HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-09
Planning and Development Committee
Revised Agenda
Date:March 9, 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 Ron Hooper and Lisa Roy, Durham Senior Citizens Lodge,
and Tim Welsh, TWC Consulting, Regarding a Request to Waive Fees
for the Non-Profit Seniors Intensification Housing Project
4
*5.2 Delegation by Susie Plumpton, Port Darlington Community Association,
Regarding Report PDS-006-26 - Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy
7
*5.3 Delegation by Sarto Provenzano, Regarding Report PDS-006-26 - Draft
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
9
5.4 Presentation by David Perkins, Municipality of Clarington and Martina
Braunstein, Dillon Consulting, Regarding Report PDS-006-26 - Draft
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
11
*5.5 Delegation by Janice Jones, Regarding Item 8.1 - Courtice Waterfront
Communication and Mailout
14
5.6 Presentation by Stefan Krzeczunowicz, Hemson Consulting, Regarding
Report PDS-013-26 - Planning Act Application Fee Review and User Fee
By-law Amendment
16
6.Consent Agenda
6.1 PDS-006-26 - Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy 18
6.2 PDS-013-26 - Planning Act Application Fee Review and User Fee By-law
Amendment
205
6.3 PDS-022-26 - Apple View (Ace Developments), Plan 40M-2612
Assumption Bylaw
282
Planning and Development Committee Revised Agenda
March 9, 2026
Page 2
6.4 PDS-025-26 - Intention to Pursue Heritage Designation – Multiple
Properties in Bowmanville and Enniskillen
287
7.Items for Separate Discussion
8.New Business
8.1 Courtice Waterfront Communication and Mailout (Councillor Anderson)304
9.Public Meetings (6:30 p.m.)
10.Confidential Items
10.1 PDS-024-26 - Wetland Restoration Agreement
Municipal Act, 2001 Section 239 (2) (h)
11.Adjournment
Planning and Development Committee Revised Agenda
March 9, 2026
Page 3
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Hooper, Trana, Roy
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 11:31:01 AM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
The Board of Directors of The Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge
request the waiving of fees from the Municipality of Clarington in
order to further facilitate the intensification project to increase the
number of new affordable units for non-profit seniors citizens housing
in Clarington
Action requested of Council
Waiving of fees for the non-profit seniors intensification housing
project at 200 Station St., Orono
Date of meeting
3/2/2026
Summarize your delegation
Mia Trana, Tim Welch Consulting, Housing Consultant, Ron Hooper,
Director-Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge, Lisa Roy,
Administrator-Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge
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, Deputy CAO, Planning & Infrastructure, Trevor Pinn
Deputy CAO, Finance and Technology / Treasurer
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
1. Ron
2. Mia
Page 4
3. Lisa
Single/Last name
1. Hooper
2. Trana
3. Roy
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
1. The Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge
2. TWC Consulting
3. The Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge
Job title (if applicable)
1. Director
2. Housing Consultant
3. Adminstrator
Address
1.
2.
3.
Town/Hamlet
1. Orono
2. Cambridge
3. Orono
Postal code
1.
2.
3.
Email address:
1.
Page 5
2.
3.
Phone number
1.
2.
3.
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
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Plumpton
Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:01:21 PM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
Action requested of Council
Provide feedback on the vision of the Strategy
Date of meeting
3/9/2026
Summarize your delegation
Speak to West Beach Waterfront Strategy Vision
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.
Council and Staff
Report number (if known)
PDS-006-26
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
Susie
Single/Last name
Plumpton
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
Port Darlington Community Association
Page 7
Address
Town/Hamlet
Bowmanville
Postal code
Email address:
Phone number
Alternate 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.
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 8
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Provenzano
Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:15:56 PM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
Action requested of Council
Attentiveness
Date of meeting
3/9/2026
Summarize your delegation
Discuss the vision and details of the Bowmanville Waterfront
Experience
Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council
regarding your matter of interest?
No
Report number (if known)
PDS-006-26 Attachment 1
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
Sarto
Single/Last name
Provenzano
How to pronounce your name:
Sarto Provenzano
Address
Page 9
Town/Hamlet
Courtice
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 10
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Perkins, Braunstein
Date:Wednesday, January 28, 2026 11:01:16 AM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
Action requested of Council
Receive presentation
Date of meeting
2/9/2026
Summarize your delegation
Presentation from Clarington Staff and its Consultant regarding the
draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy
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.
David Perkins
Report number (if known)
PDS-006-26
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
1. David
2. Martina
Single/Last name
1. Perkins
Page 11
2. Braunstein
How to pronounce your name:
1. [Blank]
2. Mar TEE na
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
1. Municipality of Clarington
2. Dillon Consulting
Job title (if applicable)
1. Principal Planner
2. [Blank]
Address
1.
2.
Town/Hamlet
1. Bowmanville
2. Bowmanville
Postal code
1.
2.
Email address:
1.
2.
Phone number
1.
2.
Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter?
No
Page 12
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 13
Page 14
Page 15
From:no-reply@clarington.net
To:ClerksExternalEmail
Subject:New Delegation Request from Krzeczunowicz
Date:Thursday, January 29, 2026 3:06:01 AM
EXTERNAL
A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the
responses provided:
Subject
Planning Fee Report
Action requested of Council
Consider Hemson Planning Fee Study and Staff Report
Date of meeting
2/9/2026
Summarize your delegation
Hemson Consulting completed a study for staff in Planning Fees in the
Town.
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.
Laila Shafi
Will you be attending this meeting in person or online?
In person
First name:
Stefan
Single/Last name
Krzeczunowicz
Firm/Organization (if applicable)
Hemson Consulting
Job title (if applicable)
Page 16
Partner
Address
Town/Hamlet
Toronto
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.
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 17
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: February 9, 2026 Report Number: PDS-006-26
Authored by: David Perkins, Principal Planner, 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: PLN 15.17
Report Subject: Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy
Recommendation:
1. That Report PDS-006-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received for information;
2. That staff be authorized to host a Public Information Centre in the Winter of 2026
regarding the draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy and continue finalizing the Clarington
Waterfront Strategy as outlined; and,
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-006-26 and any delegations be advised
of Council’s decision.
Page 18
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-006-26
Report Overview
th
1. Introduction and Purpose
1.1 Clarington’s Lake Ontario shoreline is a diverse 34 km long expanse of beaches, bluffs
and rocky outcrops that offer residents and visitors alike opportunities to enjoy the
splendor of nature at its finest. In the next 30 years Clarington’s three lakeside
communities of Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle are expected to experience
growth, which will put pressure on the waterfront lands.
1.2 The draft Strategy (see Attachment 1) is a forward-thinking, long-term roadmap that
outlines the Municipality of Clarington’s vision, goals and priorities of the future of
Clarington’s waterfront. It is a high-level framework that will guide future decision
making and resource allocation needed to implement the vision. The draft Strategy is
not a document which focuses on short-term specific tasks, or which outlines ongoing
administrative operational decisions.
1.3 The purpose of the draft Strategy is to weave together the varied waterfront landscapes
and interests into a unified vision and provide a path forward to implement this vision
which will guide the development of future amenities while protecting natural
landscapes and processes across the entire Clarington waterfront over the next 30
years.
2. Background
2.1 The Clarington Waterfront Strategy was originally adopted in 1993, setting the
foundation for how the 34-kilometre-long waterfront along the northern shore of Lake
Ontario will be enjoyed and protected. Throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s,
significant progress was made to implement the original strategy including new policies
being introduced and new development facilitating strategic land acquisition in the area.
Page 19
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-006-26
2.2 In May 2022, Council authorized staff to finalize the project’s Terms of Reference (PDS-
026-22) to ensure appropriate focus and priority be given to the Bowmanville
Harbourfront Waterfront area, while guiding the preparation of an updated
comprehensive strategy that will set a long term plan and priorities for all of Clarington’s
waterfront.
