to determine the proposed boundaries for the regional conservation authorities: Maintaining watershed-based jurisdictions – aligning with natural hydrological boundaries to support effective flood and water management, consistent with drinking water Source Protection Areas and Regions Relationships between conservation authorities and municipalities – reducing administrative duplication and overlap for municipalities and conservation authorities to simplify accountability and strengthen local partnerships Balancing expertise and capacity across conservation authorities – enhancing technical skills and resources across conservation authorities to improve service and program delivery Service continuity – ensuring uninterrupted delivery of local conservation authority programs – including flood forecasting and warning, permitting, and source water protection – through and after consolidation Key Comments 2.10 Staff responses to the Province’s discussion questions have been drafted by Planning and Infrastructure Services staff. Responses are included as Attachment 3 to this report. Key messages are articulated below. 2.11 Staff supports changes that strengthen conservation authorities by ensuring adequate resources for consistent staffing, technical expertise, and service delivery. This is in recognition of the vital role conservation authorities play in watershed management, protecting communities from natural hazards, and delivering programs that further the conservation, restoration, and management of natural resources. 2.12 Staff also supports the continued use of watershed boundaries and a transition towards a more predictable, criteria-based permitting system for development or site alteration within conservation authority regulated areas. Page 319 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-008-26 2.13 Staff would not support the proposed consolidation where it would lead to changes in processes, policies, standards or fees that could hinder the protection of the natural environment, adversely affect development application processes or timelines, or result in increased costs for Clarington. 2.14 Staff is concerned about the size and diversity of the proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. As a large and fast-growing municipality, Clarington’s growth forecasts and expected urbanization patterns align more closely with GTA lakeshore municipalities to the west than with the rural areas to the north and east. The Province is requested to provide additional details as to how it will ensure all regional authorities are equally resourced to handle urban and rural contexts. 2.15 Conservation authority staff possess specialized knowledge of local natural heritage, hydrogeology, and agriculture. Staff is concerned that consolidation risks losing this expertise and institutional knowledge. The Province is requested to prioritize staff continuity and retention of local technical capacity throughout the process. 2.16 Staff is concerned that larger boards representing many more municipalities may reduce local input and generate conflicts over budgeting and program delivery across the vast regional conservation authority. The Province is requested to clarify how municipal and stakeholder voices will be maintained under a regional conservation authority framework. 2.17 Staff looks forward to working collaboratively with the Province to better support conservation authorities by improving consistency and finding efficiencies in process while maintaining (i) the valuable local knowledge and technical expertise of conservation authority staff, and (ii) the established collaborative working relationships between conservation authorities and municipalities. 3. Financial Considerations 3.1 Financial implications of Bill 68 and the consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities resulting from the ongoing provincial consultation are difficult to assess at this time, as many details are still under consideration or have not yet been released. 3.2 Staff will continue to monitor the financial implications of these changes and report to Council as needed. 4. Strategic Plan 4.1 The changes proposed have the potential to impact how Clarington achieves the Lead priorities of the Strategic Plan to protect and enhance Clarington’s natural heritage system through collaboration with partners, including conservation authorities, to achieve a healthy and resilient environment. Page 320 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-008-26 5. Climate Change 5.1 Conservation authorities are important partners in working towards go als identified in Clarington’s Corporate Climate Action Plan, including protecting ecosystems and diversity, minimizing risks to buildings and properties, minimizing disruption to operations and services, and building community resilience. 6. Concurrence 6.1 Not Applicable. 7. Conclusion 7.1 The purpose of this report is to (i) provide a high-level summary of the proposed changes, and topics open for consultation, and (ii) present staff’s draft comments which were submitted to the Province on December 22, 2025, to meet the commenting deadline, subject to Council’s ratification. 7.2 The Province has indicated it will be engaging in future consultation on any additional legislative and regulatory proposals needed to enable the regional consolidation of conservation authorities. Staff will monitor and report to Council as needed. 7.3 It is respectfully recommended that the Recommendations be adopted as presented. Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, sallin@clarington.net or 905-623-3379 ext. 2419 or Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net or 905 -623-3379 ext. 2413. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Map of Conservation Authorities in Clarington Attachment 2 – Proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority Boundary (source: Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks) Attachment 3 – Draft Staff responses to Consolidating Conservation Authorities Discussion Questions Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 321 VI C K E R S R O A D CONCESSION CONCESSION MU R P H Y R O A D RO A D LE A S K R O A D ROAD WA S H I N G T O N R O A D BUTTERY ST A P L E T O N RO A D RO A D HI G H W A Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 SC U G O G R O A D ME R C E R ST E P H E N S O N CO V E N ENERGY DRIVE CO U R T I C E JA N E S RO A D CONCESSION ROAD 7 (B O W M A N V I L L E A V E N U E ) ROAD ROAD ST R E E T N O R T H ME A R N S TO W N L I N E R O A D N O R T H MA P L E RE G I O N A L R O A D 5 7 RO A D (TAUNTON ROAD) RO A D RO A D MO R G A N S R O A D RO A D NI X O N R O A D DURHAM HI G H W A Y 2 ROAD 3 CONCESSION RO A D FI C E S R O A D WE R R Y R O A D REGIONAL ROAD 20 TAUNUS CRT RO A D RE G I O N A L R O A D 1 7 RO A D LA W R E N C E R O A D ROAD CO L D S P R I N G S C A M P R O A D RO A D RE G I O N A L R O A D 5 7 RO A D CONCESSION BE L L A M Y R O A D GR A S S H O P P E R RO A D RO A D RO A D CRT MO R G A N S GI L M O R E RO A D ROAD BOUNDARY ROAD RO A D BET H E S D A RO A D OL D S C U G O G R O A D COLE ROAD COWANVILLE CONCESSION WILLIAM LA M B S CONCESSION PO L L A R D BE L L W O O D LI B E R T Y S T N O R T H CONCESSION RO A D CRAGO ROAD TO O L E Y GO L F C O U R S E RO A D SKO P S AL L I N R O A D CONCESSION ROAD 10 THERTELL ROAD RO A D HA N C O C K EA S T LA N C A S T E R DURHAM H I G H W A Y 2 SO P E R (M A I N S T R E E T ) BR A G G ROAD 4 RE G I O N A L R O A D 1 8 RI L E Y RO A D WH I T E R O A D RO A D REGIONAL ROAD 3 WO T T E N GLENELGE ME A R N S LAKESHORE GI F F O R D PR E S T O N V A L E NASH RO A D BE S T BR O W N S V I L L E RO A D ST R E E T RO A D MILL ROAD AC R E S R O A D REGIONAL ROAD 20 TR U L L S ROAD 5 RO A D AV E N U E ROAD 8 MO S P O R T ENERGY DRIVE LO C K H A R T R O A D GR A H A M COU R T CONCESSION ROAD 3 CONCESSION ROAD 9 DA R L I N G T O N - C L A R K E T O W N L I N E R O A D ST E W A R T R O A D (E N F I E L D R O A D ) ROAD 6 RE G I O N A L R O A D 3 4 CONCESSION CONCESSION RO A D SQ U A I R R O A D ROAD RO A D RO A D TH E D E L L R O A D RO A D EN F I E L D UN I O N S C H O O L R O A D RO A D TO W N L I N E R O A D HIGHWAY 401 RO A D REGIONAL ROAD 9 CRT DA R L I N G T O N - C L A R K E OV E N S CA R S C A D D E N BOUNDARY ROAD MI D D L E GR E E N CONCESSION RO A D BE S T HO L T R O A D AK E D WI L L I A M A L L I N ROAD 4 REGIONAL ROAD 4 RO A D 3 4 RO A D EL L I O T T ROAD 3 RO A D GAUD PEBBLESTONE SO L I N A RO A D RO A D BU C K L E Y McMILLAN MI L L STREET DR I V E NI C H O L S RO A D ANDELWOOD BA K E R S C H O O L ROAD 7 NE W T O N V I L L E CE D A R P A R K R O A D HE N R Y RO A D AD A M S TR U L L S SO L I N A EA S T BA R T O N WO O D L E Y RE G I O N A L R O A D 5 7 RO A D OA K S C H O O L DA W S O N R O A D TO W N L I N E R D ROAD HO L T CO C H R A N E GI B S O N R O A D RO A D RE G I O N A L R O A D 4 2 (TAUNTON ROAD) AN D R E W S MI D D L E HI G H W A Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 LO W E R Y RO A D Mc C U L L O U G H R O A D BLEWETT JE W E L RO A D SKELDING CRT RE I D HO L T RO A D RI C K A R D HIGHWAY 401 SH I L O H TH O M P S O N R O A D RO A D RO A D CRT AV E N U E RO A D SC U G O G HI G H W A Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HIGH W A Y 1 1 5 ROAD CE D A R V A L L E Y CAMBRIAN (GANARASKA ROAD) LE S K A R D AC R E S R O A D LI B E R T Y S T PAR K LA M B S CONCESSION GR O V E REGIONAL ROAD 4 RO A D RO A D BE T H E S D A TO W N L I N E AR T H U R S T R E E T MO F F A T R O A D LO N G S A U L T R O A D CONCESSION PR O V I D E N C E MO R T O N (B O W M A N V I L L E A V E N U E ) BROWVIEW GI B B S ROAD VA N N E S T R O A D LA N G M A I D R O A D PA T T E R S O N CRAIG CRT HI L L E N NE W T O N V I L L E R O A D RU N D L E RO A D OC H O N S K I R O A D EL L I O T T OL D WA L S H R O A D ROAD 9 CONCESSION ROAD 1 RE G I O N A L R O A D 5 7 CO O N E Y R O A D ROAD 8 RO A D MARYLEAH RO A D ROAD MA Y N A R D CONCESSION ROAD 6 BASELINE RO A D HIG H W A Y 3 5 ROAD 4 NO R T H RO A D RO A D CONCESSION ROAD 10 RO A D RO A D DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 CL E M E N S R O A D RE G I O N A L CT RU N D L E CONCESSION ROAD (B O W M A N V I L L E A V E N U E ) RO A D RO A D GI L M O R E LA N G S T A F F GATE RO A D RO A D ST R E E T DURHAM H I G H W A Y 2 RO A D GA M S B Y R O A D RO A D BR O W N R O A D LI B E R T Y CONCESSION ROAD 5 OR M I S T O N R O A D RO A D CONCESSION ROAD 4 NO R T H ROAD OL D RO A D RO A D RO A D STEPHE N S M I L L RO A D LI B E R T Y S T S . LE T N E R R O A D RO A D HA R R I S RO A D RO A D RO A D RO A D LI B E R T Y RO A D ROAD 7 RE I D R O A D RO A D WILCOX TO W N L I N E R O A D N O R T H (B O W M A N V I L L E A V E N U E ) Courtice Bowmanville Newcastle Orono C I T Y O F O S H A W A C I T Y O F O S H A W A C I T Y O F K A W A R T H A L A K E SC I T Y O F K A W A R T H A L A K E S M U N I C I P A L I T Y O F P O R T H O P E M U N I C I P A L I T Y O F P O R T H O P E T O W N S H I P O F S C U G O GT O W N S H I P O F S C U G O G ² Conservation Authority Central Lake Ontario Conservation Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Kawartha Region Conservation Authority Otonabee Region Conservation Authority Lake Ontario Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Attachment 1 to Report PDS-008-26 Page 322 11 Map of Proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority Attachment 2 to Report PDS-008-26 Page 323 Attachment 3 to Report PDS-008-26 Attachment 3 DRAFT Staff responses to Consolidating Conservation Authorities Discussion Questions Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Discussion Question Staff Comments 1 025-1257 Proposed boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities What do you see as key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of regional conservation authority consolidation? Dedicated stable Provincial funding to offset costs associated with consolidation as well as funding for the administration of the Regional Conservation Authority. All mandatory (Category 1) programs and current service levels must be maintained while avoiding added administrative burden. Preserve local technical expertise and institutional knowledge existing within local conservation authorities; prioritize staff continuity. Retain local flexibility for meetings and site visits to ensure efficient permit processing. Uphold existing MOUs to minimize service disruption through the transition. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis, financial impact assessment, and establish KPIs to assess impacts on conservation authorities and municipalities and to monitor whether improvements are achieving desired results. Consider moving forward with the creation of one regional conservation authority as a pilot project in order to capture any learnings or efficiencies that could be realized in a larger roll out. Implement a phased transition, recognizing the substantial time and resources that merging seven conservation authorities into one large, regional conservation authority (that will cover over 50 municipalities) would require. 2 What opportunities or benefits may come from a regional conservation authority framework? More consistent requirements and expectations across conservation authorities. Currently, larger jurisdictions like Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority & Toronto and Region Conservation Authority have well-defined guidelines and expectations, whereas other conservation authority standards may be less specific and open to the interpretation of the reviewer. Under a centralized framework there is opportunity for development approvals to be more standardized and predictable for those seeking permits, etc. however, a standardized approach may not take into consideration more localized watershed conditions and may represent a change in practice and process than what the Municipality or a developer has become familiar with. 3 Do you have suggestions for how governance could be structured at the regional conservation authority level, including suggestions around board size, make-up and the municipal representative appointment process? The proposed Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority would include over 50 municipalities. Staff is concerned about reduced local representation and requests clarity on how equitable representation will be maintained while keeping boards functional and efficient. There is also concern that the future structure will not be as nimble and responsive to local issues, development approvals, or conservation area management. Further consultation will be necessary. Municipalities will be very hesitant to fund programs for a Regional Authority where they do not have direct representation on the Board. 4 How can regional conservation authorities maintain and strengthen relationships with local communities and stakeholders? Maintain local planning and regulation permitting teams, including existing administrative offices, local Boards, and advisory committees during the transition and going forward. Maintain local programs and service delivery beyond those that are provincially legislated, such as Clarington’s Trees for Rural Roads Program, to sustain community engagement and relationships with stakeholders. Page 324 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: PDS-009-26 Authored By: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner, Development Review Division Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: ZBA2024-0016 and S-C-2024-0006 Report Subject: A Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate 1,356 residential dwelling units of various built forms at 1738 Bloor Street in Courtice Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-009-26 and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That the Zoning By-law Amendment attached to Report PDS-009-26, as Attachment 1, be approved; 3. That the Region of Durham Community Growth and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS-009-26 and Council’s decision; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-009-26, be advised of Council’s decision. Page 325 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-009-26 Report Overview Clarington’s Official Plan 1. Application Details Owner: 2056421 Ontario Inc., (Redwood Properties) Applicant: KLM Planning Partners Proposal: Zoning By-law Amendment To rezone the subject lands from “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Holding - Residential Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU2-6(S:3/6),” “Holding - Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3-4(S:7/25),” and “Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1).” Delegated: Draft Plan of Subdivision The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would permit a maximum of 1,356 residential dwelling units, 296 units being purpose built rental apartments. The development proposes various built forms that consist of one (1) high density mixed-use block, two (2) medium density regional corridor blocks, a neighbourhood park, an open space block, and a stormwater management block. Area: 20.79 hectares (51.39 acres) Page 326 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-009-26 Location: 1738 Bloor Street, Courtice (see Figure 1) Roll Number: 1817-010-050-20300 Figure 1 – Proposed Concept Plan Page 327 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-009-26 2. Background 2.1 On August 29th, 2024, KLM Planning Partners on behalf of 2056421 Ontario Inc., submitted applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit 1356 residential dwelling units of various built forms, consisting of one (1) high density mixed-use block, two (2) medium density regional corridor blocks, a neighbourhood park, an open space block, and a stormwater management block. These applications were deemed complete by Staff on September 11 th, 2024. 2.2 A Statutory Public meeting was held on October 21st, 2024, to provide background information regarding the applications and to obtain public comments. 2.3 The proposal contains the following: Medium density block, apartment buildings with a minimum height of 3 stories and a maximum of 6 stories for a total of 256 units. High-density mixed-use block, apartment buildings with a minimum of 7 stories and a maximum of 25 stories for a total of 1100 units; buildings are proposed to have a 3-storey podium with commercial space available at street level. Neighbourhood Park Block Stormwater Management Pond Block Open Space Block Road Widening Blocks Two (2) four-storey purpose built rental apartment buildings blocks for a total of 296 new purpose-built rental units 2.4 Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Courtice Road, Bloor Street and the future Meadowglade Road extension, which borders the northern boundary of the property. 3. Land Use Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The 20.7-hectare greenfield site is located at the northwest corner of Bloor Street and Courtice Road. These lands are within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and have been identified as an area for more intense urban uses. The property was previously used for agricultural purposes and contains a dwelling, and outbuildings associated with the former agricultural use. The topography of the site is relati vely flat. 3.2 A section of Tooley’s Creek and its associated valley is located in the central and western part of the property. 3.3 The surrounding uses are as follows: Page 328 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-009-26 North: The proposed extension of Meadowglade Road, Holy Trinity Catholic Secondary School, and vacant sites for future residential development purposes. South: Bloor Street, vacant land, and Beyond Our Dreams Pre-school. East: Courtice Road, agricultural uses, rural residential uses, Ebenezer United Church and lands for future residential development. West: Valley lands and natural heritage features associated with a portion of Tooley’s Creek that are part of the Natural Heritage System. Courtice Flea Market, Hope Fellowship Church, low rise residential neighbourhoods, agricultural lands, and sites for future residential developments are located further to the west. 4. Provincial Policy Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 4.1 The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024 supports healthy, livable, and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing types including affordable housing and shall promote development patterns that efficiently use land and infrastructure. 4.2 The PPS policies direct growth to settlement areas and promote compact development forms. The subject lands are proposed within the Courtice Urban Area. Planning authorities are to facilitate a variety of housing forms and promote residential intensification to achieve efficient development patterns, especially along public transit, and active transportation routes. 4.3 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement. 5. Official Plans Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham) 5.1 The subject site is designated “Regional Corridor” and “Community Areas”. Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed as higher density mixed use a reas, supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian orientated development. The community area designation shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes, and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socioeconomic factors. Development applications in Community Areas must consider having a compact built form, including providing intensive residential and mixed uses along arterial roads and transit routes. Consideration must also be given to urban design, pedestrian connections, a grid pattern of roads, and the availability of services and infrastructure. Page 329 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-009-26 5.2 The Durham Region Official Plan (Map 2a) identifies a Regional Natural Heritage System on a portion of the subject site. Development or site alteration is not permitted within the Regional Natural Heritage System and requires an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for development and site alteration within 120 metres of the natural heritage system. 5.3 Courtice Road and Bloor Street are Type ‘A’ Arterial Roads in the Region’s Official Plan. 5.4 The proposal conforms to Envision Durham. Clarington Official Plan 5.5 The Clarington Official Plan seeks to create walkable neighbourhoods and to provide a variety of uses within each neighbourhood. New neighbourh oods will have a variety of housing densities, tenures, and types for all incomes, ages, and lifestyles. Three key principles that provide direction for the policies of the Official Plan are: sustainable development, healthy communities, and growth managem ent. 5.6 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands as Regional Corridor, Urban Residential and Environmental Protection Area. 5.7 Regional Corridors shall provide for intensification, mixed-use development and pedestrian and transit supportive development. The development of Regional Corridors aims to improve the public realm and establish walkable, transit supportive corridors through high quality streetscaping and built form. 5.8 The Urban Residential designation is predominantly intended for housing purposes. A variety of densities, tenure, and housing types are encouraged . Courtice Road and Bloor Street both abut the subject property and are both identified as “Regional Corridor” in Clarington’s Official Plan. As per the Summary of Urban Structure Typologies (Table 4-3) in the Official Plan, Regional Corridors are permitted a minimum of 3 stories and a maximum of 12 stories. Neighbourhoods must be walkable, compact, and connected and create a high-quality public realm. 5.9 Environmental Protection Areas are recognized as the most significant components of the Municipality’s natural environment, and their ecological functions are to be conserved and protected. 5.10 Environmental Constraints within site include a watercourse and features identified as “High and Moderate Constraint Areas” in the Tooley/Robinson Creek Subwatershed Study. These features have ecological and/or hydrological value that require a site - specific assessment prior to development. The presence and precise delineation of these features and the level of development acceptable was determined through an Environmental Impact Study. 5.11 Courtice Road and Bloor Street are Type ‘A’ Arterial Roads in the Municipality of Clarington’s Official Plan. Type A Arterial Roads are designed to efficiently move large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds over relatively long distances. Page 330 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-009-26 5.12 The proposal conforms to the Clarington Official Plan. Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan 5.13 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan designates the subject lands as Medium Density Regional Corridor, High Density / Mixed Use, Environmental Protection Area, Environmental Constraint, Stormwater Management Pond, and Neighbourhood Park. 5.14 Development within the High Density / Mixed Use designation shall have a minimum net density of 120 units per net hectare with building heights between 7 and 12 storeys. 