2.3 In early 2023, staff were directed to prioritize developing the Parks, Recreation and
Culture Master Plan (PRCMP). The PRCMP was approved by Council in the fall of 2024
(CAO-007-24). It includes key considerations and one recommendation for the update
to the Waterfront Strategy.
2.4 Input received through the PRCMP’s consultation process reinforced the importance of
the Municipality’s waterfront areas. The waterfront was commonly identified as one of
Clarington’s greatest natural assets that is enjoyed by both residents and regional
visitors. Public input emphasized the need to preserve and enhance the strengths of the
waterfront such as the open spaces and trails. The PRCMP noted that the Waterfront
Strategy should consider the input received and the recommendations identified through
the PRCMP, including enhancing amenities such as fitness equipment, playgrounds,
seating, shade and other design elements, while promoting multi-use opportunities for
all ages and protecting sensitive natural areas. Key priorities include improving trail
connections, exploring event and cultural spaces, securing waterfront access,
supporting local economic development, and implementing strategies to preserve
environmental features.
In May 2025, a Clarington Waterfront Strategy Update report PDS-024-25 was
presented to the Planning and Development Committee. The update report introduced
the draft Vision, Guiding Principles and Focus Areas to shape the future of Clarington’s
waterfront. The report also outlined next steps including community engagement,
preparing draft concepts for the Bowmanville and Newcastle Waterfronts, and to
prepare and present the draft Strategy. The report also outlined key considerations and
recommendation for the Waterfront Strategy from the PRCMP.
2.5 In October 2025, the What We Heard Report, (PDS-045-25) was presented to the
Planning and Development Committee.
3. Community Engagement
Consultation Process – Key Community Priorities
3.1 The Waterfront Strategy update process has included public engagement through
multiple channels (survey, public open houses, signage along the waterfront and pop-up
booths) over three phases. The first phase took place during the latter part of 2022, the
second phase through the preparation of the PRCMP, and the third phase through a
survey conducted during the summer of 2025. The highlights of the first two phases
were outlined in Section 2 of the May 12, 2025 Clarington Waterfront Strategy Update
staff report PDS-024-25. The survey results were reported to Council through the ‘What
We Heard’ report PDS-045-25 in October 2025.
Page 20
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-006-26
3.2 The Summer 2025 survey was conducted to collect feedback on the draft Waterfront
Vision, Guiding Principles and Five Distinct Experiences and the key themes including
the need to preserve nature and heritage, ensure equitable and inclusive public spaces,
avoid privatization, engage Indigenous communities, and plan realistically for
infrastructure and growth. In addition to the survey, the public also had the option to
email their feedback.
3.3 602 survey responses were received and they consistently prioritized environmental
protection and community benefits, maintaining public access and avoiding over
commercialization. Many of the respondents supported a vision that enhances quality of
life through sustainable growth, while expressing concerns about overdevelopment and
the loss of natural and community character.
3.4 Received feedback has informed revisions to the Waterfront Vision, Guiding Principles
and Five Distinct Experiences in the draft Strategy and are discussed in more detail in
Section 4 below.
3.5 Subject to Council direction, further community engagement is being planned for Winter
2026 including a survey and an Open House/Public Information Centre which will seek
input from the community and key stakeholders regarding the draft Strategy.
3.6 When the project was initiated in 2022, the Williams Treaty First Nations and other
Indigenous communities were provided information about the Waterfront Strategy
initiative. When the project restarted in 2025 the same groups were again contacted.
Staff provided them with a short summary and advised that they would be provided with
a copy of the draft Strategy for engagement following presentation to Council.
3.7 The draft Strategy will be provided to the Williams Treaty First Nations and other
Indigenous communities following presentation of the draft Waterfront Strategy to
Council.
3.8 In addition, the Municipality is currently collaborating with the other lower-tier
municipalities in Durham Region to create an Indigenous Engagement Guide for
Durham Region area municipalities, informed by Durham Region’s Braiding Pathways
framework and upcoming engagement with the Williams Treaty First Nations and other
Indigenous Peoples. The above noted Indigenous Engagement Guide may inform
further engagement actions.
4. Vision, Guiding Principles, and Distinct Experiences
4.1 Based on the results of public engagement, feedback from Staff and from technical
analysis to date, the following is a summary of the revisions to the Draft Vision, Guiding
Principles, and the Five Distinct Experiences.
Page 21
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-006-26
The Draft Waterfront Vision
4.2 The Vision has been revised based on input from the online survey, resulting in less
emphasis being placed on land development due to concerns expressed regarding the
environmental impact of overdevelopment and related issues such as traffic, parkin g,
noise and crowding as well as access and infrastructure constraints.
4.3 The Vision has also been revised based on input from members of the Waterfront
Steering Committee, resulting in a stronger emphasis on the protection of natural
systems and design excellence which addresses natural hazards such as erosion and
flooding as well as climate change. The revised Vision is below:
“Clarington's waterfront is a publicly accessible space that connects our community;
protects natural systems, climate resilience and biodiversity; and honours our history
and cultural heritage. Our shoreline flourishes with interconnected trails and diverse
recreational opportunities while placing environmental stewardship at the forefront. We
grow our waterfront sustainably protecting the important coastal functions and
landscapes, while also ensuring public safety and accessibility over time.”
4.4 This input reinforced the idea that the waterfront connects our community and that there
should be opportunities for the public to access and enjoy the waterfront through trails,
connected spaces and services while also protecting the natural environment.
The Guiding Principles
4.5 To support the Waterfront Vision, five guiding principles were developed to establish a
framework and set priorities for future decisions. As a result of input, one additional
guiding principle ‘Cultural Histories and Traditions’ was added. Additions and
refinements to each of the other guiding principles were made and are detailed below.
4.6 Based on input from the public and the Waterfront Steering Committee members,
Climate Resilience was added as a theme to the Environmental Stewardship guiding
principle, with added wording addressing natural hazards, climate change and
biodiversity. supported the principles overall, with small changes to the wording
emphasizing the protection of biodiversity.
4.7 Revisions were made to the Public Access, Connection and Enjoyment guiding principle
recognizing public ownership of the waterfront as a priority, as well as ecological
connectivity and public trail connections as a result of input from stakeholders.
4.8 The additional guiding principle Cultural Histories and Traditions was added to address
input to emphasize the importance of engaging Indigenous Peoples, and to not only
recognize and protect cultural heritage, but to celebrate it.
4.9 Economic Viability was revised to ‘Community Scaled Economic Viability’ based on
input from the public, including avoiding over-commercialization and strongly preferring
small-scale, locally owned businesses that complement the public uses on the
waterfront.
Page 22
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-006-26
4.10 Design Excellence and Cultural Heritage Preservation was revised to Design
Excellence and Community Centred Planning based on input from the public identifying
the importance of meaningful resident involvement in future planning and decision -
making processes. Cultural Heritage Preservation was included in the new theme
Cultural Histories and Traditions
The Guiding Principles are:
“Environmental Stewardship and Climate Resilience: Protect, restore, and enhance
the natural environment, including the Lake Ontario shoreline, wetlands, and wildlife
habitats, while actively planning for flood and erosion hazards, climate change
adaptation and protecting biodiversity.
Public Access, Connection and Enjoyment: Ensure equitable, safe, and inclusive
access to the waterfront for all residents and visitors, prioritizing public ownership and
enjoyment of shoreline lands, recognizing the waterfront as a continuous and integrated
corridor that supports ecological connectivity, including wildlife movement and sediment
transport along the nearshore, and enhances public trail connections and natural
spaces.
Cultural Histories and Traditions: Celebrate the layered cultural histories and
traditions on the waterfront lands, creating a culture of inclusiveness and belonging, and
through the historic interpretation of public spaces through design and local stori es.
Community-Scaled Economic Viability: Foster a sustainable waterfront economy that
supports small-scale local businesses, creates employment opportunities for the
community, and encourages tourism that complements the natural environment and
enhances public enjoyment.
Design Excellence and Community-Centred Planning: Create high-quality and
impactful public and private realms through thoughtful, sustainable design that reflects
the local character and is guided by transparent and meaningful community
engagement.”
The Five Distinct Experiences
4.11 Five distinct waterfront destinations, linked by the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail, offer a
diverse range of experiences that reflect the revised Vision and Guiding Principles.
Based on input from the survey and emails from the public as well as from the
Waterfront Steering Committee members, the amenities proposed for the Courtice
Waterfront Park, the Bowmanville Waterfront, the Newcastle Waterfront and the
Agricultural Heritage area were revised. The proposed park designs are long term
concepts that will need to be evaluated through a more detailed design and budgeting
process. Construction is intended to be phased and will be subject to available funding.
Proposed connections to existing trails to the north will link the Waterfront Trail to the
Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle communities.
Page 23
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-006-26
Courtice Waterfront Park
4.12 The Courtice Waterfront Park experience is envisioned as a public vibrant, family-
friendly destination where residents and visitors can enjoy nature, recreation and
connect to the community. With its scenic waterfront setting and integrated trail network,
the park is designed to support a large range of passive and active uses – from walking
and cycling to picnicking and educational exploration to kayaking and canoeing via
access to Lake Ontario near the eastern end of the park. See Figure 1.
4.13 The development of this waterfront park will provide needed amenities for a rapidly
growing population across Clarington. Connection to the broader trail networks will
improve accessibility and recreation opportunities.
4.14 Based on feedback received from the public, commercial/mixed uses were shifted to
lands north of the park as part of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan. The design of
the park was modified with a stronger emphasis on the planned waterfront park with its
various amenities. Please refer to Figures 8, 9 and 10 in the attached draft Strategy
(attachment 1) for more information regarding these amenities.
Figure 1. Courtice Waterfront Park Concept
Bowmanville Waterfront
4.15 The draft vision for the Bowmanville Waterfront continues to emphasize the protection
and improvement of the environmentally sensitive landscapes and natural heritage
areas, particularly the Westside Marsh. The vision also includes the improvement of
recreational amenities in both West Beach and East Beach Parks, with a new
pedestrian and bicycle friendly bridge connecting the two areas, which will also improve
the Waterfront Trail experience. See Figure 2.
4.16 New amenities are planned to include a boardwalk, a playground, sport courts and a
small building that could support water sport rentals, a boat launch, and a
gathering/event space and stage, entrenching the Bowmanville destination as the
anchor of the five waterfront experiences. Connections to existing amenities in the area
such as the boat launch, dog park and the Conservation Area will be supported.
Page 24
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-006-26
4.17 Based on feedback from the same stakeholders, a bridge connecting the West and East
Beach areas for active transportation uses has been included in the concept. Please
refer to Figures 11 and 12 in the attached Waterfront Strategy for more information
regarding these amenities.
Figure 2. Bowmanville Waterfront Concept.
Newcastle Waterfront
4.18 Similar to Bowmanville, the draft vision for the Newcastle Waterfront includes two
distinct areas. Lakebreeze Park and Bond Head Parkette. Lakebreeze Park is
envisioned to include flexible park space and enhanced trails, while improving natural
defenses against erosion and protecting and promoting biodiversity.
4.19 Due to considerable public concern expressed in the online survey, the vision to
position Bond Head Parkette as a primary boat launch area has been removed. The
existing boat launch area will remain, and enhanced vehicle and trailer parking is
proposed. Please refer to Figures 13 and 14 in the attached draft Strategy (attachment
1) for more information regarding these amenities.
Page 25
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-006-26
Figure 3 – Newcastle Waterfront Concept
Agricultural Heritage Area
4.20 The lands along the waterfront between Newcastle and Port Granby are envisioned as
an agricultural heritage area which will be celebrated with agri-tourism opportunities,
continuing environmental stewardship and enhancing natural habitats while respecting
erosion hazards.
4.21 Maintaining active agricultural operations while encouraging them to interact with the
public preserves local traditions and supports local food production as well as public
educational opportunities. It also enhances natural habitats, encouraging biodiversity
and ecological resilience.
4.22 Based on input from the public and from the Steering Committee, the amenities in this
area are proposed to include an enhanced Waterfront Trail and open spaces that are
set back from the bluffs but provide intentional informal views of Lake Ontario, instead
of access points to the shoreline
Page 26
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PDS-006-26
Port Granby Nature Reserve (PGNR)
4.23 The PGNR covers 175 hectares of land in the southeast corner of Clarington. Working
in collaboration with local area residents, the Municipalities of Clarington, Port Hope and
the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority a proposal was prepared to create a
nature reserve in the Port Granby area made up of the 175 hectares of surplu s Federal
lands
4.24 The PGNR provides an opportunity for continuing environmental restoration while
providing enhanced education and public access to this natural resource exists where
residents and visitors can experience the beauty of a preserved natural ar ea including
forests, meadows and wetlands through trails and minimal structures to minimize any
adverse environmental impacts.
4.25 Strong support of the vision for the PGNR experience was received from the public,
emphasizing the need for minimal impact to the natural environment. controlled access
and the preservation of ecological integrity.
5. Implementation Plan
5.1 The 12 recommendations within the Implementation Plan section of the draft Strategy
focus on sustainable waterfront planning through ecological and climate adaptation
approaches, while promoting education, community engagement, and Indigenous
participation. The recommendations prioritize phased implementation aligned with
municipal strategic plans, multi-year budgeting, and asset management updates.
5.2 This section also includes 31 actions which implement the 12 recommendations. Key
actions include enhancing and expanding the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail, securing
long-term funding, conducting background studies, and adapting plans to climate
impacts. Regular reviews every decade ensure alignment with evolving policies and
successful outcomes.
5.3 Implementation of the Waterfront Strategy is divided into three phases, over a 30 -year
time horizon, each with a specific focus and priority. The phases and timefram es for
each are outlined below:
Phase 1 - Foundational Steps (Years 1 – 5): This phase focuses on actions that set
the groundwork for the Waterfront Strategy. Actions include planning for and completing
‘quick win’ projects, incorporating the Strategy into the Official Plan, undertaking
feasibility studies, establishing a Waterfront Strategy Implementation team, fostering
partnerships and facilitating education. Examples of ‘quick win’ projects could include
trail extensions, basic amenities at lookouts to Lake Ontario, waterfront-specific
wayfinding and signage, and planting and other naturalization initiatives .
Page 27
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PDS-006-26
Phase 2 - Keystone Initiatives (Years 6 – 15): This phase involves initiating major
“keystone” projects and launching significant initiatives based on the foundational work
from Phase 1, including the phased construction of all 3 of the urban waterfront parks. It
also includes the development of the waterfront branding and tourism strategy.
Phase 3 – Waterfront Legacy (Years 16 – 30+): This phase focuses on completing the
long-term transformational projects that will define the waterfront’s legacy. This includes
the fulsome connectivity of the Waterfront Trail including the pedestrian bridge
connecting the east and west Bowmanville beach areas an d trails connecting it to the
communities to the north, and the full build out of the five distinct experience
destinations.
5.4 Please note that acquisition, carrying, maintenance and other types of operating costs,
as well as some soft and contingency costs, are not fully considered in the approximate
costs outlined in the draft Strategy.
6. Next Steps
Community Engagement:
6.1 Building on the extensive community consultation already completed, staff will continue
to engage with the community, key stakeholders and Indigenous communities.
6.2 A survey and an Open House/Public Information Centre are being planned to take place
in Winter 2026 to gather information from the community on the draft Waterfront
Strategy.
Prepare and Present the Final Strategy:
6.3 Staff will consider input received from consultation on the draft Strategy and intend to
bring a report with the final Waterfront Strategy to a future Planning and Development
Committee meeting.