5.15 However, development at the Prominent Intersection of Bloor Street and Courtice Road may permit heights greater than 12 storeys, subject to the following conditions: The development is complementary with the scale of surrounding buildings; There are high-quality architectural design and treatment to create a signature, landmark development; The massing of the development includes a podium and tower element. The floor plate of the tower element is no greater than 750 square metres to ensure a slim profile and fast-moving shadow; Development ensures comfortable conditions on surrounding pedestrian spaces in terms of wind; and No incremental shadow impacts are created on adjacent public parks or other sunlight sensitive land uses. 5.16 As depicted under the General Plan (See Figure 2) the only building with height greater than 12 storeys is a point tower located directly at the intersection of Bloor Street and Courtice Road. The tower is intended to have a slim profile with a floor plate less than 750 square metres, sitting above a 3-storey podium. The location of the tower ensures that it is located furthest away from public parks or other uses that are sunlight sensitive. Contextually, beyond the High Density/Mixed Use areas that surround the proposed 25 storey tower, the lands are located on the east side of Courtice Road are identically designated, providing complementary building permissions. An Environmental Protection Area is located to the south, which is also not impacted by shadows from the proposed tower. Through the site plan approval application process, architectural design and pedestrian wind impacts can be assessed and minimized. Page 331 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-009-26 Figure 2 – Proposed Concept Plan 5.17 Bloor Street and Courtice Road are Regional Corridors, with the lands adjacent to those roads being designated Medium Density Regional Corridor and Medium Density within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. The subject site is within a Priority Intensification Areas and provides routes for future transit service. Regional Corridors shall be the location of the highest densities, tallest buildings and greatest mix of uses, in order to focus growth to areas with good access to transit and amenities. Page 332 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-009-26 5.18 Within the Medium Density Regional Corridor designation, the predominant use of lands is a mix of housing types and tenures in mid-rise building forms. The highest and densest built form shall front onto Bloor Street. Retail and service uses are to be provided at strategic locations to reinforce the community structure and provide access to local amenities within walking distance for residents of the surrounding areas. 5.19 Where appropriate, stormwater management ponds will be treated as public assets and part of the parks and open space system. Their amenity and ecological value will be realized as: areas of passive recreation through the inclusion of paths and trails; areas of ecological value as enhanced wildlife habitat through appropriate planting; and visual extensions of other components of the parks and open space system. 5.20 The Secondary Plan establishes policies to ensure that development contributes to an inviting and safe public realm, fine grain connectivity, an enhanced pedestrian environment, and appropriate transitions between areas of different development intensity and uses. 5.21 The proposal conforms to the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. 6. Zoning By-laws 6.1 The subject lands are currently zoned “Agricultural (A)” within Zoning by-law 84-63. A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to permit the proposed apartment buildings. Holding Symbol 6.2 The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will rezone the lands to an appropriate mixed-use zone subject to a (H) Holding provision to implement the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposed draft Zoning By-law Amendment is included as Attachment 1. 6.3 The (H) Holding provision will remain on the lands until the necessary Conditions of Draft Approval are fulfilled, the Subdivision Agreement is executed, the Site Plan Approval Conditions are fulfilled and Agreement is executed, the Commemoration Plan for the Listed Heritage Resource has been reviewed and approved by the Clarington Heritage Committee and is to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure, and all the necessary securities are in place. 7. Summary of Background Studies Planning Justification Report (KLM Planning Partners, December 2023) 7.1 The Planning Justification Report prepared and submitted in support of the proposal concludes that the applications represent good planning and are in the public interest and conform with the policies and land use designations of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. Page 333 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-009-26 Transportation Impact Study (WSP, August 2025) 7.2 The Transportation Impact Study concluded that the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation network is acceptable. 7.3 Traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed development can be accommodated by the study road network. 7.4 The proposed development should implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and incentives identified in the report to support active transportation and transit and to reduce the numbers of single -occupant vehicle trips to and from the proposed development. Environmental Impact Study (Palmer, November 2023) 7.5 The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) submitted in support of the proposal concludes that subject to woodland restoration, wetland enhancement, invasive species management and wildlife connectivity strategies, the proposal will not have a negative impact on the natural heritage system . 7.6 The proposed subdivision has been designed to avoid identified natural features in the Study Area to the degree feasible (See Attachment #2). Both a park and the Stormwater Management Pond (SWMP) have been placed adjacent to, but do not overlap with the Headwater Drainage Feature (HDF) alignment. The placement of these features will provide built green spaces that would act as an extension of the NHS, and provide continuity in ecological form and functions, such as wildlife habitat. 7.7 The EIS is meeting the Clarington Official Plan policies. Heritage Impact Assessment (LHC, May 2023) 7.8 The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) submitted in support of the proposed development found that the property meets three out of nine O. Reg. 9/06 criteria for physical/design value, historical/associative value, and contextual value. Thus, the property would be eligible for designation under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). 7.9 On November 28, 2022 Bill 23 amended the OHA and properties with ongoing development applications on them cannot be designated until such time the application is approved or the file is closed. 7.10 Therefore, given the changes from Bill 23 and the constraints the proposed development is facing on the site, the report concludes that a Documentation, Salvage and a Commemoration Plan is the most favourable option for the Listed Heritage resource on site. A draft Commemoration Plan has been prepared by the applicant and is appended as Attachment 4. Page 334 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PDS-009-26 7.11 Prior to the removal or alteration of any of the heritage attributes the applicant will be required to submit to Council their intention to demolish the listed heritage resource and a Council decision must be issued. Additionally, prior to the removal or alteration of the heritage attributes additional documentation and determination of any salvageable materials for reuse within the proposed redevelopment of the property, or elsewhere and a Commemoration Plan reviewed and approved by the Clarington Heritage Committee and to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure . Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (Schaeffers Consulting Engineers, August 2024) 7.12 The Functional Servicing Report concludes that the proposed development can be graded and serviced in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, and Regional Municipality of Durham design criteria and policies. Arborist Report (Strybos Barron King Landscape Architecture, March 2023) 7.13 The Arborist Report submitted in support of the proposal confirms that appropriate tree protection and removal measures have been identified and can be implemented in accordance with the proposed development. Subject to these measures, the proposed works will not result in undue impacts to the natural heritage features or functions on or adjacent to the site. Urban Design Brief (KLM Planning Partners, December 2023) 7.14 The Urban Design Brief submitted in support concludes that the proposed development embodies an appropriate reinvestment and improvement of the existing site. Additionally, the proposal contributes to the goals and urban design objectives of the Southeast Courtice area established by the Clarington Official Plan and further supported by the Southeast Courtice Urban Design & Sustainability Guidelines. Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment (Archeoworks Inc., January 2014 and July 2015) 7.15 Archeoworks Inc. conducted a Stage 1 and 2 archeological assessments on the subject lands dated January 20, 2014 and subsequently prepared a supplementary document dated July 8, 2015. The Stage 1 established potential for the location and recovery of archaeological resources within undisturbed portions of the study area based on the close proximity of a watercourse, as well as historic structures. The Stage 2 assessment indicated that the sites along the eastern portion of the subject lands do not have significant cultural heritage value or interest. Therefore, no further work is recommended for those sites. 7.16 On the southern side of the subject lands, the Stage 2 assessment found a selection of Euro-Canadian artifacts that meet the criteria outlined by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (MTCS). These sites are considered to have cultural heritage value, and a Stage 3 archeological assessment will be undertaken as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision application. Page 335 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report PDS-009-26 8. Public Submissions 8.1 A Statutory Public Meeting was held on October 21, 2024. Notification was provided to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands, and two public meeting signs were installed on Bloor Street and Courtice Road. 8.2 Two members of the public spoke at the statutory public meeting. The residents raised concerns regarding increased traffic, active transportation measures, and the proposed 25 storey building at the corner of Courtice Road and Bloor Street, and the strain on existing public infrastructure. Staff also received several general inquiries asking about the nature of the proposed development. 8.3 Public comments are discussed in Section 10 of this report. 9. Department and Agency Comments 9.1 Various agencies and internal departments were circulated for comments on the applications. Attachment 3 to this report is a chart which provides the list of circulated parties. 10. Discussion Proposed Development Conforms with Clarington Official Plan and Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan 10.1 The proposed development of to permit 1356 residential dwelling units of various built forms, consisting of one (1) high density mixed-use block, two (2) medium density regional corridor blocks, a neighbourhood park, an open space block, and a stormwater management block is consistent with the land use designations of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and conforms with the Clarington Official Plan. 10.2 The proposed development includes a neighbourhood park and open spaces (environmental protection lands) being conveyed to the Municipality, which meets municipal objectives and helps protect the natural heritage system. 10.3 New roads and other services will be provided to service this development and planned future developments to the north. The proposed road pattern will align along the future Meadowglade extension with Tribute’s proposed development to the north (Riley Park 2) thus allowing for planned connectivity between the two proposed developments. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 10.4 A rezoning is required to facilitate the development and rezone the lands from “Agricultural (A)” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone,” “Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1)," “Holding - Residential Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU2-6(S:3/6) Zone,” and “Holding - Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3-4(S:7/25) Zone.” Page 336 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PDS-009-26 10.5 The ((H)R1) Zone will permit a 1.9-hectare (4.7 acre) Neighbourhood Park. The Neighbourhood Park has been provided and designed in accordance with the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan policies and the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan Guidelines. 10.6 The ((H)MU2-6(S:3/6) Zone will be designed to have the greatest density forms addressing the Regional Corridor in the form of 4 storey walk-up apartments. Overall, the two development blocks for Medium Density Regional Corridor uses will have a minimum height of 3 stories and a maximum height of 7 stories, and a density of approximately 143 units per net hectare. 10.7 The ((H)MU3-4(S:7/25) Zone will be designed so that the only building with height greater than 12 storeys is a point tower located at the intersection of Bloor Street and Courtice Road. The tower is intended to have a slim profile with a floor plate less than 750 square metres, sitting above a 3-storey podium. The location of the tower ensures that it is located furthest away from public parks or other uses that are sunlight sensitive. Contextually, beyond the High Density/Mixed Use areas that surround the proposed 25 storey tower, the lands are located on the east side of Courtice Road are identically designated, providing complementary building permissions. Overall, the High Density/Mixed Use block will have a minimum height of 7 stories and a maximum height of 25 stories, and a density of approximately 124 units per net hectare. 10.8 Overall, the rezoning will permit a maximum of 1,356 residential dwelling units of various built forms, consisting of one (1) high density mixed-use block, two (2) medium density regional corridor blocks, a neighbourhood park, an open space block, and a stormwater management block. 10.9 The zoning includes a Holding symbol that will be removed once the applicant has entered a Subdivision Agreement, and all obligations therein have been fulfilled. Purpose Built Rental Units 10.10 The applicants have submitted a site plan application to facilitate phase 1 of the proposed development that includes two (2) four-storey purpose built rental apartment buildings on two (2) separate blocks containing a total of 296 units and approximately 205.5 square metres of retail space. The proposed Site Plan application is for the development of Blocks 1 and 2 of the Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (S-C-2024- 0006) with respective areas of 0.395 hectares and 1.907 hectares. 10.11 If approved, this proposed development would represent the largest number of purpose-built rental units that staff are aware of that has been included in a single development in Clarington. 10.12 The applicants will be required to submit a Phasing Plan as a condition of draft approval for the Draft Plan of Subdivision application. Page 337 Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report PDS-009-26 Heritage 10.13 The property contains the former farmhouse of pioneer settler Christopher Courtice Senior. While the scale, massing, and form of the farmhouse on property retains its Ontario Farmhouse vernacular architectural style, the structure -built c.1857-1860 has had alterations, additions and removals over time that have changed the building. The building has been vacant for some time and is in a state of neglect with the notable deterioration of interior elements including ceilings, floors, and walls and it is unclear if the structural integrity of the building is sufficient for relocation. 10.14 The property is currently on the Municipal Heritage Register as a listed property under s. 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Council listed the property in 2017. 10.15 The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) submitted in support of the proposed development indicates the property has cultural heritage value or interest sufficient to meet the criteria for designation and identifies retaining the building in situ as the optimal alternative to conserve the heritage value of the property. 10.16 Retention in situ is not a viable option as changes to the proposed location of “Street 1” are not viable due to the proximity to the Bloor Street and Courtice Road intersection to the east and the existing and to be enhanced flood waterway at Tooley’s Creek to the west. The proposed infrastructure for the development is also proposed in the same location of “Street 1” and is required to service the entire development. 10.17 The HIA also considered relocation of the farmhouse as an alternative to retention in situ. The applicants originally proposed to relocate the farmhouse to the proposed Neighbourhood Park, however staff were not supportive as it could negatively impact potential programming of the park and result in additional operating costs. In addition, relocation of the farmhouse may not be a viable option due lack of availability of lands nearby for its relocation and its current state of disrepair. If Council requires the applicant to explore relocating the farmhouse further, then an independent structural engineering and condition assessment should be undertaken to assess the feasibility and viability of relocation. 10.18 Given these constraints, and the consideration of a structural assessment to determine the feasibility of relocation of the farmhouse building, the HIA identifies demolition and redevelopment as the applicant’s proposed alternative. 10.19 In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, the applicant is required to advise Council in writing of their intent to demolish a listed property on the Municipal Register for consideration by the Heritage Committee and decision by Council. A Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Plan would be required to be prepared prior to the removal or alteration of any of the heritage attributes and in support of a proposal to demolish. A draft preliminary Commemoration Plan has been prepared by the applicant and is appended as Attachment 4. Page 338 Municipality of Clarington Page 15 Report PDS-009-26 10.20 The applicant attended the Clarington Heritage Committee in October 2024 for the Committee to consider the HIA prepared by LHC in support of the Planning Act applications. There were discussions regarding recommendation for designation, however there was no motion from the Committee at the October 2024 meeting. 10.21 Now that the development has progressed and a definitive design is in place the applicant attended the Clarington Heritage Committee again in November 2025. At that meeting the Committee expressed concerns about the proposal to demolish the heritage structure and passed a motion to recommend that Council designate the heritage structure and that it remains in situ on the property. As noted in subsection 7.9, the Ontario Heritage Act does not allow for a property to be designated if it is currently subject to a Planning Act application. 10.22 Given the above, Staff recommend that the applicant work with Staff and the Clarington Heritage Committee to finalize the draft Commemoration Plan in consultation with the Clarington Heritage Committee and to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure. The applicant will also be required to submit to Council their intention to demolish the listed heritage resource, as the OHA requires a decision by Council to demolish a listed heritage structure. Traffic and Active Transportation Measures 10.23 A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was submitted as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision application. The TIS concluded that the development application can be supported from a traffic operations perspective. The current and future proposed road network can accommodate the increase in traffic volumes attributed to the proposed development. 10.24 Pedestrian facilities exist on some of the major roadways within the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan area, including sidewalks along the west side of Courtice Road north of Stagemaster Crescent and along the east side starting approximately 100 metres south of Highway 2; and there are sidewalks on both sides of Highway 2 west of Courtice Road. However, the Secondary Plan area is predominantly undeveloped lands that will be developed in future years. As such, a majority of the area does not yet have pedestrian or cycling facilities, but such facilities will be considered and implemented as this Secondary Plan Area develops. Proposed 25 Storey Tower 10.25 As depicted under the proposed concept plan (Figure 2), the only building with height greater than 12 storeys is a point tower located directly at the intersection of Bloor Street and Courtice Road. The tower is intended to have a slim profile with a floor plate less than 750 square metres, sitting above a 3-storey podium. Page 339 Municipality of Clarington Page 16 Report PDS-009-26 10.26 The location of the tower ensures that it is located furthest away from public parks or other uses that are sunlight sensitive. Contextually, beyond the High Density/Mixed Use areas that surround the proposed 25 storey tower, the lands are located on the east side of Courtice Road are identically designated, providing complementary building permissions. 10.27 An Environmental Protection Area is located to the south, which is also not impacted by shadows from the proposed tower. Through the site plan application process, architectural design and pedestrian wind impacts will be assessed and minimized. 11. Financial Considerations 11.1 This proposal conforms with the Regional Official Plan, Clarington Official Plan and the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. The capital inf rastructure within the right of way required for this development will be built by the developer and assumed by the Municipality upon acceptance. The Municipality will include the new capital assets in its asset management plans and be responsible for the major repair, rehabilitation, and replacement upon assumption. 11.2 Design and construction funding requests will be made through the appropriate annual budgeting cycles for the neighbourhood park, subject to availability of funds. 11.3 The addition of the 1.9-hectare (4.7 acres) neighbourhood park will increase operating costs by $43,150 annually for grass cutting, maintenance, garbage collection, and upkeep and operation of park amenities. The staffing impact is 0.2 Full Time Employees. Future budget requests will account for any additional funds or staff required to maintain services levels. Public Works will work with the Deputy CAO/Treasurer of Finance to address any financial implications of increased operational costs. 12. Strategic Plan 12.1 The proposed development has been reviewed against the pillars of the Clarington strategic Plan 2024-27. Clarington’s Strategic Plan prioritizes applications for the creation of growing resilient, sustainable, and complete communities and connecting residents through the design of safe, diverse, inclusive and vibrant communities. The proposal aligns with Clarington’s Strategic Plan. 13. Climate Change 13.1 The Applicant has prepared an Energy Conservation and Sustainability Plan in accordance with Clarington’s Priority Green standards for subdivisions. This project considers climate change by considering electrical vehicle charging stations for each proposed apartment block, improving air quality during construction by implementing dust mitigation measures, reducing energy and water consumption and reducing the urban heat island effect through landscaping measures. Page 340 Municipality of Clarington Page 17 Report PDS-009-26 14. Conclusion 14.1 It is respectfully recommended that the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by KLM on behalf of 2056421 Ontario Inc., (Redwood Properties) consisting of 1356 residential dwelling units be approved, with a (H) Holding provision. The (H) Holding provision will be removed once the applicant enters into a Subdivision Agreement and Site Plan Agreement and all the conditions are satisfied. Staff Contact: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner, (905)623-3379 ext. 2432 or sgattie@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Zoning By-law Amendment Submitted by Applicant Attachment 2 – Draft Plan of Subdivision Submitted by Applicant Attachment 3 – Department and Agency Comments Attachment 4 – Draft Heritage Commemoration Plan Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 341 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-009-26 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2025 -______ Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2024-0016; Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. The following definitions are added: Ground Floor Façade means the portion of the façade between finished grade and the level that is 3 metres above finished grade. 