7. Financial Considerations
7.1 The Waterfront Strategy was funded by Council in 2022 through resolution #C-124-22
(FSD-020-22 and PDS-026-22.
7.2 Once the final Strategy is approved, staff will report back to Council with an action plan
and any necessary funding for implementation .
8. Strategic Plan
8.1 G.3.3 Enhances Clarington’s Waterfront. The specific action identified to address this
priority includes Completion of the Waterfront Strategy.
Page 28
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PDS-006-26
9. Climate Change
9.1 Sustainability and resilience have been identified as a cornerstone of waterfront
planning and development. Sustainable development has been identified in the draft
Vision and several of the draft Guiding Principles including Environmental Stewardship,
Public Access and Enjoyment and Economic Viability.
9.2 A long-term commitment to sustainability with resilient infrastructure was identified as a
priority for the waterfront. A recommended action in the Implementation Plan is to build
sustainability and climate resiliency into the development of all the waterfront lands.
This will be considered throughout the duration of the Implementation Plan.
10. Concurrence
10.1 Development of draft Waterfront Strategy includes staff from across the Corporation.
11. Conclusion
11.1 It is respectfully requested that the recommendations contained in this report be
approved.
Staff Contact: David Perkins, Principal Planner, Community Planning Division, 905-623-3379
ext. 2453 or dperkins@clarington.net; Lisa Backus, Manager, Community Planning Division,
905-623-3379 ext. 2413 or lbackus@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Draft Waterfront Strategy
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 29
December 2025
The Corporation of
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington
Waterfront Strategy
Draft
DRA
F
T
Attachment 1 to Report PDS-006-26
Page 30
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 1
DRA
F
T
Page 31
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Document Structure ................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Policy Direction and Plans.......................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Municipality of Clarington Waterfront Study and Land Use Strategy, 1993 ......... 5
1.2.2 Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 ................................................................... 6
1.2.3 Envision Durham: Regional Official Plan, 2024 ................................................... 6
1.2.4 Clarington Official Plan, 1996 (2024 Consolidation) ............................................ 7
1.2.5 Municipality of Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-2027 ........................................... 7
1.2.6 Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, 2024 ......................................... 8
1.2.7 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan (Draft), 2025 .............................................. 8
1.2.8 Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan, 2024............................................... 8
1.2.9 Clarington Transportation Master Plan, 2016 ...................................................... 9
1.2.10 Clarington Active Transportation Master Plan (in progress) ................................ 9
1.3 Engagement Highlights ............................................................................................ 10
2.0 Waterfront Lands Analysis ....................................................................................... 12
3.0 One Connected Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences .......................................... 19
3.1 One Connected Waterfront ...................................................................................... 21
3.2 Guiding Principles .................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Five Distinct Experiences ......................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Courtice Waterfront Experience......................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Bowmanville Waterfront Experience .................................................................. 37
3.3.3 Newcastle Waterfront Experience ..................................................................... 45
3.3.4 Agricultural Heritage Experience ....................................................................... 51
3.3.5 Port Granby Nature Reserve Experience .......................................................... 55
3.3.6 Waterfront Park Cost Estimates ........................................................................ 60
4.0 Implementation .......................................................................................................... 66
4.1 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................ 69
4.1.1 Phase 1: Foundational Recommendations (Present to 2030) ........................... 70
4.1.2 Phase 2: Keystone Initiatives (2030 to 2040) .................................................... 73
4.1.3 Phase 3: Waterfront Legacy (Beyond 2040) ...................................................... 75DRA
F
T
Page 32
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | iii
Figures
Figure 1: Waterfront Lands Boundary .................................................................................. 3
Figure 2 Strategic Direction - Character Areas ................................................................... 15
Figure 3: Strategic Direction - Five Sub-Areas ................................................................... 16
Figure 4 Strategic Direction - Regional Wildlife Habitat Corridor ........................................ 17
Figure 5 Strategic Directions - Identity and Placemaking ................................................... 18
Figure 6: One Connected Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences ....................................... 22
Figure 7 Courtice Waterfront Park Concept (Draft Courtice Waterfront Park Secondary
Plan, 2025) ......................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 8 Courtice Waterfront Park Vision - West Area (Draft Courtice Waterfront Park
Secondary Plan, 2025) ....................................................................................................... 30
Figure 9 Courtice Waterfront Park Vision - East Area (Draft Courtice Waterfront Park
Secondary Plan, 2025) ....................................................................................................... 31
Figure 10 Courtice Waterfront Park Vision - Additional Potential Park to the North (Draft
Courtice Waterfront Park Secondary Plan, 2025) ............................................................... 32
Figure 11: Bowmanville Waterfront Vision .......................................................................... 36
Figure 12: Bowmanville Parks Concept .............................................................................. 40
Figure 13: Newcastle Waterfront Concept .......................................................................... 44
Figure 14: Newcastle Waterfront Parks Concept................................................................ 48
Figure 15 Port Granby Lands ............................................................................................. 56
Figure 16: Illustrative Concept for Port Granby Nature Reserve, 2010 .............................. 59
Tables
Table 1: Waterfront Lands Analysis Highlights ................................................................... 14
Table 2 Definitions for One Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences Figure .......................... 23
Table 3 Courtice Waterfront Park Cost Estimate ................................................................ 63
Table 4 Bowmanville Waterfront Parks Cost Estimate ....................................................... 64
Table 5 Newcastle Waterfront Parks Cost Estimate ........................................................... 65
Table 6 Clarington Waterfront Strategy Implementation Phases ........................................ 67
Table 7: Phase 1 Implementation Categories and Actions ................................................. 70
Table 8 Phase 2 Implementation Categories and Actions .................................................. 73
Table 9 Phase 3 Implementation Categories and Actions .................................................. 75
Appendices
Appendix A – Community Engagement Summaries
Appendix B – Waterfront Lands AnalysisDRA
F
T
Page 33
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | iv
Acknowledgements
Steering Committee Members
Lisa Backus, Manager, Municipality of Clarington
Alicia Da Silva, Planner, Municipality of Clarington
Jamie Davidson, Director, Watershed Planning and Natural Heritage, Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority
Cory Harris, Watershed Services Coordinator, Ganaraska Conservation
Sylvia Jennings, Planner, Municipality of Clarington
Andrei Micu, Parks Design and Development Manager, Municipality of Clarington
Sarem Nejad, Development Planner, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Mariano Perini, Director of Public Works and Fire Chief, Municipality of Clarington
David Perkins, Principal Planner, Municipality of Clarington
Jennifer Smith, Manager of Parks Services, Municipality of Clarington
Municipality of Clarington
Kaitlin Keefer, Communications Officer
Melissa Westover, Communications Manager
Leanne Walker, Supervisor, Marketing and Engagement
Consulting Team
Jaysen Ariola, Landscape Architect, Dillon Consulting Limited
Evelyn Babalis, Landscape Planner, Dillon Consulting Limited
Martina Braunstein, Project Lead and Urban Designer, Dillon Consulting Limited
Ian Dance, Landscape Architect, Dillon Consulting Limited
Amy Greenberg, Project Coordinator and Planner, Dillon Consulting Limited
Paddy Kennedy, Project Advisor and Planner, Dillon Consulting Limited
Kristin Lillyman, Engagement Specialist, Dillon Consulting Limited
Paolo Mazza, Geographic Information System Specialist, Dillon Consulting Limited
Eha Naylor, Landscape Architect, Dillon Consulting Limited
Peter Thoma, Economic and Market Analyst, urbanMetricsDRA
F
T
Page 34
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | v
Acronyms, Abbreviations, Definitions
AMP Asset Management Plan
ATMP Active Transportation Master Plan
CLOCA Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
COP Clarington Official Plan
GRCA Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
MNRF Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
POPS Privately-owned publicly accessible spaces
PPS Provincial Planning Statement
PRC Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan
ROP Regional Official Plan
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
TMP Transportation Master Plan
DRA
F
T
Page 35
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 1
1.0 IntroductionDRA
F
T
Page 36
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 2
Where Clarington meets Lake Ontario, a 34-kilometre shoreline unfolds as a living, thriving
waterfront area with a shared legacy. Valued by Indigenous communities, residents,
visitors, and regional biodiverse terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, it is among the most
natural waterfronts along Lake Ontario’s shoreline. More than half of the waterfront lands
fall within the Greenbelt’s Protected Countryside and Urban River Valleys, complemented
by provincial parkland, protected natural heritage features, and open spaces.