2. Section 16A ‘Special Exceptions – Residential Mixed Use (MU) Zone’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exceptions 16A.7.6 and 16A.7.4 as follows: 16.A.7.6 Residential Mixed-Use Exception “MU2-6(S:3/6)” Notwithstanding the respective provisions of Section 16A, those lands zoned as MU2 - 6(S:3/6), on the Schedules to this By-law shall, in addition to all other uses and regulations of the MU2 zone, be subject to the following requirements: a. Notwithstanding regulations included in section 16A.4, the following regulations shall apply for all other permitted uses: i) Building Massing a. Minimum Height of First Storey: 3.0 m b. Minimum length of the street façade along Courtice Road: 70 percent c. All buildings taller than 4 storeys shall have floors above the fourth storey setback a minimum of 1.5 m from the main wall of the base building along the front and/or exterior lot lines; i) Building Elements a. Minimum amount of transparent glazing within the business establishment street façade: 50 percent b. Minimum amount of transparent glazing within the ground floor façade facing a public park or public amenity area: 30 percent Page 342 c. Retail uses on lots with frontage along Courtice Road shall have their primary entrances along these frontages; d. The principal residential entrance shall be located on a street façade; ii) Amenity Area a. Minimum indoor amenity area i. Greater than 25 units: 2.0 m2 per unit b. Minimum outdoor amenity area i. Greater than 25 units: 2.0 m2 per unit iii) Building Location a. Minimum front yard setback: 3.0 m b. Maximum front yard setback: 5.0 m a. Minimum exterior side yard: 3.0 m b. Maximum exterior side yard: 5.0 m c. Minimum interior side yard: 2.0 m d. Minimum interior side yard abutting an urban residential zone: 10.0 m e. Minimum rear yard: 7.5 m f. Minimum rear yard abutting a public lane: 1.5 m g. Minimum rear yard abutting an urban residential zone: 10.0 m iv) Parking Area a. Notwithstanding 3.16(i), parking spaces for multi-unit, mixed-use and non-residential buildings shall not be located within a front yard or an exterior side yard; v) Height a. The minimum height of an apartment building within the MU2 - 6(S:3/6) Zone shall be 3 storeys. b. The maximum height of an apartment building within the MU2 - 6(S:3/6) Zone shall be 6 storeys. 16A.7.4 Urban Centre Mixed Use Exception “MU3-4(S:7/25)” Notwithstanding the respective provisions of Section 16A, those lands zoned as MU3-4(S:7/25) on the Schedules to this By-law shall, in addition to all other uses and regulations of the MU3 zone, be subject to the following requirements: a. Notwithstanding section 16A.4, the following shall apply: i) Prohibited Uses a. Stacked Townhouse dwellings are not permitted; b. Notwithstanding section 16A.4, the following regulations shall apply: Page 343 i) Building Massing a. Minimum Height of First Storey: 4.5 m b. Minimum length of the street façade along Bloor Street and Courtice Road: 70 percent c. Minimum Length of the street façade for Corner Lots along Bloor Street/Courtice Road: 70 percent d. All buildings shall have floors above the fourth storey setback a minimum of 1.5 m from the main wall of the base building along the front and/or exterior lot lines; ii) Building Elements a. Minimum amount of transparent glazing within the business establishment street façade: 50 percent b. Minimum amount of transparent glazing within the ground floor façade facing a public park or public amenity area: 30 percent c. Retail uses on lots with frontage along Bloor Street and Courtice Road shall have their primary entrances along these frontages. d. The principal residential entrance shall be located on a street façade; iii) Amenity Area a. Minimum indoor amenity area i. Greater than 25 units: 2.0 m2 per unit b. Minimum outdoor amenity area i. Greater than 25 units: 4.0 m2 per unit iv) Building Location a. Minimum front yard setback: 3.0 m b. Maximum front yard setback: 5.0 m c. Minimum exterior side yard: 3.0 m d. Maximum exterior side yard: 5.0 m e. Minimum interior side yard: 2.0 m f. Minimum interior side yard abutting a residential zone: 10.0 m g. Minimum rear yard: 7.5 m h. Minimum rear yard abutting a public lane: 1.5 m i. Minimum rear yard abutting a residential zone: 10.0 m v) Parking Area a. Notwithstanding 3.16(i), parking for apartment, mixed -use and nonresidential buildings shall not be located within a front yard or an exterior side yard; vi) Landscaping Page 344 a. A minimum of 15 percent of the site shall be provided as Landscaped Open Space; and b. 50 percent of Landscaped Open Space area must be provided as Soft Landscaping. vii) Height a. The minimum height of an apartment building within the MU3 - 4(S:7/25) Zone shall be 7 storeys. b. The maximum height of an apartment building within the MU3- 4(S:7/25) Zone shall be 25 storeys. 3. Schedule ‘4’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone from: “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” “Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1)" “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Holding - Residential Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU2- 6(S:3/6) Zone” “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Holding - Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3- 4(S:7/25) Zone“ as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto. 4. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this _____ day of ____________, 2025 __________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor __________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 345 Page 346 - - ]<<^\ _=>y`ab[t=>cdefghijklmnx))))ċĔ - - - - - -- - }Ĕ~vÓĔ ! -- ČRSSRĔĎĔčĔ - -*! - -)$#'%- - ,- |wēuĔ *! - - +- ($"&%- ? TĔ TĔ ? !&Ĕ Ĕ ¾à & U ĔĔĔĔĔĔUĔ Àô Ĕ Ĕ ćĔ Ñé! V ĔĔĔĔĔĔĔVĔ Ĕ A Ĕ ĈĔ Åæ! 222o 4 & ! Ĕ Ĕ ³PM Ĕ ìC Ĕ EM0 333p AB Ĕ 0 Ĕ (Ĕ ²PùĔ íC Ĕ EL0 Ċ****Ĕ Ĕ 40&Ĕ Ĕ !!Ĕ âĔ óĔ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! + Ĕ "Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ #Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ #Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ ·Ĕ ÞĔ %Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ "Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Á Ĕ "Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ #Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ /Ĕ Ĕ ĄN9Ĕ ăÙ6Ĕ + ĔüĔ %Ĕ½7 ÕĆqá Ð Ĕ #Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ òÏ¢Ĕ,Ĕ õĔ G1Ĕ Ê¥Ĕ ß®;Ĕ ÃĔ ê ÒĔ Ĕ "Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ ! ! Ĕ ©Ĕ ðÇĔ ûLĔ 'Ĕ D ±ºĔ %Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ (Ĕ Ĕ JµĔ Ĕ "Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ 1Ĕ ,Ĕ 'Ĕ ÖýĔ (Ĕ 'Ĕ ¸ Ĕ Ĕ Ĕ ëNÔQĔ,Ĕ ¯QĔ"Ĕ  £Ĕ Ĕ É6Ĕ ÚD;Ĕ ÎĔ/ # / & ! ! Ĕ + ĉĔ 6Ĕ Ĕ /¡FĔ Ĕ (Ĕ / Ĕ ,Ĕ &Ĕ 'Ĕ Ĕ ØĔ %Ĕ JĔ (Ĕ Ĕ /¤Ĕ %Ĕ ÜHĔ ÆĔ +îĔ #FĔ ! ! !! Ĕ 'Ĕ »Ĕ 9 Ĕ Ĕ GĔ åHĔ 9çĔ úĔ # 1Ĕ Ĕ ÝĔ đzĐ{ ! ! ! ! āĔãĔèĔ Û°Ĕ ÿĔ ¦Ĕ ÷ÍĔ ĒĔ @ Ë@Ĕ XĔ ĔYĔ 8$-5O8Ĕ -$K:5ĂĔ 7 Ĕ I5ÈIĔ -$K:ďWĔ8Ìą$-Ĕ O:$Ĕ 74Ĕ ¨øĔ .Ĕ Ĕ .Ĕ Ĕ .Ĕ BĔ *# / ! / $& # + '#/ %/ ! / $" .Ĕ Ĕ r Ĕ # / , Ĕ ö¼Ĕ ./ ,/ ( )/ s ZĔ ïĔ ñ §´ĔĀĔ ¶Ĕ ¿Ĕ ¬ª¹Ĕ ÄäĔ « ×þĔ !TTACHMENT TOº2EPORT 3 Page 347 Attachment 3 to Report PDS-009-26 Attachment 3 – Agency and Department Comments The following agencies and internal departments were circulated for comments on the applications. Comments were due September 5, 2025. Below is a chart showing the list of circulated parties and whether or not we have received comments to date. Department ☒proposal, subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. Department ☒proposal, subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. Conservation Authority (CLOCA) ☒proposal, subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. School Board ☒proposal subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. Engineering Division ☒ proposal subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. Services ☒ Division ☒ Page 348 Clarington Community Planning – Heritage ☒ proposal subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. ☒ proposal subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. ☒ ☒ proposal subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. Page 349 1738 BLOOR STREET EAST Heritage Commemoration Plan January 5, 2026 Attachment 4 to Report PDS-009-26 Page 350 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY ERA Architects Inc. 625 Church Street, Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 2JAnuARy 5, 2026 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN Project #17-120-03 ERA Contributors: PE / SI / EC / RF / MS Richard Aubry Preston Homes/Redwood Properties 330 New Huntington Road, Suite 201 Vaughan, Ontario L4H 4C9 raubry@redwoodproperties.ca Page 351 3JAnuARy 5, 2026 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN COnTEnTS EXECuTIVE SuMMARy 4 1 InTRODuCTIOn 5 1.1 Report Scope 1.2 Site Description and Context 1.3 Previous Studies and Reports 1.4 Submissions and Application History 1.5 Proposed Development 2 CuLTuRAL HERITAGE VALuE 10 3 KEy THEMES 11 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Pre-Settlement Landscape 3.3 Darlington’s Farmstead Landscape 3.4 A Crossroads Community 3.5 “A Cheap Farm House”: Ontario’s Rural Architectural Vernacular 4 InTERPRETATIOn STRATEGy 19 4.1 Overview 4.2 Landscape Design Elements 4.3 Salvage and Reuse of Materials 4.4 Public Art 4.5 Interpretive Signage 5 COnCLuSIOn AnD nEXT STEPS 24 APPEnDIX A: LIST OF SOuRCES 25 Page 352 4 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 executive summary This Heritage Commemoration Plan (“Plan”) has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) on behalf of 2056421 Ontario Inc. (“the owner”) for the property at 1738 Bloor Street, Clarington (the “Site”). The Site con- tains a one-and-a-half-storey brick masonry farmhouse fronting onto Bloor Street East, several wooden barns and associated outbuildings, and approximately 50 acres of farm fields, open space, and clusters of vegeta- tion throughout. In accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”), prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (“LHC”) and dated May 2023, the pur- pose of this report is to provide a high-level thematic commemorative program for communicating the Site’s history and cultural heritage value. The proposed themes and key messages to be inter- preted are: • Darlington’s Farmstead Landscape: The establishment of a farmstead on the Site during the early 19th century and its gradual expansion into the 20th century reflects the emergence of Darlington Township as a pro- ductive landscape. • A Crossroads Community: The Site’s his- torical evolution is tied to the community of Ebenezer, one of many crossroads settlements which emerged as a rural center for commerce, education, and religion during the mid-19th century. • “A Cheap Farm House”: Ontario’s Rural Architectural Vernacular: The design of the farmhouse on the Site, with Gothic Revival influences, reflects the vernacular architecture of rural Ontario in the second half of the 19th century, at a time when pattern books pro- vided farmers and rural residents with designs for houses that were comfortable, attractive, and affordable. The proposed interpretation program includes: • Strategic planting and landscape design elements that interpret the Site’s agricultural past and elements of the historic farmstead. • Salvage and reuse of extant building materi- als (e.g. brick, wood, stone) in landscape fea- tures such as feature walls, public art pieces, or open space installations. • Public art installation interpreting the ele - ments of the historic farmstead (for example, the reimagining of the barns or silos in an abstract form). • Interpretive signage detailing the history and evolution of the Site, its association with the Courtice family and early history of Darlington Township, the Courtice united Church, and the settlement of Ebenezer. Following the approval of this Plan, the detailed design of specific commemorative strategies will be developed. Page 353 5 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 1 introduction 1.1 Report Scope ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) has been retained by 2056421 Ontario Inc. (“the owner”) to prepare a Heritage Commemoration Plan (“Plan”) for the property at 1738 Bloor Street, Clarington (the “Site”). We under- stand that the Site is listed on the municipal Heritage Register; it is not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”). The purpose of this report is to provide a high-level commemorative program based on a the- matic analysis of the Site. This Plan is informed by ERA’s understanding of the Site from the Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”), prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (“LHC”) and dated May 2023, as well as recent photographs. All recommendations are subject to final confirmation through a site visit. 1.2 Site Description and Context The Site is located at 1738 Bloor Street in the Municipality of Clarington, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Bloor Street East and Courtice Road. The Site is bounded by Bloor Street East to the south, Meadowglade Road to the north, Courtice Road to the east, and farm fields to the west. The Site contains a one-and-a-half-storey brick masonry farmhouse fronting onto Bloor Street East, several wooden barns and associated outbuildings, and approximately 50 acres of farm fields, open space, and clusters of vegetation throughout. Aerial image showing the Site, dashed in pink (Google Earth, 2025; annotated by ERA). Co u r t i c e R o a d Aerial image showing the Site, shaded blue, and surrounding context (Google Earth, 2025; annotated by ERA). Bloor Street East Co u r t i c e R o a d Highway 2 Tr u l l s R o a d Bloor Street East Page 354 6 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 1.3 Previous Studies and Reports In 2017, ERA prepared a technical memorandum that included a draft Statement of Significance (“SoS”) for the Site, recognizing its cultural heritage value. ERA also explored the potential impact of design approaches ranging from retention to demolition. In May 2023, LHC prepared an HIA to accompany the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) applications for the Site. The HIA found that the Site met three criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (“O.Reg 9/06”) Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest under the OHA. LHC concluded that the proposed demolition of the buildings on the Site would have an adverse impact on the cultural heritage value of the Site. LHC also recog- nized that in-situ retention might not be viable due to the proximity of the farmhouse to the Bloor Street East and Courtice Road intersection to the east, as well as its deteriorated state. To mitigate the impact of removing the buildings on the Site, LHC recommended that a Documentation, Salvage, and Commemoration Plan be prepared. 1.4 Submissions and Application History In May 2023, Redwood Properties submitted ZBA and DPS applications to facilitate redevelopment of the Site. ERA was not involved in the ZBA/DPS submission, but we understand that the applications were deemed com- plete in September 2024. In October 2024, the Clarington Heritage Committee (“CHC”) reviewed the applications and the accompa- nying HIA, recommending that the Site be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. This recommenda- tion was presented to Council on november 18, 2024. The OHA provides that municipal Councils may not issue a notice of Intention to Designate (“nOID”) for listed properties after 90 days have elapsed following a prescribed event, which includes the municipality giving notice of the ZBA and DPS applications pursu- ant to the Planning Act. Assuming that the municipality gave notice of the applications, Council may not issue a nOID until the applications are disposed. notwithstanding the inability to proceed with designa- tion of the Site under the OHA, ERA has prepared this report to respond to outstanding heritage matters. Page 355 7 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 Looking north towards the principal (south) elevation of the farmhouse from the Site’s southern boundary at Bloor Street East (Google, 2025). Principal (south) and partial side (west) elevation of the farmhouse on the Site (Redwood Properties, 2025). Side (west) elevation of the fieldstone rear wing of the farmhouse (ERA, 2017). Smaller farm outbuilding on the Site (ERA, 2017).Two large barns with cattle pen (ERA, 2017). Page 356 8 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 1.5 Proposed Development The Site is subject to ZBA and DPS applications. The applications propose to establish nine new develop- ment blocks with pedestrian and vehicular circulation routes to and through the Site. Three of the blocks are proposed to be developed with medium- to high-den- sity residential uses in the form of purpose-built rental apartments. Higher density uses are proposed for the southwest- ern portion of the Site, with multiple tower-podium buildings proposed for the two southernmost residen- tial blocks. Towers range from 7 to 25 storeys, with a 25-storey tower proposed at the southeast corner of the Site. The two northernmost residential blocks include four 4-storey apartment buildings centered around landscaped courtyards, representing a transition down in scale from the Site’s southern boundary. The western portion of the Site is not proposed for development. Large portions of this area will be con- veyed to the municipality as environmental protection lands and public park land. The existing buildings on the Site are proposed to be removed to facilitate new development. Page 357 9 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 CO U R T I C E R O A D MEADOWGLADE ROAD PHASE 1BLOCK 1 PHASE 1 BLOCK 2 BUILDING A BUILDING C BU I L D I N G B 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST 4 ST HERITAGE BUILDING FUTURE PHASE BLOCK 3BUILDING A4 ST 12 ST 10 ST 12 ST FUTURE PHASE BLOCK 3BUILDING B4 ST 12 ST 16 ST 12 ST FUTURE PHASE BLOCK 4 4 ST 12 ST 8 ST 8 ST 25 ST CO U R T I C E R O A D NE W N - S S T R E E T BLOOR STREET NE W N - S S T R E E T NEW E-W STREET 10 ST 8 ST 8 ST 10 ST 71° 56' 20" 69.19 m N E 14° 40' 10" 541.14 m N W 18° 00' 00" 30.48 m N W 72° 10' 30" 334.16 m N E 14° 40' 10" 541.14 m N W 14° 40' 10" 541.14 m N W 28° 20' 20" 25.34 m N E 66° 42' 40" 49.45 m N E 20000 3000 9000 49000 28000 20000 3000 9000 39004 21000 21000 FUTURE PHASE BLOCK 5NEIGHBORHOOD PARKAREA=19144 M2 ±1.914 HA(±4.73 AC.) BLOCK 6SWMAREA=19641 M2 ±1.964 HA(±4.85 AC.) BLOCK 7OPEN SPACEAREA=92160 M2 ±9.216 HA(±22.773 AC.) BL O C K 8 RO A D W I D E N I N G BLOCK 9ROAD WIDENING71° 21' 00" 179.96 m N E 18° 08' 50" 163.23 m N W 71° 43' 30" 125.03 m N E 17 ° 4 4 ' 2 0 " 14 0 . 5 4 m N W 17 ° 5 3 ' 2 0 " 98 . 6 3 m N W 18° 10' 10" 100.58 m N W 17 ° 4 4 ' 4 0 " 91 . 4 1 m N W 72° 10' 30" 334.16 m N E NEW DRIVEWAY NEW DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 11 ST10 ST9 ST 9 ST 7 ST 7 ST FUTURE PHASE FUTURE PHASE BLOCK 3 BLOCK 4 FU T U R E P H A S E B L O C K 3 FU T U R E P H A S E B L O C K 3 FUTURE PHASE BLOCK 4 FU T U R E P H A S E B L O C K 4 FU T U R E P H A S E B L O C K 4 PHASE 1 PHASE 1 PHASE 1 PH A S E 1 CO U R T I C E R O A D NE W N - S S T R E E T BLOCK 3 DRIVEWAY &VISITOR PARKING GARBAGE PICK UP AREA 20000 VISITOR PARKING & DROP OFF PROPERTY LINE BLOCK LINE SETBACK LINE LEGEND SIGHTLINE TRIANGLE NORTH PROJ NO SCALE PLOT DATE All drawings, specifications, related documents and design are the copyright property of the architect and must be returned upon request. Reproduction of the drawings, specifications, related documents and design in whole or in part is strictly forbidden without the architect's written permission. This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of BNKC Architects Inc., and shall be used only for the project named on this drawing and solely for reference purposes only. The contractor is responsible for the coordination and verification of all dimensions contained herein and all measurements and conditions on site as they pertain to these documents. The contractor shall report any discrepancies to the consultant in writing prior to the commencement of any affected work. DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING This drawing shall not be used for construction purposes unless countersigned BNKC Architects Inc. TVV VM FORMAT 410 - 672 Dupont St., Toronto, ON, Canada, M6G 1Z6T. 416.531.7717www.bnkc.ca ARCH E SEAL for Redwood Properties NO ISSUED FOR DATE As indicated24041 CONTEXT PLAN A002 Author Checker 13/08/2025 1738 Bloor Street 1738 Bloor Street Courtice 1 : 750 1OVERALL PLAN 1 Issued for SPA Submission 2025/08/07 Farmhouse Proposed site plan overlaid on top of aerial imagery of the Site, dashed in pink (Google Earth, 2025 and BNKC Architects Inc., 2025; annotated by ERA). Barn Existing buildings Farm Outbuilding Page 358 10 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 2 cultural Heritage value The Site was listed on the Town of Clarington’s Heritage Register in 2017. The same year, ERA prepared a techni- cal memorandum that included a draft SoS for the Site, recognizing its cultural heritage value. The 2023 HIA prepared by LHC found that the Site met three criteria set out in O.Reg 9/06 under the OHA. In October 2024, the CHC reviewed the applications and accompanying HIA, recommending that the Site be des- ignated under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. This recommendation was presented to Council on november 18, 2024 following the ZBA and DPS applica- tions being deemed complete. Council did not subse- quently issue a nOID. The statutory 90-day period for designation has since lapsed. Page 359 11 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 3.1 Introduction The key themes in this section have been distilled from the preliminary research and evaluation compiled by ERA in 2017 and the subsequent thorough documen- tation by LHC for the 2023 HIA. In accordance with the conclusions of the 2023 HIA, the themes are intended to guide a commemorative design approach and interpre- tation materials for the Site. 3.2 Pre-Settlement Landscape Humans first settled in Southern Ontario as early as 11,000 years ago, following the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet, which covered much of the Great Lakes area. Once the ice sheet began to melt and retreat, basins in the Great Lakes region, formed by previous glaciers and further gouged out by the Laurentide ice sheet, filled with meltwater. During this time, Lake Iroquois rose approximately 30 to 40 meters higher than the pres- ent-day Lake Ontario. The present-day Site was located underwater at this time. The Site is located in the Lake Simcoe-Rideau ecore- gion, which is part of the Mixed Plains ecozone. Within this ecoregion, the Site belongs to the Oshawa-Cobourg ecodistrict, which features a gently rolling landscape and includes the relict shorelines of the glacial Lake Iroquois. A branch of Tooley Creek, one of the creeks in the ecodistrict, traverses a portion of the Site. Groundwater discharge from the bluffs left from Lake Iroquois feed the headwaters of Tooley Creek. nearly three-quarters of the natural cover in the Cobourg-Oshawa ecodistrict has been converted into pasture, cropland, or other developed land. This includes the majority of the Site, which is now used for agriculture but was forested prior to European settle- ment in the 19th century. The vegetation in this ecodistrict is diverse, differing based on elements including soil moisture. However, deciduous trees dominate. Relatively dry areas like the Site include tree species like sugar maple, American beech, and northern red oak. 3 Key tHemes 1904 map comparing the shorelines of Lake Iroquois and Lake Ontario, with the approximate location of the Site indicated with a blue arrow (University of Toronto; annotated by ERA). Cropland adjacent to marshland near Whitby in the Oshawa-Cobourg ecodistrict (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry). Page 360 12 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 3.3 Darlington’s Farmstead Landscape The establishment of a farmstead on the Site during the early 19th century and its gradual expansion into the 20th century reflects the emergence of Darlington Township as a productive agricultural landscape. Like many areas in Ontario, this landscape was character- ized by a patchwork of farmsteads containing fields, windrows, woodlots, orchards, farmhouses, barns and farm buildings, and silos. This pattern of land use has endured on the Site, which remains in active agricul- tural use today, maintaining a direct continuity with its historic function. In 1827, Thomas Hamilton patented 200 acres in Lot 29 in the Second Concession of Darlington Township, although it is unlikely that he resided on the land, sell- ing to Zacheus Burnham the following year. Burnham also likely did not reside on the land. Over the course of the 19th century, these 200-acre lots were divided into smaller or irregular sections. By the mid-19th century, this process had created a landscape of modestly sized family farms that formed a networked rural community. As illustrated on Tremaine’s Map of Durham County, this was also the case for Lot 29. At this point, Christopher Courtice Sr. was operating the suc- cessful Devon cattle importing and breeding operation known as Courtice & Son on the Site. 1861 Tremaine Map of Durham County showing the Site shaded in blue (University of Toronto; annotated by ERA, 2025). 