Clarington’s shoreline also carries deep Indigenous histories and long-standing ties to
agriculture, port and rail activity, and industry—roots that have evolved into today’s
advanced manufacturing and energy sectors. As waterfront places like Courtice,
Bowmanville, and Newcastle provide for planned growth and guided change, the immanent
public access and ecological biodiversity at the water’s edge shape the next chapter of
Clarington’s waterfront. The exchange of knowledges and perspectives, and partnerships
between the Municipality, interest groups, industries, public, First Nations and Indigenous
communities, neighbouring municipalities, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
(CLOCA) and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) are critical drivers in
the creation of a more resilient lake’s edge.
The purpose of the Clarington Waterfront Strategy (Strategy) is to weave all valued
components that shape the waterfront lands into a unified vision guiding future
enhancements, parks and recreation, culture, tourism, environmental protection, policy and
land development along Clarington’s shoreline for the next 30 years.
The Strategy builds on the ecosystem approach to land use planning established in the
Municipality’s 1993 Waterfront Study and Land Use Strategy with current planning context,
priorities, best practices and community values.
Land Acknowledgement
The Municipality of Clarington is situated within the traditional and treaty
territory of the Mississaugas and Chippewas of the Anishinabeg, known
today as the Williams Treaties First Nations. Our work on these lands
acknowledges their resilience and their longstanding contributions to the
area now known as the Municipality of Clarington.
DRA
F
T
Page 37
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 3
Figure 1: Waterfront Lands Boundary
DRA
F
T
Page 38
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 4
Figure 1 illustrates the waterfront lands boundary for the Strategy - they are generally
located south of Highway 401, spanning the full west to east length of the municipal
boundary along Lake Ontario’s shoreline. The urban area boundaries - as set in the
Municipalities land use policies - Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle extend south to the
lake, as outlined below in white.
1.1 Document Structure
This document is organized into four key sections.
Section 1.0 Introduction frames the purpose and scope, outlines policy direction across
provincial, regional, and municipal plans, and summarizes engagement highlights.
Section 2.0 Waterfront Lands Analysis documents current conditions, opportunities, and
constraints along the shoreline to ground the vision in evidence.
Section 3.0 One Connected Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences sets the overarching
vision and guiding principles, then provides place-specific directions for Courtice,
Bowmanville, Newcastle, Agricultural Heritage, and the Port Granby Nature Reserve, along
with high-level cost estimates.
Section 4.0 Implementation translates the vision into a phased action plan—Foundational
(present–2030), Keystone (2030–2040), and Legacy (beyond 2040)—to guide delivery,
partnerships, and priorities.
The following sections provide a high-level overview of the policy
framework and engagement completed to date.Section 1.2 synthesizes
the direction from provincial, regional, and municipal plans that shape
waterfront development and conservation in Clarington.Section 1.3
highlights critical feedback and priorities from residents and stakeholders
that directly informed the Strategy’s key directions, vision and experiences.DRA
F
T
Page 39
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 5
1.2 Policy Direction and Plans
The Strategy is informed by a comprehensive framework of existing policies, plans, and
strategies at the provincial, regional, and municipal levels. These documents help establish
the legislative basis and strategic direction for land use planning, environmental protection,
community development, and public investment along the waterfront. To understand this
direction, the following key documents were reviewed directly shaping the vision,
principles, and recommendations of the Strategy.
Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan (2025 Draft)
Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan (2024), including its Five-Year Action
Plan (Report CAO-015-25, September 2025) and implementation strategy
(Attachment 1 to Report CAO 015-25)
Clarington Official Plan, 1996 (2024 Consolidation)
Envision Durham: Regional Official Plan (2024)
Municipality of Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-2027
Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (2024)
Clarington Transportation Master Plan (2016)
Municipality of Clarington Waterfront Study and Land Use Strategy (1993)
Other background documents reviewed in the development of the Strategy, include:
Draft Lake Ontario Shoreline Hazard Summary, Risk Assessment and Management
Plan (2022)
Corporate Climate Action Plan (2021)
Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan (2020)
Port Darlington Shore Protection Concepts (2018)
Draft Proposed Port Darlington (West Shore) Shoreline Management Report (2018)
Shoreline Terrestrial Features Background Report for the GRCA Watershed Portion
of Clarington (2018)
Port Granby Nature Reserve: Realizing the Vision (2015)
Port Darlington Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (2014)
Bowmanville and Westside Marshes Conservation Area Management Plan (2006)
Port Darlington Secondary Planning Area Implementation Strategy (1992)
1.2.1 Municipality of Clarington Waterfront Study and Land Use
Strategy, 1993
This foundational document established the first comprehensive, long-term vision for
Clarington’s waterfront, introducing key principles that continue to guide its management.
DRA
F
T
Page 40
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 6
The Strategy is built on this strategic document by:
Carrying forward the "ecosystem approach" to land use planning as one of the core
key directions and informing the new Environmental Stewardship and Climate
Resilience Guiding Principle;
Carrying forward and adapting the waterfront character sub-areas, waterfront
greenway, waterfront places and principles to form the new Vision and Guiding
Principles;
Assessing the successes of this strategic document, and updating the planning
context, priorities and community needs; and,
Establishing the implementation plan for the next 30 years.
1.2.2 Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
The 2024 Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) provides overall policy direction on matters
of provincial interest in land use planning. As the primary provincial planning document, all
municipal strategies must be consistent with its direction.
The PPS provides the foundational direction for the Strategy, reflecting its mandates by:
Prioritizing resilient design and directing development away from hazardous lands,
particularly shorelines susceptible to flooding, erosion, and dynamic beach hazards,
which is critical for building long-term resilience - this is a cornerstone of the
Strategy’s ‘Environmental Stewardship and Climate Resilience’ Guiding Principle;
Strengthening the protection of natural heritage features and areas for the long
term, including significant wetlands and bluffs, through the Strategy’s overall
ecologically based approach and specifically for the West Beach Area;
Mirroring the promotion of healthy, active communities through the ‘Public Access,
Connection, and Enjoyment’ Guiding Principle, which champions a continuous and
accessible public shoreline (e.g., parks, open spaces, and trails); and,
Incorporating climate change resilience as a core Guiding Principle for
‘Environmental Stewardship and Climate Resilience’, and recommendations for
green infrastructure and adaptive management.
1.2.3 Envision Durham: Regional Official Plan, 2024
The 2024 Regional Official Plan (ROP) sets the broad, high-level vision for growth, land
use, and environmental protection across Durham Region. With the Region’s transition to
an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities, Clarington is now empowered
to integrate these regional objectives directly into its local vision.
DRA
F
T
Page 41
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 7
The ROP provides the regional direction and context for the Strategy by:
Envisioning Clarington’s ‘Waterfront Areas’ as accessible lake fronting experiences
within a biodiverse ecological system;
Supporting development at the waterfront in Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle
as envisioned through the waterfront park concepts in the Strategy;
Supporting the ongoing development of a continuous waterfront trail and
connectivity into the regional-wide trail system, as envisioned through all visionary
concepts for the Strategy.
1.2.4 Clarington Official Plan, 1996 (2024 Consolidation)
The Clarington Official Plan (COP) is the Municipality's primary tool for managing growth
and land use. It translates the broad principles of foundational documents, like the 1993
Waterfront Study and Land Use Strategy, into specific land use designations and policies
that guide the Strategy. The COP provides the most current local planning framework.
The Strategy builds on the COP’s framework by:
Carrying forward the foundational concepts from the 1993 Waterfront Study and
Land Use Strategy, particularly the ‘Waterfront Greenway’ and ‘Waterfront Places’,
through the Strategy’s Vision;
Reinforcing high-quality, mixed-use urban environments for the waterfront
communities of Courtice, Bowmanville (Port Darlington) and Newcastle (Port of
Newcastle) through the Strategy’s Vision;
Adopting the COP’s key objectives to shape the Strategy’s Vision and Guiding
Principles, such that the Strategy's recommendations deliver a waterfront that is
clean, green, connected, open, accessible, useable, diverse, and attractive; and,
Prioritizing the long-term objective of a continuous waterfront trail and the protection
of the Lake Ontario waterfront as an important ecological and cultural heritage
landscape.
1.2.5 Municipality of Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-2027
This is the Municipality's highest-level guiding document, outlining Council's priorities and
linking them directly to the municipal budget and action plans.DRA
F
T
Page 42
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 8
This plan gives the Strategy its direct mandate and ensures its recommendations are
aligned with Council's top priorities by:
Fulfilling the explicit corporate priority to complete Strategy, and providing the
actionable recommendations to begin implementation;
Reinforcing Council’s vision for a "resilient, sustainable, and complete community"
through the Strategy’s Guiding Principles; and,
Aligning the Strategy with a sustainable financial framework for implementation that
meets the Council’s commitment to strategic investment in municipal assets.
1.2.6 Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, 2024
The Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood Secondary Plan guides the development of a new
community directly north of the existing Wilmot Creek Adult Lifestyle Community. This
secondary plan provides a framework for land use, environmental protection, and
connectivity that will directly interface with and support the broader waterfront vision.
The Strategy considers this plan by:
Envisioning the future growth and vibrancy of the neighbourhood, as well as
connectivity to the Waterfront Trail.
1.2.7 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan (Draft), 2025
The Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan provides the detailed planning framework for the
municipally owned lands along the waterfront that are adjacent to Darlington Provincial
Park, setting the stage for a major new park and community.
Key takeaways for the Strategy are to:
Adopting its vision for a mixed-use area and complete waterfront community;
Incorporating the new municipal-wide park as a cornerstone of the entire Strategy,
by positioning it as a regional destination with a range of year-round recreational
and cultural amenities; and,
Helping ensure that recommendations for this area are fully aligned, by creating a
single, unified vision for the future of the Courtice waterfront.
1.2.8 Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan, 2024
The Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRC Master Plan) provides a
comprehensive, long-term (15-year) vision for the future of Clarington’s parks, trails,
recreation facilities, and cultural services. It is a foundational document for the Strategy,
DRA
F
T
Page 43
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 9
providing recommendations for short, medium, and long-term actions for Clarington’s
waterfront. The Council endorsed a specific 5-Year Action Plan (Report CAO-015-25) that
details the short-term priorities (2024 to 2028), their financial implications, and the staff
resources required to implement them.
The Strategy is built on the PRC Master Plan findings by:
Integrating the key recommendations for the waterfront (e.g., preserving sensitive
areas, enhancing passive recreation and access, and adding amenities) into Vision,
Guiding Principles and concepts;
Implementing the recommended investments, such as public feedback as a clear
mandate for the Strategy's recommended investments; and,
Providing event space, picnic areas, outdoor fitness equipment, and non-motorized
watercraft launches in waterfront park concepts.
1.2.9 Clarington Transportation Master Plan, 2016
The Clarington Transportation Master Plan (TMP) provides a comprehensive assessment
of the Municipality's long-term (to 2031) transportation system needs across all modes,
aiming to guide decisions amidst significant anticipated growth.
The Strategy's recommendations for connectivity are informed by the TMP by:
Proposing an interconnected trail system, including the 'Circle of Green' concept,
that links to the key north-south corridors identified in the TMP (e.g., Nash Road and
Baseline Road); and,
Aligning its destination hubs, such as the Bowmanville Waterfront, with the planned
GO Rail extension to improve transit accessibility.
1.2.10 Clarington Active Transportation Master Plan (in progress)
The Active Transportation Master Plan (ATMP) is being developed concurrently with the
Strategy, sharing aspirations for a resilient and sustainable community, a safe and
connected network, and inclusive, accessible and vibrant communities. Key takeaways will
be incorporated into the final Strategy.DRA
F
T
Page 44
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 10
1.3 Engagement Highlights
In providing fair, balanced and ongoing engagement opportunities, the Municipality
deployed a variety of tactics to inform, educate and engage residents, environmental
authorities and interested groups about the Strategy. The community’s values and priorities
were received over multiple phases of the project and build upon prior feedback over time.
Additionally, as part of Clarington’s commitment to strengthen Indigenous partnerships,
First Nations communities have been invited to learn about the project and provide
feedback through dedicated outreach to help shape the Strategy.
Initial engagement, conducted in 2022, included a vision intercept survey, community pop-
ups, and meetings with Councillors and stakeholders to introduce the project and gain
early insights into the waterfront vision and needs. This was complemented by public
consultation on the waterfront lands for the PRC Master Plan where the waterfront was
identified as the top priority for facility investment (e.g., open space, parks, trails) with 85
percent of survey respondents supporting waterfront improvements. Early feedback
indicated that the waterfront is a highly valued asset in Clarington, and that creating a
connected, accessible, and active waterfront with a focus on environmental protection was
important to the community.
In 2025, a robust engagement process was undertaken to ensure the community had
meaningful opportunities to learn about and shape the draft Vision, Guiding Principles, and
concepts that inform the Strategy.
DRA
F
T
Page 45
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 11
The key emerging themes from all stages of engagement informing the development of the
Strategy are as follows (note: not listed by any hierarchy or priority):
Strong Public Support for Investment:The waterfront is highly valued, with
strong public support for continued recreation and community use investment in
parks, water play, family-friendly amenities, music venues and gathering spaces.
Environmental Protection is the Top Priority:Protecting and enhancing the
biodiversity, natural habitats, and shoreline integrity received strong support.
An Accessible & Connected Waterfront for All:There is clear enthusiasm to
build a continuous waterfront and trail network that is safe, inclusive, and barrier-
free for people of all ages and abilities.
Community-Focused, All-Season Recreation:The community desires family-
friendly, low-impact, and year-round recreational activities that respect the
waterfront's natural character and well-established communities.
A Scaled Approach to Economic Activity:Support is for small-scale, local
businesses (e.g., cafés, markets), with strong opposition to large-scale
commercial or residential development.
Infrastructure Must Match Growth:Providing adequate infrastructure—
including parking, public transit, and washrooms—to support increased use of
the waterfront.
Preserve the Unique Character and Heritage of the Waterfront:A tailored,
site-specific approach is required to address local community needs and
concerns, while maintaining the waterfront’s peaceful character and protecting
the site’s cultural and Indigenous histories.
Community priorities call for a nature-first approach that avoids over commercialization and
safeguards sensitive ecosystems; a people-centered waterfront that prioritizes inclusive,
accessible public spaces; and a long-term commitment to sustainability, with resilient
infrastructure and active stewardship to benefit future generations.
For a fulsome summary of ‘what we heard’ through engagement, please refer to
Appendix A. Additional public engagement will be rolled out following the presentation to
Clarington Council in early 2026. The feedback from this future engagement will inform the
final Strategy.
DRA
F
T
Page 46
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 12
2.0 Waterfront Lands AnalysisDRA
F
T
Page 47
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 13
Over the last 30 years, the Municipality led the implementation of the 1993 Waterfront
Study and Land Use Strategy through the establishment and implementation of COP
policies and land use planning decisions, increasing Municipal land ownership and
waterfront access through the land acquisition strategy, and partnerships with CLOCA and
GRCA to protect the natural heritage system and Lake Ontario shoreline. Further, the
Municipality led the planning and development of waterfront parks and communities,
vehicular and active transportation improvements for the overall connectivity of and to the
waterfront. These remarkable outcomes highlight the Municipality’s leadership and
investment in advancing a connected and accessible waterfront.