1878 Durham County Atlas showing the Site shaded in blue (McGill University; annotated by ERA, 2025). Undated photo (potentially taken circa 1911) of the farmhouse on the Site (‘Courtice Vintage History’ Facebook group, n.d.). The Courtice farm is advertised for rent following the death of Christo- pher Courtice Sr. (Sally Webber FamilySearch.com profile). Page 361 13 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 Front Lawn & Garden Agricultural Field Pond & Watercourse Hedgerow Woodlot Roadside Tree Planting Roadside Vegetation Barn Activity Zone Aerial image showing the Site, dashed in white, with farmstead features identified (Google Earth, 2025; annotated by ERA). Co u r t i c e R o a d Driveway Silos Barn and Farm Building Farmhouse Bloor Street Agricultural Fencing Farmstead Elements Page 362 14 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 Agricultural Field - Crops Woodlot Agricultural Field - Grazing; Hedgerow in the background Hedgerow Historical Front Lawn and Gardens Front Lawn Bloor Street Roadside Vegetation and Tree Planting Bloor Street Roadside Vegetation Page 363 15 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 Agricultural Fencing - Wooden Post and Wire Mesh Agricultural Fencing - Split Rail Barn Activity Zone Silos Page 364 16 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 3.4 A Crossroads Community The community of Ebenezer, where early pioneers Christopher and Thomas Courtice settled, reflects a broader pattern found across rural Ontario in the 19th century, where small crossroads settlements emerged as focal points for commerce, education and religion. Shortly after arriving in upper Canada in 1833, Christopher Courtice settled at the southern end of Lot 29, Concession 2. His brother Thomas had arrived in 1831, settling near the intersection of Bloor Street East and Courtice Road. In 1838, Christopher, a member of the Bible Christian Church, commissioned the construction of a small chapel on his property. In 1844, a Sunday school was organized at the newly-named Ebenezer Church, with Thomas and Christopher among its founding members. A second frame church was built in 1848 at the south- east corner of the intersection, followed by the con- struction of the current brick structure in 1866. The church remained the center of the Ebenezer com- munity until its growth led to its merging with Shorts Corners at the intersection of Courtice Road and Highway 2. By the 1880s, this crossroads community included a post office, blacksmith, and general store. James Courtice, Christopher and Thomas’ brother, operated a carpenter shop near the intersection after relocating from Ebenezer in 1874. The buildings at Shorts Corners were demolished in 1988 during the widening of Highway 2. Ebenezer Church (known presently as the Ebenezer united Church) and the Site are the last physical remnants of the original community of Ebenezer. Many early set- tlers are interred in the church cemetery, including Christopher Courtice Sr. and Grace Mason. Ebenezer reflects the life cycle of many Ontario cross- roads communities. Often established by a small number of families, these functioned as early centers of rural life, later declining as settlement patterns and transportation routes evolved. The Site, church, and cemetery remain evidence of this community. Undated photograph of Christo- pher Courtice Sr. (John Jeffrey ancestry.com profile). Undated photo of Grace Cour- tice (née Mason), Christopher’s wife (John Jeffrey ancestry.com profile). 1878 Durham County Atlas showing the Site shaded in blue, with the Ebenezer Church (presently the Ebenezer United Church) shown in pink, and the community at Shorts Corners dashed in white (McGill University; annotated by ERA, 2025). Page 365 17 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 Shorts Corners in 1908, with Arthur Franklin Rundle’s shop (since demolished) at the left side of the photo (‘Courtice Vintage History’ Facebook group). Undated photo of the Ebenezer Church at the southeast corner of Bloor Street East and Courtice Road (‘Courtice Vintage History’ Facebook group). Page 366 18 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 3.5 “A Cheap Farm House”: Ontario’s Rural Architectural Vernacular The design of the farmhouse on the Site, with Gothic Revival influences, reflects the vernacular architecture of rural Ontario in the second half of the 19th century, at a time when pattern books provided farmers and rural residents with designs for houses that were comfort- able, attractive, and affordable. In november 1864, a design for a “Cheap Farm House” appeared in the bi-weekly agricultural periodical The Canada Farmer. Created by Toronto architect James Avon Smith, the design was intentionally simple in form and intended for execution by local builders rather than trained architects. Drawing on vernacular traditions, Smith’s model was meant to be adaptable. Instructions accompanying the design encouraged alterations to suit local needs, materials, and preferences. The “Cheap Farm House” featured a simple rectangu- lar plan with an interior organized around a central hall. It could be constructed from either brick or wood, depending on what was locally available and financially feasible, and allowed for further customization through the addition of verandahs, shutters, fencing, decorative elements, and an optional rear kitchen wing. The design drew inspiration from the Gothic Revival, a style well-suited to modest rural houses. The design itself reflected picturesque ideals, which elevated the status of rural buildings and landscapes. While exam- ples of similar houses pre-dated the publication of Smith’s design, The Canada Farmer played a significant role in popularizing this flexible farmhouse type, shap- ing rural domestic architecture in Canada. While its date of construction is not known, the form and detail reflects James Avon Smith’s 1864 design. Expressed through the building’s simple rectangular plan, steeply-pitched front gable with segmental- ly-arched central window, and its use of decorative bargeboarding, the farmhouse reflects the vernacular form popularized in the mid-19th century through The Canada Farmer. Illustration of “A Cheap Farm House” in the November 1864 issue of The Canada Farmer. Plan of “A Cheap Farmhouse” in the November 1864 issue of The Canada Farmer. Circa 1985 photograph of the principal (south) and side (east) ele- vations of the extant farmhouse, showing its close resemblance to James Avon Smith’s design (Municipality of Clarington, courtesy of LHC). Page 367 19 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 4 interpretation strategy 4.1 Overview The purpose of this Heritage Commemoration Plan is to communicate and interpret the tangible and intangible cultural heritage value of the Site based on the thematic framework outlined in Section 3. The proposed commemorative program is comprised of the following strategies: • Strategic planting and landscape design elements that interpret the Site’s agricultural past and elements of the historic farmstead. • Salvage and reuse of extant building mate - rials (e.g. brick, wood, stone) in landscape features such as play structures, feature walls, public art pieces, or open space installations. • Public art installation interpreting the ele- ments of the historic farmstead (for example, the reimagining of the barns or silos in an abstract form). • Interpretive signage detailing the history and evolution of the Site, its association with the Courtice family and early history of Darlington Township, the Courtice united Church, and the settlement of Ebenezer. Page 368 20 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 4.2 Landscape Design Elements This strategy consists of a series of landscape design elements that interpret the themes of the pre-farm- stead landscape and Darlington’s agricultural heritage through the reimagining and interpretation of key com- ponents of both types of historic landscape. Potential interventions include: • Enhanced native wildflower plantings and large canopy trees along Bloor Street East and Courtice Road that interpret the typical farm- stead roadside hedgerows, wildflower and tree plantings. • Tree allées consisting of wide canopy trees framing the proposed north-south and east- west streets that interpret the large trees that have historically framed the farmstead drive- way and farmhouse. • Formal gardens and lawns framing new front entrances and interior courtyard amenity spaces. • Plantings and open lawn areas for the new residential and public recreational blocks that reference the agricultural fields and meadow planting palette, including native wild grasses that provide all season interest. • Landscape material treatments for the res- idential blocks and the public recreational spaces that reference the material palette of the farmstead, including red and buff brick, locally sourced fieldstone, and timber. • Where feasible, preservation of large mature trees to be integrated into the new public realm. Linear planting beds in the courtyard of a small housing estate in Poznań, Poland, that evoke rows of crops in a farm field (Pawel Gro- belny). An apple orchard set amongst a wildflower meadow at Angel Field in Liverpool (BCA Landscape). In Cachan, France , PRAXYS designed a welcoming meadow land- scape in a residential courtyard (Landezine, courtesy of Karolina Samborska). Page 369 21 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 Bus shelter made using waste materials by Brussels-based architec- ture duo Brasebin-Terrisse in Tallinn, Estonia (Dezeen, courtesy of Gregor Jürna). Decorative low stone wall that can be mad of salvaged fieldstone, located at Carlshage and Siegbahnsparke, designed by Karavan landskapsarkitekter (Landezine, courtesy of Göran Ekeberg). Shade structure at Featherstone Parkette in Oakville incorporates salvaged fieldstone from the former Featherstone Barn (Town of Oakville). 4.3 Salvage and Reuse of Materials This strategy consists of strategic salvage and reuse of existing materials, including field stone, barn timber planks and beams, and farmhouse bricks, interpreting the themes of Darlington’s Farmstead Landscape and Ontario’s Rural Architectural Vernacular. Potential inter- ventions include: • Park structures and site furnishings incor- porating salvaged materials from the build- ings on the Site, including shade structures, benches, and sculptural pieces. • Low decorative walls or entry feature signage incorporating salvaged timber and fieldstone. • Interior decorative elements, such as a fea- ture wall incorporating salvaged fieldstone or timber in an apartment building lobby. Foundation Square, a 2013 waterfront landmark and community space in Port Union built using salvaged materials (ERA). ‘From the Forest of the Sea’ features a series of installations that draws upon centuries of industry on and around Lydney Harbour (Denman + Gould). Page 370 22 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 The Pasture at the Toronto-Dominion Centre, created by Canadian sculptor Joe Fafard (Sik Photography). Memory’s Gate in Laskay connects tangible and intangible heritage of the village with the Humber River Valley landscape (ERA). 4.4 Public Art This installation consists of a permanent public artwork at one of the gateways to the Site that interprets the themes of Darlington’s Farmstead Landscape and A Crossroads Community. Drawing inspiration from archi- val materials and the Site’s thematic history, the instal- lation may take the form of a sculpture, monument, or an integrated artwork. upon approval of this Commemoration Plan, the land- scape architect will be responsible for coordinating the design and implementation of this installation. Jill Anholt’s Peeled Pavement interprets the industrial past of the West Don Lands through an installation which reveals a series of found artifacts cast in bronze and illuminated from below (Jill Anholt Studio). Shade structure at Siegbahnsparke, designed by Karavan landskap- sarkitekter, that references a barn (Landezine, courtesy of Göran Ekeberg). Page 371 23 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 4.5 Interpretive Signage This installation consists of one or more freestanding plaques interpreting the themes identified in Section 3. The plaque text may address the pre-farmstead context of the Site, the establishment of a farmstead in the 19th century, its association with the Courtice family and the Ebenezer Church, the growth and evolution of the communities of Ebenezer and Shorts Corners, and the architectural significance of the farmhouse. The plaque design may incorporate historical maps, archival photo- graphs, and other relevant archival materials. Interpretive signage structures exploring Wyong township’s historic development (Three - D Projects). Outdoor interpretive displays at Buckler’s Forest in Crowthorne, Berkshire, designed by Macgregor Smith (Landezine, courtesy of Paul Upward Photography). May’s Homestead Heritage Walk at Flinders Chase National Park in South Australia (Trail Hiking Australia). Interpretive signage tells the story of the ruin of Mackereth Cottage in South Australia (Weekend Notes). Signage could be located near Bloor Street East at the proposed north-south access road to the Site. This location is recommended for its proximity to the loca- tion of the extant farmhouse. Additional signage at the corner of Bloor Street East and Courtice Roads could commemorate the establishment and disappearance of Ebenezer, and the connection between the Site and the church at 1669 Courtice Road. upon approval of this Plan, ERA will be responsible for the preparation of the initial schematic design, plaque text, fabrication drawings, and implementation of this installation. Page 372 24 1738 BLOOR STREET, CLARINGTON | HERITAGE COMMEMORATION PLAN JAnuARy 5, 2026 5 conclusion and next steps A robust interpretation program is proposed to com- memorate the Site’s cultural heritage value, including the reuse and reimagining of salvaged building materi- als. The program incorporates four different strategies: landscape elements, public art, material salvage and reuse, and commemorative displays. Collectively, these will contribute to a unique place-based identity for the new community that is rooted in its rural and agricul- tural past. The interpretation program will be implemented in stages throughout the development process. Documentation and material salvage will occur first, ensuring that elements of the former farmstead are recorded and retained prior to construction. A Documentation and Salvage Plan will define the scope of this work and guide opportunities for reuse. Landscape elements and public art will be incorporated through the broader landscape design, with com- memorative plaques installed near the completion of construction. Page 373 appendix a: list of sources Page 374 sources Crins, William J., Gray, Paul A., Uhlig, Peter W.C., and Wester, Monique C. The Ecosystems of Ontario, Part 1: Ecozones and Ecoregions. SIB TER IMA TR- 01. Peterborough, Ontario: Ministry of Natural Resources (Science & Information Branch), 2009. LHC Heritage Planning and Archaeology. Final Report: Heritage Impact Assessment, 1738 Bloor Street East, Clarington, ON, LHC0345.(LHC Heritage Planning and Archaeology, 2024). Ontario Land Registry Office 40, Book 78. “Rural Architecture.” The Canada Farmer, 1, no. 22 (1864), https://www.canadiana. ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_21/5. Tremaine, George C. Tremaine’s map of the County of Durham, Upper Canada, 1861. Toronto, Ont.: George C. Tremaine, 1861. https://recherche-collection-search. bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?idnumber=3972007&app=FonAndCol&re- source=folderlist&ecopy=e010689776-v6. Page 375 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: CAO-001-26 Authored By: Justin MacLean, Director, Strategic Initiatives Submitted By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: Report Subject: Camp 30 Cafeteria Building Update Recommendations: 1. That Report CAO-001-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That Council direct staff to proceed with one of the following options: a. Partial Retention in situ - passive adaptive reuse or b. Footprint Delineation 3. That all interested parties listed in Report CAO-001-26, be advised of Council’s decision. Page 376 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report CAO-001-26 Report Overview with two recommendations for Council’s consideration. 1. Background Heritage Impact Assessment and Costing 1.1 Staff report PDS-039-25, presented June 16, 2025 was drafted to respond to Council direction that staff explore alternatives to full restoration of the Camp 30 Cafeteria building and provide high-level cost estimates. Stantec was retained to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and costing. 1.2 Alternatives considered in the HIA: Partial Retention in situ with Adaptive Reuse (active or passive) Footprint Delineation Complete Demolition Demolition and New Construction 1.3 Based on the estimated costs and potential financial impact to the municipality, staff recommended that Council proceed with either i. Partial Retention in situ - passive adaptive reuse or ii. Footprint Delineation and that the associated budget be allocated from Miscellaneous Capital Reserve Fund to commence the work. Page 377 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report CAO-001-26 Updated Structural Condition Review 1.4 Following a partial roof collapse of the Cafeteria Building in May 2025 an updated structural condition review was conducted. A Professional Structural Engineer from Barry Bryan and Associates (BBA) visited the Cafeteria building, which included an interior visual inspection. Their report, which serves as Attachment 1 to this report, was presented as part of Report PUB-014-25 at the September 8, 2025 General Government Committee meeting. The purpose of the BBA report was to provide an updated assessment of the structure and offer next-step recommendations based on the condition. 1.5 During this period Clarington’s Chief Building Official issued an Order to Remedy Unsafe on August 26, 2025 (Attachment 2) – with remedial action required being: Immediately take all actions necessary to prevent access to the building and the collapse perimeter. Complete the recommendations contained in BBAs report dated July 28, 2025, or remove the building. Costing Options – October 2025 1.6 At the October 20, 2025 PDC meeting, PUB-017-25 was presented to Council outlining costing options for Partial Retention in situ - passive adaptive reuse and footprint delineation. 1.7 The Jury Lands Foundation (JFL) submitted correspondence and delegated at that meeting, requesting the opportunity to use a third party to undertake a structural assessment, to inform a potentially lower costed approach, regarding the temporary stabilization option. The following motion was passed: That the Jury Lands Foundation be requested to proceed with a professional structural assessment of cost of the stabilization of the Cafeteria Building; and That the assessment will be provided within 30 days of the con tract being awarded after which the matter shall return to Council for further discussion. 2. Manorville Homes Assessment 2.1 Proceeding the direction provided in October 2025, Staff worked with Jury Lands Foundation (JLF) and their team to facilitate access to the Cafeteria Building to undertake the assessment work as requested. JLF worked with Manorville Homes to undertake the assessment, which has now been completed. Page 378 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report CAO-001-26 2.2 JLF has requested responsibility for rehabilitating the cafeteria through their lease, citing the building’s current condition and the limited time remaining on their federal government grant, which the Municipality matches up to $500,000. JLF will speak to this request in more detail during the PDC meeting. 2.3 There are procurement and other legal considerations that would need to be understood should Council wish to explore an approach of this nature. 3. Financial Considerations 3.1 JLF has confirmed that their federal grants funds must be disbursed by September 2026 – two years from the application date. This would entail the $500,000 from the Government of Canada, of which the Municipality of Clarington has committed to match, up to $500,000. This would leave a gap that the JLF would need to close. The JLF will speak to their fundraising plan during their delegation to Council on this report. However, given the Order to Remedy Safe, Staff are concerned about waiting any longer for fundraising to occur. 3.2 As noted in the October 2025 update to Council, restoration of the cafeteria building is not eligible to be funded from development charges, given the building is not planned for an eligible use category. Debt financing is not eligible for demolition work and is not recommended for any temporary stabilization/abatement work given the lifespan of the work being shorter than the debt repayment term. 3.3 Of note, the ongoing costs to maintain the fencing (materials and staff time) as well as the contract for 24 hours per day of security at the site, are estimated at $20,789 + HST per month, tracking to total costing of roughly $249,500 per year. 3.4 Regardless of the option chosen by Council, it remains staff’s recommendation that any funds to be expended against this project come from the Miscellaneous Capital Reserve Fund which is funded from tax support. 4. Strategic Plan 4.1 This matter is related to the identified priority under the Grow Responsibly pillar of the Strategic Plan to ‘determine the future of the historic Camp 30 cafeteria building’. 5. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO, Legislative Services. Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure and the Director of Community Services who concur with the recommendations. Page 379 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report CAO-001-26 6. Conclusion 6.1 It is respectfully recommended that given the outstanding Order to Remedy, and ongoing monthly security costs, Council choose a preferred path forward. These factors heighten the urgency to proceed with an option. Staff Contact: Justin MacLean, Director, Strategic Initiatives, 905-623-3379 x2017 or jmaclean@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – BBA Camp 30 Structural Condition Report_2025.pdf Attachment 2 – Order to remedy Unsafe 2025-019 Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 380 ___________________________________ Transmittal To: Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 25120 Address: 40 Temperance Street Date: August 25, 2025 Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Your No.: Attention: Ms. Jennifer Stycuk Project Name: Camp 30 Cafeteria Building 2020 Lambs Road, Municipality of Clarington For your: “ Approval Via: “ Mail “ Distribution “ Courier Information and use “ By hand “ Review and comment “ To be picked up Action taken: “ Reviewed “ Fax “ Reviewed as modified E-mail “ Revise and resubmit “ Not reviewed Qty.: Drawing Issue Revision Description: No.: No.: No.: 1 Copy - - Structural Condition Review Report cc: Matthew Ficara, Barry Bryan Associates Doug McLaughlin, Barry Bryan Associates Sarah Jaagumagi, Barry Bryan Associates Shivanie Motielal Form M-1 Rev. 1 12-07-02 25120 Trans.wpd Attachment 1 to Report CAO-001-26 Page 381 Structural Condition Review Camp 30 Cafeteria Building 2020 Lambs Road, Municipality of Clarington The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington BBA PROJECT NO. 25120 August 25, 2025 Page 382 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 AUTHORIZATION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 REVIEW METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 1 1.4 STATEMENT OF LIMITATION .......................................................................................................... 1 PART 2 – BUILDING BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 2 2.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 2 PART 3 – OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 ROOF STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 CLERESTORY WALLS ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 GROUND LEVEL STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................ 5 1.4 BASEMENT & FOUNDATION WALLS .............................................................................................. 5 1.5 EXTERIOR BRICK MASONRY WALLS & CHIMNEY ....................................................................... 5 PART 4 – RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................... 6 PART 5 – CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 8 PHOTGRAPHS.................................................................................................................................................. 10 Page 383 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 PART 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 AUTHORIZATION This structural condition assessment has been undertaken by Barry Bryan Associates, Architects, Engineers, and Project Managers (BBA), for the existing Cafeteria Building at the Camp 30 site in Bowmanville on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington. Authorization to undertake this study was received from Jennifer Stycuk, Acting Manager of Facilities, from the Municipality of Clarington. 1.2 OBJECTIVES The objective of the structural assessment for this project was to complete a follow-up site visit, from BBA’s previous review completed in 2022, to assess the structural condition of the Camp 30 Cafeteria Building, located at 2020 Lambs Rd in Bowmanville, ON., following the partial roof collapse of the structure. This report includes the assessment of the structure and provides next-step recommendations based on the reviewed conditions. 1.3 REVIEW METHODOLOGY BBA completed a non-intrusive, non-destructive, visual inspection of the building structure on June 30, 2025. In addition to the review of the collapsed roof sections, the structural and non-structural elements were investigated for evidence of varying levels of deterioration, distress, and/or corrosion, and any areas of concern were documented. In brief, the structural assessment included review of the following: • Corrosion of structural steel framing. • Deterioration of structural components, including, but not limited to, concrete, timber studs and joists, bearing walls, slabs, and roofing elements. • Deterioration/cracking of external brick wall systems. • Excessively deflected structural elements. Reference drawings of the existing structure were not available at the time of review. 1.4 STATEMENT OF LIMITATION All comments and observations in this report are based on visual observations made during the inspection on June 30, 2025. No intrusive or destructive testing or opening of the building system was completed during the inspection. Further, a detailed structural review of the steel connections was not completed. There are no comments on the components that were not exposed to view. Any design and/or construction deficiencies not recorded were not evident at the time of the inspection. Barry Bryan Associates 1 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 384 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 PART 2 – BUILDING BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 BACKGROUND The Dining Hall Building is located at the Camp 30 site, which is located at 2020 Lambs Road in Bowmanville. The 42.5 ha (105 acre) site was formerly owned by Darch Farm and was donated to the Ontario government in the early 1920s to establish The Boys Training School, later renamed the Ontario Training School for Boys. It is understood that the building originally operated as a cafeteria for the training school, which completed construction in 1925. The school operated for a few years; however, the property was appropriated by the Government of Canada to convert the school into a prisoner of war camp, Camp 30, by 1941. In 1942, there was an uprising at Camp 30, known today as the “Battle of Bowmanville”. During this uprising, German officers barricaded themselves within the cafeteria; the uprising had only lasted three days. Occupation of Camp 30 had ended in 1945, with the end of WWII. The site resumed operation as a training school, which continued operation until 1979, when the then named Pine Ridge School, closed. At the time of closing, neither the municipality nor the province wanted to retain the site due to the high costs of ownership. In the years to follow, 1983 to 2008, the property was primarily used as different schools by different owners. In 2007, Lambs Road School Property Ltd. purchased the property. However, shortly after, in 2009, the buildings were added to the Municipal Report due to the historic significance of this site. Around this time, a condition survey and structural assessment were completed, which concluded that the buildings were still in surprisingly good condition, despite significant vandalism, fires, and exposure to external elements. It is understood that the Municipality of Clarington had recently gained ownership of the cafeteria building. The building is one of the remaining four structures on the overall Camp 30 Site Plan. Due to the lack of maintenance and upkeep since closure in 2008, as well as the rampant vandalism that the site has experienced since the original site assessment in 2009, the building is showing evidence of severe deterioration and defacing of the exterior building elements. In 2025, a portion of the South-East roof collapsed. 2.2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION The building is single-storey in height with a partial atrium, a basement area, and approximately 10,000 square feet in building area. The building structure appeared to consist of flat roofs at varying elevations to suit the atrium and changes in the ceiling heights throughout the building. The roof construction appeared to consist of a wood plank decking supported on wood rafters spaced at approximately 24” on centre, where exposed. The wood roof rafters appeared to be supported by a combination of the exterior load-bearing brick masonry walls and interior structural wood and/or steel beams that are supported by concrete wrapped structural steel columns. The interior of the building consisted of interior stud partition walls and perimeter double wythe brick masonry walls. Most of the wood framing on the interior of the building was partially concealed with the original lath and plaster ceiling and wall finish. The exterior walls consisted of double wythe brick masonry walls. The interior of the walls were finished with lath and plaster. The perimeter walls included multiple window openings, which had the original wood window frames in place, and the majority were covered with plywood hoarding since the glazing had been broken or removed. The perimeter walls appeared to be supported on a multi-wythe brick masonry foundation wall system that was observed from the interior of the building in the basement. Barry Bryan Associates 2 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 385 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 The exterior perimeter walls at the clerestory areas consist of what appeared to be wood stud framing and wood siding with an interior lath and plaster ceiling. Windows at these clerestory locations were framed between the wood studs and mostly boarded with plywood since the glazing had been broken. The ground floor consists of what appeared to be a reinforced concrete floor slab. The concrete slab systems span between a combination of reinforced concrete drop beams and concrete-encased steel beams that span 20’-0” between load-bearing brick masonry piers and are spaced at approximately 11’-0” on centre. Barry Bryan Associates 3 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 386 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 PART 3 – OBSERVATIONS BBA attended the Camp 30 Cafeteria Building on June 30, 2025, to visually review the area of the collapsed roof and the general condition of the structural building components. A summary of findings is itemized as follows: 1.1 ROOF STRUCTURE There were three (3) elevations of roof: upper clerestory, mid clerestory, and low roof. Each of the roof areas were generally lightly sloped to promote positive drainage away from the building or to a previous collection system. The roofs generally consisted of wood plank decking supported by timber rafters that span between the external wall and internal wood and/or steel transfer beams. It was observed at the lower roof level that several of the wood rafters had been doubled up, though it could not be confirmed if this was an existing condition or reinforcing. The roof framing at all levels was generally severely deteriorated at the time of the site visit. Previous observations (2022): • The roofing appears from drone footage to be fully comprised in most locations. There was excess water staining observed throughout the building. • The wood decking was completely rotted in many locations as a result of prolonged exposure to the exterior elements. • The wood roof decking and rafters showed excessive deterioration and/or deflected (sagging) showing evidence of localized failures likely resulting from prolonged exposure to moisture. • The structural steel transfer beams, where exposed, were in poor condition and had evidence of severe surface corrosion resulting from exposure to the exterior elements. • The roof beams were supported by concrete encased structural steel columns. The concrete encasing had locally been removed, however, in general the structural steel columns appeared in fair to good condition. We did not observe any excessive deterioration or evidence of structural distress at the time of the site visit. The following observations were made at the time of visit (2025): • At the North-West corner of the structure, where excessive deterioration and localized failure of the roof deck was previously observed, a larger portion of the roof deck and ceiling has collapsed (Photo 001). • Along the South side of the structure, the ceiling along the low roof was actively failing (Photo 002). • At the South-East corner of the structure, complete collapse of the roof system was observed (Photo 003, 004). • At the North-East and South-West corners, deterioration and localized failure of the roof deck was observed, as well as active collapse of the ceiling below (Photo 005). The roof structure was in very poor condition at the time of the site visit, with localized failure and roof collapse observed throughout the building. The structure, in its current condition, is at end of life and additional collapse under general loading is possible without immediate stabilization or replacement. 1.2 CLERESTORY WALLS The upper-level framing between the elevation changes in the clerestory consisted of wood panel exterior façade supported by 2x4 timber stud infill. The stud walls were partially finished with lath and plaster that had failed throughout the interior of the space. The visible clerestory framing and cladding showed severe deterioration at the time of the site visit. Previous observations (2022): Barry Bryan Associates 4 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 387 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 • The exterior cladding had fully failed in many locations, leaving the interior of the building exposed to the exterior elements. • Excessive moisture exposure was observed from the interior of the clerestory walls. Likely a result of water penetration through the open windows, exterior wall cladding, and deteriorated roof. • The transfer beams supporting the clerestory walls were corroded (rusted) as a result of prolonged exposure to moisture. • The wood window framing and glazing in the clerestory walls appeared deteriorated and had been boarded with plywood. • We could not confirm the connection of the top and bottom of the wall; however, it is likely made with nail fasteners, which have deteriorated with exposure to prolonged moisture. The following observations were made at the time of visit (2025): • Continued deterioration of the clerestory walls was observed throughout (Photo 007). • Additional damage and deterioration were observed around areas of vandalism and break-in (Photos 008 and 009). The elevated clerestory walls were in poor condition at the time of the site visit. We believe that partial collapse of the wall system is possible with further exposure to the exterior elements and severe weather conditions. Full reinforcing and/or replacement of the clerestory wall system is required to structurally stabilize the building structure and continue operation. 1.3 GROUND LEVEL STRUCTURE The ground floor slab and ground level walls were not reviewed from the interior of the structure at this time due the low roof deterioration. 1.4 BASEMENT & FOUNDATION WALLS Safe access to the basement was not possible and thus was not reviewed at this time. 1.5 EXTERIOR BRICK MASONRY WALLS & CHIMNEY The exterior walls of the ground floor consisted of double wythe brick masonry walls finished with an interior lath and plaster finish. The walls appeared constructed with a conventional running bond pattern; we did not observe any stretcher coursings or tie joists between the two (2) wythes of wall during our site visit. The wall was in poor condition at the time of our site visit, with various areas where localized collapse had occurred, fully deteriorated mortar joints, and failing brick masonry units. The chimney was also included in the review of the exterior masonry walls. The primary focus for the exterior walls was to review the structural integrity of the bearing wall where the localized roof collapse had occurred. Our observations are as follows: • At the South-East concern where the roof collapse had occurred, the load-bearing exterior wall has cracked and deflected (Photos 010 and 011). • From ground level, the chimney structure appeared to be heavily deteriorated and bulging at its upper-most section (Photo 012). The exterior walls were in very poor condition at the time of review. We believe that partial collapse of the South- East corner and chimney structure is possible with further exposure to the exterior elements and severe weather conditions. Full reinforcing and/or replacement of these areas is required to structurally stabilize the building structure and continue operation. Barry Bryan Associates 5 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 388 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 PART 4 – RECOMMENDATIONS The structural components of the building, specifically those related to the roof collapse, were reviewed for evidence of further damage and deterioration. The comments and observations presented in this report are based on visual observations made during the site investigations completed on June 30, 2025. The structure as is, at the time of visit, was in very poor condition, with localized failures and severe-to-advanced deterioration occurring on various structural elements of the building. It is the opinion of BBA that further collapse of the building structure is probable with further prolonged exposure to the exterior elements and high loading conditions (i.e. wind storms, and heavy snow loading). We have summarized below our recommendations for each of the structural components as follows: ROOF STRUCTURE: The roof structure was severely deteriorated at all levels of the building, with localized collapses throughout. It is the opinion of BBA that the roof structure is at the end of life; it is recommended that the following remedial repair and replacement work be completed: • A collapse perimeter should be set up around all areas of heavy deterioration. No persons should enter these areas other than those permitted for remedial works. Should use of the building continue, complete engineered shoring for the roof structure and support structure should be installed. o Replacement of the deteriorated wood plank decking. Salvage decking in good condition where possible. o Replacement of the deteriorated wood rafters. Salvage wood rafters where possible. • Conduct a closeup visual review of the interior structural steel transfer beams. Complete reinforcing as necessary. It is believed that reinforcing will be required on at least 75% of the structural components. • Installation of a new roof with historic flashings, fascia, and soffits to match the original building condition. It is BBA’s recommendation that the access be fully removed, and collapse perimeters be installed around the areas of heavy deterioration and collapse. Should the municipality continue use of the structure, extensive temporary shoring and a complex demolition program will be required to complete the roof replacement and restoration work. GROUND-LEVEL & CLERESTORY WALLS: The ground-level and clerestory walls were severely deteriorated. The wood panel exterior appeared rotted and/or damaged due to prolonged exposure to the external elements and the presence of moisture. Extreme deterioration and localized failure of the stud walls and double-wythe brick masonry walls were observed throughout. It is the opinion of BBA that the clerestory and ground-level walls are at the end of life and require the following repair and replacement work: • All load-bearing walls shall be included in the roof structure collapse zone. • A complete engineered shoring plan for the load-bearing walls shall be installed if access to the structure remains, or if remedial works are to commence. o Replacement of the deteriorated wood panelling. Salvage panels where possible. Re-introduction of moisture resisting membrane is recommended. o Replacement of the deteriorated wood studs. Salvage studs where possible. o Replacement of the deteriorated window frames and installation of new glazing. o Re-pointing and replacement of damaged and deteriorated masonry and masonry joints. o Re-finish internal walls with lath and paster, or similar, to match the original building finish. Extensive temporary shoring of the load-bearing walls and a complex demolition program will be required to complete the multi-level wall replacement and restoration work for the structure to remain accessible. Barry Bryan Associates 6 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 389 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 EXTERIOR BRICK MASONRY WALLS: The double wythe exterior brick masonry was severely damaged and deteriorated, with localized failure and collapse observed. Generally, we observed significant cracking, separation of the wall wythes, and displacement of the mortar. It is the opinion of BBA that the exterior clay brick masonry walls and chimney are at the end of life in the current condition; it is recommended that due to the extensive amount of failures and unstable conditions of the existing brick masonry walls and chimney, a collapse perimeter should be set up around all areas of heavy deterioration. No persons should enter these areas other than those permitted for remedial works. The collapse area is to include a perimeter for the chimney. Due to the possible scale of collapse, it is recommended that the entire structural footprint be designated as a collapse perimeter. Barry Bryan Associates 7 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 390 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 PART 5 – CONCLUSIONS A structural condition review was completed on June 30, 2025, by Barry Bryan Associates, Architects, Engineers, and Project Managers, for the existing Cafeteria Building at the Camp 30 site in Bowmanville on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington. The purpose of this visit was to visually assess the structural condition of the building and provide a summary of the condition with recommendations for possible next steps. The structural review, which was conducted from areas of the building that were safely accessible, included the following components: roof structure, clerestory and ground-level walls, and exterior brick masonry walls. All areas of the building at the time of the visit were not safely accessible for close-up visual inspection, resulting from excessive debris in the path of travel, unsafe suspended equipment/piping, and blocked paths of travel or possible structurally unstable conditions overhead. The structure of the existing Cafeteria building is in very poor condition, with areas of active structural collapse occurring. All structural components above the finished ground floor elevation have severely deteriorated from exposure to the exterior elements. The building must NOT be occupied and requires appropriate collapse perimeters to be established. The historic sensitivities of this building are understood, and preservation is the priority. However, stabilization and/or restoration of these severely deteriorated and failed components will be nearly impossible since most of the existing timber framing is rotted and has evidence of severe deterioration. Additionally, the multi-wythe brick masonry walls have fully separated, locally failed, and severely shifted. We are recommending that the wood roof structure and supporting walls at the clerestory, along with exterior brick masonry walls, be deconstructed, utilizing a salvaging program for any materials that are found to be in fair to good condition for re-use. The salvaged materials can be utilized into a possible reconstruction of the existing building from the ground floor up. The existing ground floor structure, foundations, and basement slab require a comprehensive cleaning and structural restoration and stabilization of the remaining elements. It is our opinion that the ground floor slab, basement slab, and supporting foundations can be restored for re-use in the redevelopment or stabilization of the building, should collapse be avoided. However, we recommend that immediate action be taken to prevent further, more advanced, structural deterioration and additional collapse of the building structure. BUDGET The budget for this type of project is extremely difficult to provide, including rough Orders of Magnitude costs due to the unprecedented nature of this type of project. Several considerations must be reviewed when providing a budget estimate: 1. Abatement work required prior to, or during any work. 2. Temporary stabilization program to safely access the building (i.e. temporary shoring program). 3. Salvage program with a deconstruction plan is far more complex in comparison to standard demolition since the existing building components must be protected for possible re-use. 4. Salvaged materials need to be inventoried, tagged, and stored. 5. There is additional intrusive review and testing required to confirm the adequacy of existing elements to remain (i.e., ground floor slab, basement foundations, basement slab, and building structural steel columns and steel beams. We believe the costs to reconstruct a replica building without any salvage considerations will be far more economical in comparison to a partially salvaged and restored option. However, we understand the historic requirements for preservation of buildings that are designated as historically significant. We have outlined key itemized areas of pricing for the project; however, we do not have a precedent to provide budgets against for the work: 1. Temporary shoring / stabilization $ 450,000.00 2. Abatement (Unknown) 3. Deconstruct / salvage structure (ground floor up) $1,500,000.00 Barry Bryan Associates 8 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 391 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 4. Protection of existing columns and structural steel beams $ 250,000.00 5. Provide temporary heating $ 400,000.00 6. Provide positive drainage (basement sump) $ 150,000.00 7. Re-instate power $ 400,000.00 8. Restore basement foundation $ 750,000.00 9. Basement waterproofing $ 300,000.00 10. Restore basement slab $ 150,000.00 11. Restore ground floor slab (assuming existing slab properties are suitable) $ 450,000.00 12. Reinforce steel beams/columns salvaged in place. $ 350,000.00 13. Reinstate mechanical electrical systems (Unknown) 14. Reconstruct replica from ground floor up $4,750,000.00 We trust the above information meets your requirements. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Yours very truly, BARRY BRYAN ASSOCIATES Architects, Engineers, Project Managers Matthew Ficara, P. Eng., M.A.Sc. Doug McLaughlin, P. Eng. August 25, 2025 Barry Bryan Associates 9 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 392 Structural Condition Review Report For CAMP 30 CAFETERIA BUILDING BBA PROJECT 25120 PHOTGRAPHS Barry Bryan Associates 10 | P a g e August 25, 2025 Page 393 Camp 30 Cafeteria Building 2020 Lambs Road, Municipality of Clarington Project No. 25120 Structural Review Report Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 25120R250825 Structural Report - Photos.wpd Page 394 Camp 30 Cafeteria Building 2020 Lambs Road, Municipality of Clarington Project No. 25120 Structural Review Report Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 7 Photo 8 25120R250825 Structural Report - Photos.wpd Page 395 Camp 30 Cafeteria Building 2020 Lambs Road, Municipality of Clarington Project No. 25120 Structural Review Report Photo 9 Photo 10 Photo 11 Photo 12 25120R250825 Structural Report - Photos.wpd Page 396 Attachment 2 to Report CAO-001-26 Page 397 Public Meeting and Recommendation Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: PDS-005-26 Authored By: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner, Development Review Division Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: ZBA2025-0026 (Cross: ZBA2022-0022 & S-C-2022-0012) Resolution#: Report Subject: Technical Minor Zoning By-law Amendment to Amend Section 14.6.80 Provision b.i) and i.a) within the R3-80 Exception Zone Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and recommend approval if there are no major concerns raised from the public. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-005-26 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public, and Council with respect to the technical minor Zoning By-law Amendment; 3. That the Zoning By-Law Amendment application submitted by the applicant be supported and the By-law in Attachment 1 to this report be approved; 4. That the Region of Durham Community Growth and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS-005-26 and Council’s decision; 5. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-005-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 398 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-005-26 Report Overview – 28’ or 30’ models 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: Minto Communities Inc. 1.2 Proposal: Technical Minor Zoning By-law Amendment To amend provisions b.i and i.a within the Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H) R3-80) Zone 1.3 Area: 39.85 hectares (98.5 acres) 1.4 Location: 2149 Courtice Road, Southeast Courtice (see Figure 1) 1.5 Roll Number: 18-17-010-050-15500 Page 399 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-005-26 Figure 1 – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Surrounding Context Page 400 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-005-26 2. Background 2.1 In August 2022, Minto Communities Inc. submitted applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for lands at 2149 Courtice Road, Southeast Courtice. 2.2 A Statutory Public Meeting was held on December 5, 2022, to provide background information regarding the applications and to obtain public comments. The initial proposal consisted of a maximum 318 single detached units, street townhouses, Medium Density Regional Corridor Blocks, and a High Density Residential / Mixed Use block. The proposal also included blocks for stormwater management, environmental protection areas and a Neighbourhood Park. 2.3 In June 2025 Council approved Report PDS-028-25 and its associated Zoning By-law Amendment By-law Number 2025-0027. The Zoning By-law will facilitate a maximum 340 residential lots consisting of maximum 269 detached dwellings and 71 street townhouses in the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Area. 2.4 In November 2025 upon preparing their detailed engineering submission to the Municipality, the applicant noticed a minor technical error in By-law Number 2025-0027 where the Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H) R3-80) Zone permitted 9.0 metre lots and the applicants require slightly larger 9.15 metre lot frontages to accommodate 28’ or 30’ models, and update the provision that limits the total percentage of single detached dwellings in the R3-80 Zone to apply to 9.15 metre lots rather than the previously approved 9.0 metres within the proposed development. 2.5 Should Council approve this technical amendment the Holding (H) provision will remain on the zoning and only be removed once the applicant enters into a Subdivision Agreement and all the conditions are satisfied. 2.6 Therefore, Staff are of the belief that this is a technical, minor Zoning By-law Amendment and the intent and purpose of the By-law that was passed in June 2025 has not changed. 3. Recommendation Report PDS-028-25 3.1 The provincial, regional, and local policy analysis, summary of background studies, public submissions, department and agency comments, report discussion, financial considerations, and the strategic plan and climate change analysis was provided in PDS-028-25 that was approved by Council in June 2025. 3.2 Report PDS-028-25 and its attachments are appended in Attachment 2. Page 401 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-005-26 4. Concurrence 4.1 Not Applicable. 5. Conclusion 5.1 It is respectfully recommended that the technical minor amendment to Zoning By-law 2025-0027 by Minto Communities Inc. be approved. Staff Contact: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2432 of sgattie@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment 2 – Report PDS-028-25 and Attachments Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 402 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-005-26 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2026-______ Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2025-0024. Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts the follows: 1. Section 14.6.80 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Three (R3-80) Zone” is hereby amended by deleting and replacing section b.i) as follows: “b. i) Single detached dwellings (maximum of 55 percent of the total detached dwelling lots within the R3-80 Zone) 9.15 metres” 2. Section 14.6.80 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Three (R3-80) Zone” is hereby amended by deleting and replacing section i.a) as follows: “i. a) Parking Requirements For lots with less than 9.15 metres of frontage, spaces per dwelling 2 parking” 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this _____ day of January, 2026 __________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor __________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 403 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: June 16, 2025 Report Number: PDS-028-25 Authored By: Sarah Parish, Principal Planner, Development Review Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: ZBA2022-0022 (Cross: S-C-2022-0012) Report Subject: Rezoning to facilitate maximum 340 residential lots consisting of maximum 269 detached dwellings and 71 street townhouses in the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Area. Recommendations: 1.That Report PDS-028-25, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2.That the By-law attached to Report PDS-028-25, as Attachment 2, be approved; 3.That once all conditions contained in the Zoning By-law with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved; 4.That the Region of Durham Community Growth and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS- 028-25 and Council’s decision; and 5.That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-028-25 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision Attachment 2 to Report PDS-005-25 Page 404 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-028-25 Report Overview This report recommends approval of an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Minto Communities Inc. for a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a maximum of 340 residential units consisting of a maximum 269 detached dwellings and 71 street townhouses, three Medium Density Regional Corridor Blocks, a High-Density Residential Block, a neighbourhood park, a stormwater management block and open space blocks. The site is located in the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Area. The proposed zoning conforms to the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan and Clarington’s Official Plan policies which is why staff are recommending the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: Minto Communities Inc. 1.2 Proposal: Zoning By-law Amendment To rezone lands from ‘A’ Agricultural to appropriate zones to permit the proposed development low density residential development. Delegated: Draft Plan of Subdivision The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would permit a maximum of 340 residential units consisting of a maximum 269 detached dwellings and 71 street townhouses, three Medium Density Regional Corridor Blocks, a High-Density Residential Block, a park, a stormwater management block and open space blocks 1.3 Area: 39.85 hectares (98.5 acres) 1.4 Location: 2149 Courtice Road, Southeast Courtice (see Figure 1) 1.5 Roll Number: 18-17-010-050-15500 Page 405 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-028-25 Figure 1: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Surrounding Site Context Page 406 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-028-25 2. Background 2.1 In August 2022, Minto Communities Inc. submitted applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for lands at 2149 Courtice Road, Southeast Courtice. 2.2 A Statutory Public Meeting was held on December 5, 2022, to provide background information regarding the applications and to obtain public comments. Th e initial proposal consisted of a maximum 318 single detached units, street townhouses, Medium Density Regional Corridor Blocks, and a High Density Residential / Mixed Use block. The proposal also included blocks for stormwater management, environmental protection areas and a Neighbourhood Park. 2.3 Since the Public Meeting Report, the applicant has worked towards resolving staff, agency and public comments. The latest Draft Plan of Subdivision has been revise d as follows: Maximum unit count for the detached dwellings was reduced from 318 units to 269 units. Revisions to the size and configuration of the Neighbourhood Park. 2.4 A summary of the public submissions from the Statutory Public Meeting is provided in Section 8 of this report. 3. Land Use Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject property is municipally known as 2149 Courtice Road, located in the Courtice Urban Area in the Municipality of Clarington. The property is located north of Bloor Street between Hancock Road and Courtice Road. The current land use is agriculture. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North: Predominantly agricultural land uses. West: Predominantly agricultural land uses and rural residential properties. East: Predominantly rural residential properties. South: Predominantly agricultural land uses. Page 407 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-028-25 4. Provincial Policy Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 4.1 The Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS) provides policy direction on land use planning and development for matters of provincial interest. This includes protecting Provincial resources, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. These objectives are to be achieved through efficient land use planning. Through land use designations and policies, municipal official plans and secondary plans are the most important vehicle for implementing the PPS. 4.2 The Provincial Planning Statement focuses growth and development within urban and rural settlement areas. Development within these areas must meet the full range of current and future needs of its population by employing efficient development patterns and avoiding significant or sensitive resources and areas that may pose a risk to public health and safety. Land use patterns should promote a mix of housing, including affordable housing, employment, recreation, parks and open spaces, and transportation choices that increase the use of active transportation and transit before other modes of travel. 4.3 The application is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement. 5. Official Plans Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham) 5.1 The subject site is designated “Regional Corridor” and “Community Areas”. Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed as higher density mixed use areas, supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian orientated development. Each community within this community area designation shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes, and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socioeconomic factors. Development applications in Community Areas must consider having a compact built form, including providing intensive residential and mixed uses along arterial roads and transit routes. Consideration must also be given to urban design, pedestrian connections, a grid pattern of roads, and the availability of services and infrastructure. 5.2 The Durham Region Official Plan (Map 2a) identifies a Regional Natural Heritage System on the subject site. Development or site alteration is not permitted within the Regional Natural Heritage System and requires an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for development and site alteration within 120 metres of the natural heritage system. 5.3 Courtice Road and Bloor Street are Type ‘A’ Arterial Roads in the Region’s Official Plan. 5.4 The application conforms with the policies and objectives of Envision Durham. Page 408 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-028-25 Clarington Official Plan 5.5 The Clarington Official Plan seeks to create walkable neighbourhoods and to provide a variety of uses within each neighbourhood. New neighbourhoods will have a variety of housing densities, tenures, and types for all incomes, ages, and lifestyles. Three key principles that provide direction for the policies of the Official Plan are: sustainable development, healthy communities, and growth management. 5.6 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands as Regional Corridor, Urban Residential and Environmental Protection Area. 5.7 Regional Corridors shall provide for intensification, mixed-use development and pedestrian and transit supportive development. The development of Regional Corridors aims to improve the public realm and establish walkable, transit supportive corridors through high quality streetscaping and built form. 5.8 The Urban Residential designation is predominantly intended for housing purposes. A variety of densities, tenure, and housing types are encouraged, generally up to 3 storeys in height. Neighbourhoods must be walkable, compact, and connected and create a high-quality public realm. 5.9 Environmental Protection Areas are recognized as the most significant components of the Municipality’s natural environment, and their ecological functions are to be conserved and protected. 5.10 Environmental Constraints within site include a watercourse and features identified as “High and Moderate Constraint Areas” in the Tooley/Robinson Creek Subwatershed Study. These features have ecological and/or hydrological value that require a site-specific assessment prior to development. The presence and precise delineation of these features and the level of development acceptable shall be determined through an Environmental Impact Study. 5.11 Courtice Road and Bloor Street are Type ‘A’ Arterial Roads in the Municipality of Clarington’s Official Plan. 5.12 The application conforms with the policies and objectives of the Clarington Official Plan. Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan 5.13 The Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan designates the subject lands as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Regional Corridor, High Density / Mixed Use, Environmental Protection Area, Environmental Constraint and Neighbourhood Park. 5.14 Development within the High Density / Mixed Use designation shall have a minimum net density of 120 units per net hectare with building heights between 7 and 12 storeys. 5.15 Bloor Street, Courtice Road and the lands adjacent to them are Regional Corridors. They are Priority Intensification Areas and routes for future transit service. Regional Corridors shall be the location of the highest densities, tallest buildings and greatest mixing of uses, in order to concentrate population in areas with good access to transit and amenities. Page 409 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-028-25 5.16 Development within the Medium Density Regional Corridor designation shall have an overall average density of 85 units per net hectare and in no case shall an individual development application have a density less than 60 units per net hectare. 5.17 Within the Medium Density Regional Corridor designation, the predominant use of lands are a mix of housing types and tenures in mid-rise building forms. The highest and densest built form shall front onto Bloor Street. Retail and service uses are to be provided at strategic locations to reinforce the community structure and provide access to local amenities within walking distance for residents of the surrounding areas. 5.18 Low Density Residential shall have a minimum net density of 13 units per hectare. The maximum height shall not exceed 3 storeys and single-detached, semi-detached and townhouse units are permitted. Detached and semi-detached dwelling units shall account for 80 percent of the total number of units in the low-density residential designation. 5.19 The Secondary Plan establishes policies to ensure that development contributes to an inviting and safe public realm, fine grain connectivity, an enhanced pedestrian environment, and appropriate transitions between areas of different development intensity and uses. 5.20 The application conforms with the policies and objectives of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. Southeast Courtice Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 5.21 The Southeast Courtice Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines were approved to provide direction for future development in the form of design guidance and strategies to implement the vision and objectives of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. The guidelines address community structure, street, and block patterns, built form, public realm (including roads), natural heritage, stormwater management, and transitions between uses and implementation. 5.22 The application appropriately addresses the policies and objectives of the Southeast Courtice Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines. 6. Zoning By-Laws 6.1 The subject lands are currently zoned “Agricultural (A)” within Zoning by-law 84-63. A Zoning By- law Amendment is required to permit the proposed single-detached and townhouse lots with reduced frontages and minimum lot area provisions. 6.2 The regional corridor blocks will remain zoned “Agricultural (A)” until such time as the necessary concept plans have been provided to staff for consideration. A subsequent report to the Planning and Development Committee to recommend a proposed zoning change for the region al corridor blocks will be scheduled at the appropriate time. Holding Symbol 6.3 The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will rezone the lands to an appropriate urban residential zone subject to a (H) Holding provision to implement the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposed draft Zoning By-law Amendment is included as Attachment 2. Page 410 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-028-25 6.4 The (H) Holding provision will remain on the lands until the necessary Conditions of Draft Approval are fulfilled, the Subdivision Agreement is executed, the plan is registered, and all the necessary securities are in place before the building permits can be issued. 7. Summary of Background Studies Land Use Planning Brief (GHD, December 2024) 7.1 The Planning Report prepared and submitted in support of the proposal concludes that the applications represent good planning and are in the public interest and conforms with the policies and land use designations of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (SCS Consulting Group Ltd., latest revision January 2025) 7.2 The Functional Servicing Report concludes that the proposed development can be graded and serviced in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Regional Municipality of Durham, and the Ministry of environment, Conservation and Parks design criteria and policies. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions Canada Limited, August 2022) 7.3 The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment submitted in support of the proposal concludes that 2149 Courtice Road meets all three criteria for CHVI per the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Environmental Impact Study (Stantec Consulting Ltd., latest version January 2025) 7.4 The Environmental Impact Study submitted in support of the proposal concludes that subject to woodland restoration, wetland enhancement, invasive species management and wildlife connectivity strategies, the proposal will not have a negative impact on the natural heritage system. Transportation Impact Study (WSP, latest version January 2025) 7.5 The Transportation Impact Study concluded that the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation network is acceptable: 7.6 Traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed develo pment can be accommodated by the study road network. 7.7 The proposed development should implement the TDM measures and incentives identified in the report to support active transportation and transit and to reduce the numbers of single -occupant- vehicle trips to and from the proposed development; and 7.8 The proposed development provides sufficient on-street parking. Page 411 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-028-25 Arborist Report (Stantec Consulting Ltd., latest version January 2025) 7.9 The Arborist Report submitted in support of the proposal confirms that appropr iate tree protection and removal measures have been identified and can be implemented in accordance with the proposed development. Subject to these measures, the proposed works will not result in undue impacts to the natural heritage features or functions on or adjacent to the site. Urban Design Brief (Urbantypology Inc., latest version December 2024) 7.10 The Urban Design Brief submitted in support concludes that the proposed development embodies an appropriate reinvestment and improvement of the existing site. Additionally, the proposal contributes to the goals and urban design objectives of the Southeast Courtice area established by the Clarington Official Plan and further supported by the Southeast Courtice Urban Design & Sustainability Guidelines. 8. Public Submissions 8.1 A Statutory Public Meeting was held on December 5, 2022. Notification was provided to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands, and public meeting signs were installed on Bloor Street, Courtice Road and Hancock Road. 8.2 No member of the public spoke at the statutory public meeting. Staff received comments from a local councillor and enquiries from members of the public. The public enquiries were general in nature, requesting additional information on the files. 8.3 Public comments are discussed in Section 10 of this report. 9. Department and Agency Comments 9.1 Various agencies and internal departments were circulated for comments on the applications. Attachment 3 to this report is a chart showing the list of circulated parties. 10. Discussion Conformity with the Official Plan and Secondary Plan 10.1 The proposed development of a maximum 269 detached dwellings, 71 street townhouse dwellings and Medium Density Regional Corridor and High-Density Residential Blocks is consistent with the Low Density, Medium Density and High-Density Residential designations of the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. 10.2 The proposed development includes a neighbourhood park and open spaces (environmental protection lands) being conveyed to the Municipality, which me ets municipal objectives and helps protect the natural heritage system. 10.3 New roads and other services will be provided to service this development and planned future developments to the north. The road pattern allows for connectivity to the planned future developments to the north. Page 412 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-028-25 10.4 The Draft Plan shows street townhouses across from street townhouses. The Official Plan policies state that multi-unit residential shall not be sited on opposite sides of the street unless adequate on-street parking can be provided to the satisfaction of the Municipality. An on-street parking plan has been submitted and deemed satisfactory by Staff. 10.5 The residential dwelling types include 9.0 metre, 9.7 metre and 11.0 metre detached dwellings and 6.0 metre street townhouses. The Secondary Plan permits a height of 3 storeys. Additional dwelling units are also permitted. The proposal is consistent with the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan policies. 