In preparing the Strategy, it was important to use a framework to simply organize and
communicate complex information gathered from the background documents and
waterfront lands analysis that spans over a 34 kilometres shoreline – it is referred to as
Strengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. The SWOT analysis
offers a focused understanding of the current conditions enabling informed decisions on
the future direction for Clarington’s waterfront lands - key feature and vital public resource.
The SWOT was completed at the onset of the project, in 2022, in concert with the
background document review, mapping, and an assessment of the economic opportunities.
Table 1 provides key highlights of the analysis - the detailed SWOT analysis and economic
opportunities assessment are included in Appendix B.
In completing the SWOT and analysis diagrams of Clarington’s waterfront lands (see
Appendix B), four key strategic directions emerged, as shown in Figure 2,Figure 3,
Figure 4, and Figure 5, describing Clarington’s unique context along Lake Ontario and
acting as the impetus for the Vision in Section 3.0.
DRA
F
T
Page 48
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 14
Table 1: Waterfront Lands Analysis Highlights
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Incremental
public waterfront access
since 1993.
Strong policies on
environmental protection
new development directed
away from areas of natural
or human-made hazards.
Diverse existing uses.
Courtice Waterfront and
Wilmot Creek
Neighbourhood secondary
plans, with sustainable
design guidance.
Well established water,
storm sewer and sanitary
sewer networks within
Bowmanville and Newcastle
urbanized areas.
Sanitary sewers located near
or through public lands.
Home to many natural
heritage features and
hydrologically sensitive
features, as well as
endangered species and
threatened species.
Established coastal hazard
mapping, summaries and
recommendations.
Highway 401 and railways as physical
barriers separating terrestrial and
waterfront ecosystems, as well as
vehicular and active transportation
routes.
Irregular access to amenity spaces
enhancing the user experience (e.g.,
signage, seating, shade, washroom
facilities, etc.).
Limited natural land cover within two
kilometres of shoreline, with agriculture
as the dominant land use within the
GRCA watershed.
Transit service gaps.
Existing shoreline development located
within hazardous areas
coastal hazard works due to greater risk
for flooding, erosion and unstable slopes
Lack of urban design guidance and
heritage protection
Port of Newcastle.
Limited public access due to private
ownership (i.e. community, agriculture,
etc.), utility and large industrial lands.
Bowmanville Creek and Graham Creek
channels infilling, limited navigability for
boating.
Future GO Stations and expanded transit services to
Bowmanville waterfront.
Acquisition of additional lands to protect sensitive
areas, ecological approach to shore protection.
Focused public realm improvements around
established waterfront places and future growth areas
including cultural heritage landscape protection.
Established scalable commercial villages in
Bowmanville and Courtice.
Additional waterfront amenities, commercial
incubators, improved seasonal experience, tourism,
placemaking and accessibility.
Integrated and shared marina use with municipal wide
parks, and more suitable boat locations.
Increased public access to ecological, cultural and
recreational areas.
Improved trail linkages, hydro-corridor connections,
off-road Waterfront Trail links, including cycling
infrastructure.
Expansion of open space system, restoration and
increase of natural habitat in Port Granby Nature
Reserve.
Increasing ‘green’ land cover, sustainable
development features, management of invasive
species, etc. to improve the ecological integrity of the
Regional wildlife habitat corridor (2 km) and coastal
habitat.
Reflected history, traditions, stories and heritage on
public lands.
Use of sediment that is hydraulically dredged from
navigational channels to nourish sediment supply on
beaches.
Climate change impacts - warmer water can lead to
increase in winds which leads to an increase in wave
action, impacting coastal vegetation communities,
erosion to bluffs and sensitive bluff vegetation and
animal life.
Undesirable crossings across Highway 401.
Privatization of shoreline access (physical and visual)
and population growth’s recreational demand on the
waterfront lands.
Existing shoreline development located within
hazardous areas and the risk is greater for: low lying
areas more vulnerable to flooding, and development on
bluffs are more vulnerable to erosion and slope stability
issues.
Shoreline hardening (i.e.,
etc.) and sediment deficit in some beaches.
Continual swings in high and low lake levels observed
to continue, potentially impacting increased flood and
erosion risks (e.g., decreased ice cover which exposes
the shoreline to more winter storms, more intense
storms and higher storm surges).
Higher 100-year flood elevation, shoreline bluffs and
beaches eroding (e.g., average annualized recession
rate in portions of the waterfront lands can be as high
as 0.6 metre of erosion/top of bluff loss per year along
the Bond Head bluffs as per the 2020 Lake Ontario
Shoreline Management Plan (Lake Ontario SMP).
Proximity of trail system to the eroding beach and bluff
shorelines, requiring abandonment should erosion
threaten the existing trail.
Rider safety without road shoulders to provide buffer.
Failing infrastructure, structural and property damage.
Cost of implementation.DRA
F
T
Page 49
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 15
Figure 2 Strategic Direction - Character Areas
Figure 2 illustrates two primary character areas along Clarington’s waterfront as urban and
countryside, with unique physical and regulatory requirements.
The ‘urban interface area’ recognizes the urban context, significant natural heritage features and
diverse land uses, linking to the communities of Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle north of
Highway 401 and offering direct lake access near historic harbours.
The ‘countryside interface area’ recognizes the predominantly agricultural land use of the area,
natural heritage features, steeper slopes, and the ‘Protected Countryside’ Greenbelt Planning
Area designation.DRA
F
T
Page 50
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 16
Figure 3: Strategic Direction - Five Sub-Areas
Figure 3 illustrates the updated 1993 Waterfront Study and Land Use Strategy landscape sub-
areas - they provide a simplified visual reference for the landscape sub-area characterization of
Clarington’s waterfront based on common land uses, policies and environmental characteristics.
The five landscape sub-areas provide insights into the diverse uses of the waterfront lands,
such as the vast area for conservation lands and resiliency nodes which support the natural
shoreline functions.
Figure 3 figure also highlights the existing landscape-based sub-areas that reflect the large
areas for industrial and residential uses.
Collectively the sub-areas provide an important ecological corridor, although each sub-area
requires a distinct ecologically based approach towards climate resilience with which to inform
the Strategy.DRA
F
T
Page 51
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 17
Figure 4 Strategic Direction - Regional Wildlife Habitat Corridor
Figure 4 illustrates Clarington waterfront’s regional wildlife habitat corridor, which encompasses
the two-kilometre coastal buffer that functions as both the east-west and north-south natural
corridor. It also provides critical staging, breeding, movement and habitat types for both aquatic
and terrestrial communities. In Clarington, this constitutes a high level of biodiversity and
complex ecological functions within the concentrated area. (e.g., the dynamic barrier beaches,
coastal dune and bluff communities, etc.).
The regional wildlife habitat corridor informs the strategic direction for Clarington’s waterfront as
an essential protection of the terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and habitat.DRA
F
T
Page 52
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 18
Figure 5 Strategic Directions - Identity and Placemaking
Figure 5 provides a simplified illustration of the existing and potential identity and placemaking
nodes that unify Clarington’s 34-kilometre shoreline. The nodes consist of geographically
clustered amenities and landscape features that highlight aspects of historic identity, community
well-being, enjoyment of public space, pride and stewardship, investment and tourism
opportunities.
The strategic connection of the Waterfront Trail across Clarington’s waterfront destinations
connects urban boundaries, publicly owned lands, and natural heritage areas to create a
distinct, comprehensive shoreline identity, while also embracing a series of experiences along
the Lake Ontario shoreline.