10.6 In 1999 Council passed a resolution that street townhouses must be a minimum of 7 metres and single detached dwellings a minimum of 10 metres to sufficiently accommodate on street parking. This has been the standard in Clarington, with the exception of streets that can accommodate more parking on a rear lane or on a window street. The proposal has multiple window streets to Hancock Road and streets with frontage to a stormwater management pond and park block. This will allow for a percentage of the lots to have smaller lot frontages while ensuing that on -street parking requirements can be met. The Applicant has prepared an on-street parking plan to demonstrate that Clarington’s requirements can be met. 10.7 The applicant has prepared an on-street parking plan to demonstrate that Clarington’s requirements can be met. Of the 340 units 147 single detached units are 9.0 metres, 43 units are 9.7 metres, and 122 units are 11.0 metres. All street home townhouse units will be 6.0 metres for interior lots and 8.0 metres for exterior lots. 9.0 Metre Frontages 10.8 There are 147 single detached dwelling units that have 9.0 metre frontages. 10.9 These lots will accommodate two parking spaces in total rather than the Zoning By-law standard of two outdoor parking spaces. This represents 54% of the total number of single detached dwelling units in the proposed plan. The Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) data from 2016 indicates that 26% of households in Clarington have one vehicle. Compared to earlier survey years, the number of households with only one vehicle has steadily decreased from 1986 (32%) to 2016 (26%), so it is likely that this percentage is lower today. TTS is a comprehensive travel survey conducted across the GTHA to understand household travel patterns, vehicle ownership, and commuting behavior. This is the most recent version available that includes travel data for Clarington. 10.10 Based on this data, the reduction of single detached dwelling lots to have a total of two parking spaces rather than a total of two outdoor parking spaces can be accommodated based on the number of households with one vehicle. 9.7 and 11 Meter Frontages 10.11 There are 122 single detached dwelling units that will have 9.7 and 11.0 metre frontages. 10.12 Zoning By-law 84-63 requires 2 outdoor parking spaces. As addressed in the proposed Zoning By-law (see Attachment 2) the applicants are proposing 2 outdoor parking spaces and 2 indoor parking spaces which exceeds our requirements. The applicants have also demonstrated that Page 413 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PDS-028-25 even with the excess in parking that they can still accommodate street trees, infrastructure and utilities in the boulevard. Municipal Services 10.13 The proposed development relies on the extension of a feeder main along Bloor Street and the sanitary sub trunk being installed north along Courtice Road to Bloor Street. 10.14 The applicant is aware of these servicing constraints at this time and has agreed to the appropriate conditions of draft approval being included. Parks and Open Space 10.15 The Clarington Official Plan and Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan provides direction on planning and acquiring parkland. Whereas the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP) provides guidance on designing and developing parks. The applicant will be required to dedicate the 2.4 hectare (5.9 acre) neighborhood park to the Municipality, as well as the open space lands. 10.16 The applicant submitted a park facility fit plan demonstrating the dedicated parkland is suitable for development. The applicant will be required to submit refine the facility fit to a park concept plan for approval prior to registration of the plan incorporating the amenities required by the Municipality. The park concept plan will be evaluated through a collaborative process involving Planning and Infrastructure and Public Services to ensure alignment with the needs identified in the PRCMP. The applicant will also be required to submit a landscaped plan for open space including trail location to the Municipality for approval prior to the registration of the plan. 10.17 Staff met with Minto representatives several times since the Statutory Public Meeting, and they agreed to provide the parkland requirements pre-bill 23 for their applications and at no cost to the municipality for any over-dedication. As a result of these conversations, Minto increased the proposed park size from 3.7 acres to 5.93 acres. There are no parkland reductions from these applications compared to the approved Secondary Plan. Therefore, there is no need to undertake an update of the Fiscal Impact Assessment as there are no additional costs to the Municipality. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 10.18 A rezoning is required to facilitate the development and rezone the lands from Agricul tural to permit 9.0 metre, 9.7 metre and 11.0 metre detached dwellings and 6.0 metre street townhouses. See Attachment 2 for the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment. Page 414 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report PDS-028-25 10.19 The Zoning By-law Amendment includes a (H) Holding provision and will be removed once the applicant has entered a Subdivision Agreement, and all conditions therein have been fulfilled. The draft conditions of the subdivision application will be prepared at a later date, provided Council supports the recommendations in this report. Affordable Units 10.20 The Clarington Official Plan encourages a minimum of 30% of the proposed units to be affordable. The Planning Act also requires the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing as a matter of Provincial interest. 10.21 The Secondary Plan policies encourage the development of affordable housing within the Secondary Plan boundaries. Staff will work with the applicant to encourage the inclusion of affordable housing units. Public Comments 10.22 While no members of the public spoke at the December 5, 2022, statutory public meeting, staff received comments from a local councillor and enquiries from various members of the public. The public enquiries were general in nature, requesting additional information on the files. 11. Financial Considerations 11.1 This proposal conforms with the Clarington Official Plan and the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. The capital infrastructure within the right of way required for this development will be built by the developer and assumed by the Municipality upon acceptance. The Municipality will include the new capital assets in its asset management plans and be responsible for the major repair, rehabilitation, and replacement upon assumption. 11.2 Design and construction funding requests will be made through the appropriate annual budgeting cycles for the neighbourhood park, subject to availability of funds. 11.3 The addition of the 2.4 hectare (5.9 acre) neighbourhood park will increase operating costs by $53,249 annually for grass cutting, maintenance, garbage collection, and upkeep of playgrounds and hard structures. The staffing impact is 0.3 Full Time Employees. Future budget requests will account for any additional funds or staff required to maintain services levels. Public Works will work with the Deputy CAO/Treasurer of Finance to address any financial implications of increased operational costs. Page 415 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PDS-028-25 12. Strategic Plan 12.1 The proposed development has been reviewed against the pillars of the Clarington strategic Plan 2024-27. Clarington’s Strategic Plan prioritizes applications for the creation of growing resilient, sustainable, and complete communities and connecting residents through the design of safe, diverse, inclusive and vibrant communities. The proposal aligns with Clarington’s Strategic Plan. 13. Climate Change 13.1 The Applicant has prepared an Energy Conservation and Sustainability Plan in accordance with Clarington’s Priority Green standards for subdivisions. This project considers climate change by considering electrical vehicle charging stations at each proposed dwelling, improving air quality during construction by implementing dust mitigation measures, reducing energy and water consumption and reducing the urban heat island effect through landscaping measures. 14. Concurrence Not Applicable. 15. Conclusion 15.1 It is respectfully recommended that Zoning By-law Amendment application by Minto Communities Inc. consisting of 340 residential dwelling units be approved, with a (H) Holding provision. The (H) Holding provision will be removed once the applicant enters into a Subdivision Agreement and all the conditions are satisfied. Staff Contact: Sarah Parish, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2432 of sparish@clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft Plan of Subdivision Attachment 2 – Zoning By-law Attachment 3 – Departmental and Agency Comments Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 416 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS UNITS AREA (ha) 9.15m/11.0m SINGLE DETACHED 1-17 220-269 7.665 6.0m STREET TOWNHOUSE 18-31 71 1.512 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS UNITS AREA (ha) MEDIUM DENSITY REGIONAL CORRIDOR BLOCK 32-34 Min. 403 @ 60 UPH 6.719 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS UNITS AREA (ha) HIGH DENSITY/ MIXED USE BLOCK 35 Min. 133 @ 120 UPH 1.114 TOTAL # UNITS RESIDENTIAL Min. 827 TOTAL AREA RESIDENTIAL 17.01 LAND USE BLOCKS BLOCK AREA (ha) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 36 2.000 PARK 37 2.391 VISTAS/ OPEN SPACE 38-39 0.167 OPEN SPACE 40-41 11.966 ACCESS 42 0.115 ROAD WIDENING 43-46 0.947 0.3m RESERVE 47 0.0006 TOTAL AREA LAND USE BLOCKS 17.586 ROADS LENGTH (m) AREA (ha) 15.0m R.O.W.160 0.314 20.0m R.O.W.1977 3.681 23.0m R.O.W.524 1.265 TOTAL LENGTH / AREA ROADS 2661 5.260 TOTAL AREA OF SUBMISSION 39.856 ha Plot Date:Path and Filename: G:\662\12630858\Tech\Planning\Draft Plan\Revised Layout\12630858_REVISED LAYOUT Draft Plan_V1_12-05-2025.dwgPlotted By: Jack Shaji Thomas13 May 2025 - 8:35 AM www.ghd.com This document and the ideas and designs incorporated herein, as an instrument of professional service, is the property of GHD. This document may only be used by GHD’s client (and any other person who GHD has agreed can use this document) for the purpose for which it was prepared and must not be used by any other person or for any other purpose. Conditions of Use 65 Sunray Street Whitby Ontario L1N 8Y3 T 1 905 686 6402 F 1 905 432 7877 E ytomail@ghd.com W www.ghd.com KEY PLAN-Not to Scale PROPOSED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNDER THE PLANNING ACT Under section 51(17) of The Planning Act information required by clauses A,B,C,D,E F,G, & J shown on Draft and Key plans. K) All municipal services required I) Sandy , Clay H) Piped municipal water supply L) As shown . . SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEOWNER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES THIS PLAN . ACCURATELY AND CORRECTLY SHOWN ON RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT LANDS ARE OF THE LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND THEIR DATE SIGNED ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS SIGNED DATE OF SUBDIVISION FOR APPROVAL. TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT LANDS, HEREBY AUTHORIZE GHD WE , THE REGISTERED OWNERS OF THE MINTO COMMUNITIES INC JD BARNES LTD. DRAFT PLAN REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ScaleDate Drafting Check Design Check Project Manager Project No. DesignerAuthor ARCH D Size Status Code IssueNo. DateCheckedApproved Client 0 SCALE 1:1500 AT ORIGINAL SIZE 15 30 45 60 75m Project MINTO COMMUNITIES INC. 2149 COURTICE ROAD SOUTH-EAST COURTICE AS SHOWN J.S.T J.S.T P.R. S.W MAY 2025 12630858 JUN 2022S.W.S.W.J.S.T.1st SUBMISSION1 JUL 2023S.W.S.W.J.S.T.2nd SUBMISSION2 JAN 2025S.W.P.R.J.S.T3rd SUBMISSION3 MAY 2025S.WP.RJ.S.T4th SUBMISSION4 A CONCESSION 2 OF SUBDIVISION OF PART OF LOTS 27 & 28 N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS LEGEND Wetland Wetland Buffer (30m) T.O.B. T.O.B. Buffer (15m) Dripline Dripline Buffer (15m) SCHEDULE OF LAND USES: Drawn EXISTING AGRICULTURE EXISTING AGRICULTURE 25.2 40.0 90.0 75.0 50 . 9 30.5 51 . 0 93.4 90 . 5 131.2 23.5 43 . 7 EXISTING AGRICULTURE EXISTING PARK EXISTING AGRICULTURE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING AGRICULTURE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL EX I S T I N G RE S I D E N T I A L EXISTING RESIDENTIAL 14.9 43.8 18 8 . 7 HA N C O C K R O A D BLOOR STREET BLOOR STREET CO U R T I C E R O A D CO U R T I C E R O A D HA N C O C K R O A D 20.0 23.0 20 . 0 20 . 0 30 . 0 30.030.0 30 . 0 30.0 20 . 0 20 . 0 20 . 0 20 . 0 20 . 0 20 . 0 20 . 0 20.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 23.0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30.0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30.0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30.0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30 . 0 203.0 16 1 . 4 14 5 . 8 185.6 ST R E E T ' A ' ST R E E T ' B ' STREET 'C' STREET 'C' STREET 'E' STREET 'D' STREET 'D' STREET 'C' 23 5 . 2 140.8 30.0 15 1 . 4 24 3 . 0 30.030.0 150.8 152.9 147.9 60 . 0 60 . 0 60 . 0 24 3 . 1 30.0 173.7 173.8 137.9 137.9 187.5 189.0 18 1 . 6 18 2 . 1 15 3 . 1 8.9 90.0 91 . 6 57.0 20.6 115.7 18.1 59.1 162.814.0 98.7 43.4 42.8 37.3 53 . 7 ST R E E T ' D ' 55.410.3 57.818.1 32.8 89.2 ST R E E T ' A ' 30 . 0 30 . 0 30.0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30 . 0 30 . 0 ST R E E T ' D ' 30.0 30 . 0 30 . 0 24 3 . 0 25 . 5 41 . 1 55 . 2 48 . 9 107.9 2.3 27 . 2 20 5 . 6 12 . 9 10.0 SUBJECT SITE BLOOR STREET CO U R T I C E R O A D HA N C O C K R O A D $WWDFKPHQWWR5HSRUW3'6 Page 417 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-028-25 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2025-______ Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington. Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2022-0022. Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 14.6. “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone” is hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone 14.6.80 as follows: 14.6.80 Urban Residential Exception (R3- 80) Zone Notwithstanding Sections 3.16 c. iii), 3.16 e. vi), f. 14.1, 14.3 a. b. ii) and c. ii), iii) and iv), e., f, g., and h.; those lands zoned R3-80 shall only be used for single detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings, subject to the following zone regulations and the applicable provisions not amended by the R3-80 zone: a. Lot Area (Minimum) i) Single detached dwelling 250 square metres ii) Street townhouse dwelling 160 square metres b. Lot Frontage (minimum) Interior Lot i) Single detached dwellings (maximum of 55 percent of the total detached dwelling lots within the R3-80 Zone) 9.0 metres ii) Of the remaining single detached lots in the R3-80 Zone, up to 50 percent of the lots can have a minimum lot frontage of 9.7 metres; All other single detached lots shall have a minimum lot frontage of 11 metres. Page 418 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-028-25 c. Lot Frontage (minimum) Exterior Lots i) Single detached dwellings 11.0 metres ii) Street townhouse dwellings 8.0 metres d. Yard Requirements (minimum) i) Exterior Side Yard 1.8 metres ii) Interior Side Yard a) Single detached dwellings 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side b) Street townhouse dwellings 1.5 metres; nil where a building has a common wall with any dwelling on an adjacent lot located in an R3-80 Zone. iii) Rear Yard 7.0 metres e. Lot Coverage (maximum) i) Single detached dwellings a) Dwelling 50 percent b) Total of all buildings and structures 55 percent ii) Street townhouse dwellings a) Dwelling 55 percent b) Total of all buildings and structures 60 percent f. Landscaped Open Space (minimum) a) Single detached dwellings 30 percent b) Townhouses 25 percent g. Front yard soft landscaping (minimum) a) Single detached dwellings i) For dwelling lots with a lot frontage greater than 9.70 metres 28 percent ii) All other lots 40 percent b) Street townhouse dwellings 28 percent Page 419 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-028-25 h. Building Height (maximum) 12 metres i. Parking Requirements a) For lots with less than 9 metres of frontage, 2 parking spaces per dwelling b) For single detached dwelling lots with lot 2 outdoor and 2 indoor frontages of 9.7 and 11 metres parking spaces per dwelling c) In all other cases, the general zone provisions for the parking requirements apply d) Step Encroachment into Private Garage Parking Space (Maximum) 2 steps (0.6 metres) for length, 1 step (0.3 metres) for width. d) Single detached dwellings i) Private Garage Parking Space Size (Minimum) is 5.5 metres X 6.0 metres for two parking spaces j. A covered and enclosed/unenclosed porch/balcony/deck having no habitable space above it shall be permitted subject to the following: a. In the case of an interior lot, an enclosed/unenclosed porch/balcony/deck up to a maximum area of 12.0 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 enclosed/unenclosed porch/balcony/deck up to a maximum 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. c. For all lots, an uncovered deck / balcony may encroach 3.0 metres into any rear yard setback area. k. The minimum setback to a sight triangle shall be 1.0 metre. In addition, unenclosed porches, steps, patios, ramps, landscape entrance features, attached or directly abutting the principal or main building; either above or below grade; may project into any required yard to a distance no closer than 0.5 metres to a sight triangle. l. Steps may project into the required front, rear, or exterior side yards, but in no instance shall the distance to the front lot line or exterior side lot line be less than 0.3 metre and in no instance shall the distance to the interior side lot line be less than 0.6 metres. Page 420 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-028-25 2. Schedule “4” to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone from: “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-80) Zone” as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto. 3. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this _____ day of June, 2025. __________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor __________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 421 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-028-25 Page 422 Attachment 3 to Report PDS-028-25 Attachment 3 – Agency and Department Comments The following agencies and internal departments were circulated for comments on the applications. Comments were due March 13, 2025. Below is a chart showing the list of circulated parties and whether or not we have received comments to date. Community Growth and Economic Development Department date. Staff followed up on the following dates: 1. March 20, 2025 2. April 30, 2025 3. May 1, 2025 4. May 26, 2025 Department date. Staff followed up on the following dates: 1. March 20, 2025 2. April 30, 2025 3. May 1, 2025 4. May 26, 2025 Department date. Staff followed up on the following dates: 1. March 20, 2025 2. April 30, 2025 3. May 1, 2025 4. May 26, 2025 Conservation Authority (CLOCA) ☒proposal, subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. School Board ☒proposal subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. Engineering Division ☒ proposal subject to Conditions of Draft Approval. Page 423 Attachment 3 to Report PDS-028-25 Services ☒ Division ☒ Planning – Heritage ☒ rehabilitation and restoration of the secondary heritage resource. ☒ Page 424 Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: January 19, 2026 Report Number: PDS-007-26 Authored By: Tim Cane/Ray Ziemba (SGL Planning & Design Inc.), and Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: ZBA2025-0015 (Cross: S-C-2025-0004) Resolution#: Report Subject: Courtice Waterfront Proposed Development – Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and Council. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-007-26 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public and Council with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications submitted by Weston Consulting on behalf of 172556 Ontario Ltd. and continue processing the applications including the preparation of a subsequent recommendation report; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-007-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 425 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-007-26 Report Overview The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on a 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner: 172556 Ontario Ltd. 1.2 Agent: Weston Consulting 1.3 Proposal: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-law Amendment To rezone the subject lands to “Residential Type 1 (R1)”, “Residential Type 3 – Exception (R3-XX), “Residential Mixed-Use Exception (MU2- XX)”, “Environmental Protection (EP)”, and “Environmental Protection Exception (EP-XX)” to facilitate a mixed-use community of low-rise dwellings, mid-rise apartment buildings, and mixed-use buildings supported by a public park as well as environmental protections areas. 1.4 Area: 52.47 Hectares (as shown on proposed draft plan) 1.5 Location: LOTS 12 & 13 CONCESSION 8 GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM (see Figure 1) 1.6 Roll Numbers: 1817-010-070-00300, and 1817-010-050-02000 1.7 Within the Built-up Area? Yes Page 426 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-007-26 2. Background 2.1 A Pre-Application Consultation meeting with Municipality of Clarington Staff and other review agencies was held February 6, 2025. 2.2 On July 2, 2025 Weston Consulting on behalf of 172556 Ontario Ltd. submitted applications for Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 6- storey mixed-use and apartment buildings, 3-storey low-rise dwellings, a new park and environmental constraint buffers, on lands southwest of Canadian National Railway and Courtice Shores Drive. 2.3 The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications were deemed complete October 23, 2025. 2.4 The Applications include lands to the east by the Municipality to facilitate future land transfers and establish the waterfront park. 2.5 The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications are being processed concurrently with the draft Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan, which will establish the policy framework to permit a mixed-use community. 2.6 The draft Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan is an update to the existing Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan, which was approved in 2006. It outlines a vision focuses on the development of prestige; energy-related employment uses on a site that is adjacent to the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Darlington Nuclear Station. 2.7 The draft Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan and accompanying Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines provide detailed direction on how the area will grow and develop over time. The Secondary Plan provides a framework that will guide and facilitate the development of a well-connected and complete community consisting of residential, commercial, employment, and recreation opportunities, including a prestigious waterfront park. 2.8 The applications are being reviewed concurrently with the draft Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan, which will establish the policy framework for permitting the proposed uses proposed as part of this application. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision are intended to conform with the policies in the draft Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan, should the Secondary Plan be approved by Council. 2.9 The following reports were submitted by Weston Consulting support of the applications and are currently under review: Application Forms; Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (text and schedule); Draft Plan of Subdivision; Environmental Impact Study; Environmental Site Assessment Reports (Phase I and II); Floodplain Analysis Report; Page 427 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-007-26 Functional Servicing & Stormwater Drainage Report; o Conceptual Site Servicing Plan; o Conceptual Site Grading Plan; o Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Geomorphic Assessment Review; Geotechnical Report (Preliminary); Hydrogeological Report; Landscape Analysis Report; Landscape Conceptual Master Plan; o Active Transportation Plan; o Tree Inventory Plan; Land Use Compatibility Study; o Final Sign off from peer review; Master Land Use Block Plan; On-Street Parking Plan; Parcel Register; o Legal Boundary Survey; o Topographical Survey; Phasing Plan; Planning Justification Report and Public Consultation Strategy; Stage 1 Archaeological Property Assessment; Technical Traffic Memo; and Urban Design Brief and Sustainability Report + Block Shadow Study. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The Subject Lands are generally bounded by Darlington Provincial Park to the immediate west and the CN rail corridor to the north. The lands have frontage on Lake Ontario along the south, and are bound by Courtice Road and Tooley Creek to the east. 3.2 Currently the Subject Lands are undeveloped, apart from an existing barn, silo structure, and dwelling that support a farming operation on these lands for the existing apple orchard. 3.3 The surrounding uses are as follows: North: Directly north of the Subject Lands is the CN Rail Corridor, Darlington Park Road and Provincial Highway 401. East: Directly east of the Subject Lands consists of open space and environmental protection areas surrounding Tooley Creek. South: Directly south of the Subject Lands is Lake Ontario. West: Immediately west of the Subject Lands is the Darlington Provincial Park and Mclaughlin Bay. Page 428 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-007-26 3.4 The following policies, together with the submitted information, will be fully considered by staff as part of a future staff recommendation report to Council. 4. Provincial Policy Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS 2024) 4.1 The PPS encourages planning authorities to create healthy, livable, and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing types, including affordable housing, and shall promote development patterns that efficiently use land and infrastructure. 4.2 The PPS policies direct growth to settlement areas and promote compact development forms. The subject lands are proposed within the Bowmanville Urban Area. Planning authorities are to facilitate a variety of housing forms and promote residential intensification to achieve efficient development patterns, especially along public transit and active transportation routes. 4.3 Planning authorities should also establish and implement phasing policies to ensure the orderly progression of development within designated growth areas and the timely provision of the infrastructure and public service facilities required to meet current and projected needs. 4.4 Natural Heritage features and infrastructure corridors have applicable policies to protect their functions and operations. 5. Official Plans Durham Region Official Plan – Envision Durham 2024 (ROP) 5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan (ROP) provides a long-term policy framework that is used to manage Durham’s growth and development. The intent of the ROP is to manage resources, direct growth and establish a basis for providing Regional services in an efficient and effective manner. 5.2 Housing policies of the ROP ensure that an adequate supply of housing units and land are available to accommodate growth in Durham and that a range and mix of housing options are provided, including affordable housing. 5.3 Envision Durham sets out a policy directive requiring that at least 25% of new residential units produced throughout the region be affordable to low and moderate -income housing. 5.4 Complete Communities are walkable, well-connected, age-friendly and have a mix of housing options to create transit supportive, high-quality public spaces for the safe and well-being of residents. Complete Communities should also promote the conservation, protection and enhancement of natural and cultural heritage resources and landscapes. Page 429 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-007-26 5.5 Adequate municipal services including water, wastewater, and transportation should be available to support the growing population and needs of current and future residents. Clarington Official Plan (COP) 5.6 The Clarington Official Plan Urban Structure identifies the Subject Lands within the “Built Up Area”. 5.7 The Subject Lands are designated “Waterfront Greenway”, “Municipal Wide Park”, and “Environmental Protection Area”. 5.8 The COP states Lands in the Waterfront Greenway designation should primarily be used for low intensity recreational uses, compatible tourism uses, conservation and agriculture, the following additional uses shall also be permitted Marinas, Major Recreation, and existing residential uses. 5.9 Section 4 of the COP sets out the growth management policies such as setting out Clarington’s 2031 forecasts of total population of 140,340, and 38,420 jobs. 5.10 Section 6 of the COP sets out to encourage a broad range of housing types, tenure, and cost within Settlement Areas to meet the evolving housing needs for people of all ages, abilities and income groups. It also seeks to encourage a minimum of 30% of all new housing to be affordable in Urban Areas. 5.11 Section 9 of the COP speaks to residential uses, specifically to provide a variety of housing types, tenues and options; to create walkable neighbourhoods; to promote subdivision and site design that contributes to sustainability and climate change mitigation and adaptation; and to incorporate the natural environment and restore ecosystem linkages. Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan 5.12 This new Secondary Plan includes a 101-hectare area between Darlington Provincial Park to the west and Courtice Shores Drive to the east, south of Highway 401 . 5.13 Currently, the Secondary Plan area consists of an apple orchard, agricultural fields, a rural residential dwelling, Tooley Creek and other natural heritage features. 5.14 The Courtice Waterfront is planned to evolve as complementary places that provide employment, business, living and recreation opportunities for Clarington. The development of industrial uses, diverse forms of housing, public open spaces, and supportive infrastructure will extend the Courtice community to Lake Ontario. 5.15 The Courtice Waterfront is comprised of a predominately mid -rise community that will feature a vibrant mixed-use area facing the new prestigious waterfront park: a destination that will draw visitors from across Clarington. Page 430 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-007-26 5.16 The Subject Lands are designated “Low Density Residential”, “Medium Density Residential”, “Mixed Use”, “Municipal Park”, “Waterfront Greenway”, with “Environmental Protection Areas” overlay over portions of the Tooley Creek per the draft Secondary Plan. 5.17 Section 7 of the proposed Secondary Plan contains housing policies including affordable housing. 5.18 The proposed ZBA will be evaluated against the approved Secondary Plan for policy conformity. 6. Zoning By-law 84-63 6.1 The Town of Newcastle Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands as General Industrial with a Holding Provision((H)M2) , Agricultural (A), and Environmental Protection (EP). The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will rezone the Subject Lands to “Residential Type 1 (R1)”, “Residential Type 3 – Exception (R3-XX), “Residential Mixed-Use Exception (MU2-XX)”, “Environmental Protection (EP)”, and “Environmental Protection Exception (EP-XX)” 6.2 A draft zoning by-law was prepared by the applicant and is included in Attachment 1. 6.3 Finalization of appropriate zone uses and provisions will be determined after all public and agency comments have been received and will be brought forward at a future date with the recommendation report. A Hold symbol will be implemented as part of the rezoning to ensure the conditions of the draft plan of subdivision/condominium or site plan have been fulfilled. 7. Summary of Background Studies 7.1 The applicant has submitted supporting documents which have been circulated to departments and agencies for review and comment. The list of studies and drawings are on the development application webpage at https://www.claringtonconnected.ca/113DownRoad and are also available upon request. A summary of the studies and reports will be provided in a future recommendation report. 8. Public Notice and Submissions 8.1 Public Notice was mailed to 7 households within 120 metres of the subject lands on Monday December 7, 2025. and 2 public meeting signs were installed on the Subject Lands along Down Road and Darlington Park Road. Details of the proposed application were also posted within the Clarington Connected e-newsletter. 8.2 As of writing this report, staff have received 0 public submissions and 0 comments on social media regarding the applications. Page 431 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-007-26 8.3 Staff will continue to process any public inquiries received. Comments received at the Statutory Public Meeting will also be considered and included in the recommendation report. 9. Department and Agency Comments 9.1 The applications were circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and comments. A list and summary of the agency and internal department comments received, as well as all public comments received, will be included in a subsequent recommendation report. 10. Discussion 10.1 The proposal aims to introduce a new community with an approximately 2,538 residential units, comprising of low-rise dwellings, mid-rise apartment towers and mid- rise mixed-use buildings supported by a new public park, and environmental constraints buffers. 10.2 The following matters will be considered as part of the staff recommendation report to Council: Affordable Units 10.3 The Official Plan encourages a minimum of 30% of the proposed units to be affordable, whereas Envision Durham requires at least 25% of new residential units produced throughout the region be affordable. The Planning Act also requires the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing as a matter of Provincial interest. Coordination 10.4 The proposal may result in a potential population of 6,000 people, and local school boards will be engaged through the review of the proposed development to ensure sufficient student spaces as per Section 51 of the Planning Act. 10.5 Comments from CLOCA and Clarington’s Development Engineering Team will be considered as part of the Draft Plan of Subdivision resubmission. Compatibility 10.6 The proposal will require a setback from the rail corridor in accordance with applicable standards and policies. Setbacks will be assessed against the supporting information provided in consultation with CN Rail, prior to draft plan approval to establish limits of development and appropriate setbacks. Page 432 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-007-26 Environment 10.7 The development limits of the Tooley Creek will established through additional review as part of Draft Plan Approval. Non-residential and Community Uses 10.8 Although the draft Zoning By-law Amendment (Attachment 1) permits non-residential uses at grade within mixed-use buildings, a minimum non-residential/commercial floor areas on the ground floors of mixed-use blocks will be considered to ensure the new community has sufficient access to daily needs. Transportation 10.9 The draft plan will consider appropriate access including the single entrance via Collector Road “B” for a population of approximately 6000 people. Transfer of Land 10.10 The proposed development includes a Stage 1 Archaeology Report, which is a desktop study. A Stage 2 will be required as recommended by the Stage 1 Report to confirm if any archaeological resources are present on the Subject Lands. 10.11 Prior to the transfer of any open space, parkland, and right of way (ROW ) lands to the Municipality, a peer review should be undertaken to ensure that the lands are not contaminated. Servicing 10.12 The applicants have prepared a Phasing Plan as part of their Draft Plan of Subdivision submission. The Phasing Plan establishes phases of development of the lands and provides for the staging of construction of public infrastructure and services in relation to phases of development. 10.13 All new development within this Secondary Plan area shall proceed on the basis of the sequential extension of full municipal services through the Regional and Municipal capital works programs and Draft Plans of Subdivision. 10.14 Approval of development applications will be conditional (i.e., a holding (H) placed on the lands) upon commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of development to the timing and funding of the required road and transportation facilities, parks and community facilities. These works will be provided for in the subdivision and site plan agreements. Page 433 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-007-26 11. Financial Considerations 11.1 As this is a public meeting report just to gather public input and the analysis of the proposal and the reports are being reviewed by the different agencies, a fiscal impact analysis of the proposal may be required once this analysis has taken place and prior to preparing a recommendation report. 12. Strategic Plan 12.1 The proposed development will be reviewed against the three pillars of the Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-27. Staff will give special attention to the priorities of growing resilient, sustainable and complete communities and connecting residents through the design of safe, diverse, inclusive and vibrant communities. An analysis of the proposed development’s interaction with the specific priorities of the Strategic Plan will be included in the future recommendation report. 13. Climate Change 13.1 The application, including submitted reports are being reviewed by staff and circulated agencies. Analysis of the proposal, including the impacts on climate change will be discussed in a subsequent recommendation report. 14. Concurrence 14.1 Not Applicable. 15. Conclusion 15.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information and obtain comments on the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a new mixed-use community in the draft Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan area for approximately 2,538 residential units at the Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act based on information submitted to date. Staff will continue to review and process the applications, including consideration of department, agency and public feedback and will prepare a subsequent recommendation report for Council’s consideration. Comments received at this public meeting will be considered and included in the final recommendation report. Staff Contact: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner, (905)-623-3379 x 2432 or sgattie@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft Zoning By-law Amendment Submitted by Applicant Attachment 2 - Draft Plan of Subdivision Submitted by Applicant Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 434 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2026-XXX Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2026-XXXX; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1.Section 14.6 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone” is hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone 14.6.XX as follows: 14.6.XX Urban Residential Exception (R3-XX) Zone Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.1, those lands zoned R3-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall also be subject to the following zone regulations: a.Permitted Uses i.) A Stacked Townhouse Dwelling, subject to the zoning regulations in Section 14.4 of this By-law; ii.) Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwellings, subject to the zoning regulations in Section 14.4 of this By-law; iii.) Apartment Building, subject to the zoning regulations in Section 15.2 of this By-law; iv.) Long Term Care Facility, subject to the zoning regulations in Section 15.2 of this By-law; v.) Retirement Home, subject to the zoning regulations in Section Attachment 1 to Report PDS-007-26 Page 435 15.2 of this By-law; and, vi.) All uses permitted in the Neighbourhood Commercial (C2) Zone, subject to the zoning regulations therein. b. In the case of an apartment building, retirement home, and/or long term care facility, the following regulations shall be complied with: i.) Building Height (maximum): 6 Storeys ii.) Building Height (minimum): 3 Storeys c. Density (minimum): 50 units per net hectare 2. Section 16A.7 “Special Exceptions” is hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone 16A.7.XX as follows: 16A.7.XX Residential Mixed-Use Exception (MU2-XX) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 16A.2, those lands zoned MU2 -XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall also be subject to the following zone regulations: a. Permitted Uses i.) A Street Townhouse Dwelling subject to the zoning regulations in Section 14.3 of this By-law; ii.) A Link Townhouse Dwelling, subject to the zoning regulations in Section 14.4 of this By-law; iii.) A Stacked Townhouse Dwelling; iv.) Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwellings, subject to the zoning regulations in Section 14.4 of this By-law; v.) Apartment Building; vi.) A Conference Centre; vii.) A Banquet Hall; viii.) A Brewery, Winery or Cidery; and, ix.) All uses permitted in the Neighbourhood Commercial (C2) Zone, subject to the zoning regulations therein. b. In the case of an apartment building, retirement home, and/or long term care facility, the following regulations shall be complied with: i.) Building Height (maximum): 6 Storeys Page 436 c.Density (minimum): 70 units per net hectare 3.Section 16A.7 “Special Exceptions” is hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone 16A.7.XX as follows: 16A.7.XX Environmental Protection Exception (EP -XX) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 16A.2, those lands zoned EP-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following zone regulations: a.Permitted Uses i.) Public Park ii.) Parking Lot b.Setback from any zone to an EP-XX zone shall be 3.0 metres 4.Schedule ‘4B’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the below zones as identified in Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto: “Holding - General Industrial ((H)M2) Zone” to “Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone” “Holding - General Industrial ((H)M2) Zone” to “Urban Residential Type Three Exception (R3-XX) Zone” “Holding - General Industrial ((H)M2) Zone” to “Residential Mixed-Use Exception (MU2-XX) Zone” “Holding - General Industrial ((H)M2) Zone” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Environmental Protection Exception (EP-XX) Zone” “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone” “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Urban Residential Type Three Exception (R3-XX) Zone” Page 437 “Agricultural (A) Zone” to “Residential Mixed-Use Exception (MU2-XX) Zone” “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” to “Environmental Protection Exception (EP-XX) Zone” 5.Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form a 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 Section 24(2) and 34 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this XX day XX, 202X. _____________________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor _____________________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Written approval of this by-law was given by Mayoral Decision MDE-2026-XXX dated XX, 202X. Page 438 CO U R T I C E S H O R E S DR I V E BASELINE ROAD TR U L L S R O A D HIGHWAY 401 LAKE ONTARIO CANADIAN NATIO N A L RAILWAY 684-634B R3-XX EP R1 R3-XX EP EP EP EP-XXEP EP EP-XX R3-XX R3-XX MU2-XX Page 439 "UUBDINFOUUP3FQPSU1%4 Page 440 Will the EP remain as such or will it become trail for vehicles? Courtice waterfront and human safety and health depends on protection and rehabilitation of Tooley Creek coastal wetland, hedgerows, Lake bank erosion and wildlife STOPOVER for wildlife Page 441 STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING 172556 Ontario Ltd. Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) Zoning By-law Amendment File No. ZBA2025-0015 JANUARY 19, 2026 Page 442 2January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) PROJECT TEAM Page 443 HWY 401 LAKE ONTARIO CO U R T I C E R D DO W N R D TR U L L S R D BASELIN E R O A D HW Y 4 1 8 PR E S T O N V A L E R D BLOOR S T GORD VI N S O N A V E DARLINGTON PROVINCIAL PARK CN RAIL C O R R I D O R DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION MCLAUGHLIN BAY WILDLIFE RESERVE FUTURE COURTICE GO STATION LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL Legend Subject Lands Secondary Plan Boundary 3January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) CONTEXT – COURTICE WATERFRONT • Located within the Courtice Urban Area • Darlington Provincial Park directly to the west and Energy Business Park directly to the east • Immediately south of Highway 401 and the future Courtice GO Station • Within the proposed Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Area Page 444 DARLING T O N P A R K R D HWY 401 LAKE ONTARIO CO U R T I C E R D DO W N R D MP MP Legend Municipal Wide Park Subject Lands 4January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) THE LANDS • Bounded by: ºNorth – CN Rail Corridor ºEast – Tooley Creek ºWest – Darlington Provincial Park ºSouth – Lake Ontario • Approximately 44 hectares of developable land. Page 445 Legend Subject Lands Municipality of ClaringtonZoning By-Law 84-63 Industrial EP Agricultural Schedule 4 (Courtice)August 2020 Legend Subject Lands Regional Municipality of DurhamOfficial Plan Urban Area Boundary 2051 Urban Expansion Areas PMTSA Map 1 - Regional Structure –Urban & Rural SystemsSeptember, 2024 Regional Corridor Community Areas Employment Areas Delineated Built Boundary Major Open Space Areas Waterfront Areas Proposed GO Station Proposed GO Rail Rail Municipal Service Special Study Areas S Legend Subject Lands Municipality of ClaringtonOfficial PlanMap A2 - Land Use CourticeUrban AreaJune, 2018 Prestige Employment Area Light Industrial Area General Industrial Area Business Park Utility Environmental Protection Area Green Space Regional Corridor Waterfront Greenway Municipal Wide Park Transportation Hub Urban Boundary Special Policy Area Special Study Area Special Study D-4 Deferredby the Region of Durham MP GO 5January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) EXISTING POLICY FRAMEWORK • Zoning By-Law 84-63 º((H)M2) General Industrial-Holding º(A) Agricultural º(EP) Environmental Protection • Municipality of Clarington Official Plan (2018) ºWaterfront Greenway ºEnvironmental Protection Area • Durham Regional Official Plan (2024) ºSpecial Study Area #2 Page 446 6January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) COURTICE WATERFRONT SECONDARY PLAN (“CWSP”) • The Draft CWSP is proposed to provide Official Plan land use Permissions and policy framework for the Subject Lands and surrounding area. • Proposed Land Use Designations on the Subject Lands: ºLow Density Residential ºMedium Density Residential ºMixed Use Area ºWaterfront Greenway ºEnvironmental Protection Area Page 447 7January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT – MASTER BLOCK PLAN • A comprehensive master-planned community with residential and mixed-use development. • 2,575 residential units º64 low-density units º2,056 medium density units º455 units in mixed-use area • Stormwater Management Ponds located on the eastern edge of the developable area. • Tooley Creek Tributary proposed as an open, naturalized channel across the north half of the lands. Page 448 8January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT – LANDSCAPING • Linear Promenade and Plaza Gateway proposed along the park interface • Gateway features proposed at various points on the Subject Lands Page 449 9January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT – ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION • Proposed cycling routes and multi-use trail network will enhance the existing waterfront active transportation network • Mid-block connections will enhance connectivity between the development blocks and the Municipal Park • Views and vistas proposed onto Lake Ontario, Tooley Creek, and Darlington Provincial Park Page 450 CO U R T I C E S H O R E S DR I V E HIGHWAY 401 LAKE ONTARIO CANADIAN NATI O N A L RAILWAY 584-634B R3-XX EP R1 R3-XX EP EP EP EP-XXEP EP EP-XX R3-XX R3-XX MU2-XX 10January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT • Proposed Mixed Use Zone (MU2) with site specific provisions • Proposed Residential Zone (R3) with site specific provisions • Proposed Environmental Protection Zone (EP) with site specific provisions to reflect environmental lands and municipal park Page 451 11January 19, 2026113 Down Rd., Municipality of Clarington (Courtice) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION • Urban Design and Cultural Heritage Brief • Landscape Analysis Report • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Drainage Report • Preliminary Geotechnical Report • Hydrogeological Report • Floodplain Analysis Report • Land Use Compatibility Study • Technical Traffic Memorandum • Tree Inventory Plan • Archaeological Assessment, Stage 1 • Environmental Impact Study • Geomorphic Assessment • Planning Justification Report • Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1 and 2 Page 452 Thank You Comments & Questions? Ryan Guetter, President Weston Consulting 905-738-8080 ext. 241 rguetter@westonconsulting.com Page 453