In conclusion, the four strategic directions work together as a collective blueprint, illustrating the
framework to create a unified and resilient waterfront through this Strategy. The two character
areas, five landscape sub-areas and regional wildlife habitat corridor focus on the classifications
of land through use and function, while also weaving clusters of waterfront activities. The multi-
layered direction reflects the complex urban, natural and social systems that guide the
development of Clarington’s overall Strategy Vision.DRA
F
T
Page 53
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 19
3.0 One Connected Waterfront,
Five Distinct ExperiencesDRA
F
T
Page 54
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 20
The overall Vision emerged from four strategic directions that were formed through the
synthesis of policy, community feedback and analysis findings presented in Sections 1.0
and 2.0. As a strategic diagrammatic Vision,Figure 6 illustrates the convergence of the
four strategic directions into One Connected Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences.
The following sections offer a detailed description of the key components
of this Vision.Section 3.1 provides a detailed description for the ‘One
Connected Waterfront’ aspect of Clarington’s Vision, as well as ecological
and adaptation planning approaches.Section 3.2 presents the five (5)
Guiding Principles for the implementation of the Strategy, and Section 3.3
outlines the five (5) distinct experiences in Clarington, including visionary
concepts.
One Connected Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences
Courtice Waterfront | Bowmanville Waterfront | Newcastle Waterfront
| Agricultural Heritage | Port Granby Nature Reserve
Clarington's waterfront is a publicly accessible space that connects our
community; protects natural systems, climate resilience and biodiversity;
and honours our history and cultural heritage. Our shoreline flourishes
with interconnected trails and diverse recreational opportunities while
placing environmental stewardship at the forefront. We grow our
waterfront sustainably protecting the important coastal functions and
landscapes, while also ensuring public safety and accessibility over time.
DRA
F
T
Page 55
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 21
3.1 One Connected Waterfront
Clarington’s waterfront lands will provide a continuous biodiversity and people movement
corridor, in congruence with adjacent geographic boundaries and features. The connected
waterfront will link people and places with a unified and accessible road and active
transportation network, while also supporting wildlife movement, natural coastal processes
(e.g., sediment transport), and ecological and biodiverse systems.
‘One Connected Waterfront’ will be established through ecological and adaptation-based
approaches to land use planning and land management, in recognition of Clarington’s high
shoreline erosion and flooding risks. The approaches, outlined below, will lead future
decision making in the next 30 years, aligning with the 2020 Lake Ontario SMP.
Avoid development within the hazard areas while also acknowledging the community
desire to access the shoreline. This reduces exposure by ensuring that new development
does not occur on hazardous land, recognizing that vulnerability to coastal hazards can
also be significant for legacy developments. Development setbacks for erosion and
flooding embrace the principles of ‘avoid’ and are based on a 100-year planning horizon,
as per PPS. Adopting a longer planning horizon would increase the longevity of the “avoid”
strategy and the overall resilience of the shoreline.
Accommodate allows for continued occupation of coastal properties while changes to
human activities or infrastructure are made to reduce coastal hazards and vulnerability. For
example, raising the foundation of a flood-prone building will reduce vulnerability and may
enable continued occupation of the site. In general, this applies to existing development,
not proposed development.
Retreat decision to withdraw or relocate assets exposed to coastal hazards when the
costs to accommodate or protect are either not affordable, fail to produce a positive
benefit-cost ratio, fail to adequately reduce the risk, or are not permitted due to regulations
or legislation. For this approach to be successful, voluntary property acquisition programs
with participation and contributions from senior levels of government may be required.
Protect people, property, and infrastructure as the traditional approach used in the Great
Lakes and often the first considered. For example, use of grey infrastructure (i.e., armour
stone revetments and seawalls, and nature-based solutions such as building coastal
dunes, planting vegetation or nourishing beaches). For this strategy to be successful it
must be shown that the site-specific risks can be effectively mitigated for the duration of the
planning horizon, as per the PPS. This is costly and should be the last option to be
considered if other strategies cannot be met.
DRA
F
T
Page 56
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 22
Figure 6: One Connected Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences
Experience
DRA
F
T
Page 57
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 23
Table 2 Definitions for One Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences Figure
Legend Reference Definition
Resiliency Nodes Areas prone to flooding due to their environmental
characteristics such as ravines, marshes and Lake Ontario’s
shoreline - they support important aquatic and terrestrial
will require special consideration for habitat protection,
infrastructure upgrades and development buffers.
Waterfront Spaces Both private and publicly owned lands along the waterfront for
residential, commercial and amenity areas, such as parks and
open spaces.
Natural Areas Areas that feature natural heritage features, such as the
Darlington Provincial Park, Bowmanville Westside
Conservation Area, Samuel Wilmot Nature Areas and the
proposed Port Granby Nature Reserve.
Agricultural Lands Lands characterized by their existing agricultural land uses as
well as their relationship with the Greenbelt Planning Area.
Industrial Areas Existing areas which include Darlington Nuclear Generating
Newcastle Industrial Park, and Port Granby Federal site.
These areas have very limited public access.
ANSI Areas Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) are designated
regions of land and water containing important natural
landscape of features.
Circle of Green Trail Conceptual long-term strategic vision for an interconnected
network of green spaces and looped pathways throughout
Bowmanville.
Urban Trail Paved and multi-use path designed for non-motorized travel,
separated from vehicle traffic.
Biodiversity and
People Movement
Two-kilometre coastal edge supporting the east-west and
north-south natural corridors, sediment transport, and staging,
breeding, movement and habitat types for wildlife along the
coastal zone, as well as multi-modal movement of people and
sense of place.DRA
F
T
Page 58
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 24
3.2 Guiding Principles
The following five (5) guiding principles translate the Vision into clear direction for day-to-
day decision making and long-term investments across Clarington’s waterfront. Grounded
in community priorities and aligned with provincial, regional, and municipal policy, these
principles set expectations for climate-resilient stewardship, equitable public access,
community-scale development and sense of place.
The Guiding Principles serve as a practical compass for planning, design, programming,
partnerships, and stewardship, ensuring the vision is consistently advanced from concept
to implementation along the Lake Ontario shoreline.
Environmental Stewardship and Climate Resilience: Protect, restore, and
enhance the natural environment, including the Lake Ontario shoreline,
wetlands, and wildlife habitats, while actively planning for flood and erosion
hazards and climate change adaptation and protecting biodiversity.
Public Access, Connection, and Enjoyment: Ensure equitable, safe, and
inclusive access to the waterfront for all residents and visitors, prioritizing
public ownership and enjoyment of shoreline lands, recognizing the waterfront
as a continuous and integrated corridor that supports ecological connectivity,
including wildlife movement and sediment transport along the nearshore, and
enhances public trail connections that link communities and natural spaces.
Cultural Histories and Traditions:Celebrate the layered cultural histories
and traditions on the waterfront lands through acts of reconciliation, a culture
of inclusiveness and belonging, and through the historic interpretation of
public spaces through design and local stories.
Community-Scaled Economic Viability: Foster a sustainable waterfront
economy that: supports small-scale, local businesses, creates employment
opportunities for the community, and encourages tourism that complements
the natural environment and enhances public enjoyment.
Design Excellence and Community-Centred Planning: Create high-quality
and impactful public and private realms through thoughtful, sustainable design
that reflects the local character and is guided by transparent and meaningful
community engagement.
DRA
F
T
Page 59
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 25
3.3 Five Distinct Experiences
The ‘Five Distinct Experiences’ were developed through strategic guidance by the
Strategy’s Vision and Guiding Principles – they are a mosaic of diverse experiences for all,
connected by the waterfront and regional trails and linked through in-between spaces that
provide unique secondary experiences.
Each is envisioned as a distinct experience, as illustrated in the simplified depiction at the
bottom of the Vision in Figure 6. Of these five (5) experiences, three (3) pertain to the
‘urban interface’ and two (2) pertain to the’ countryside interface’ with the Lake Ontario
shoreline.
The three (3) ‘urban interface’ waterfront experiences (i.e., Courtice, Bowmanville and
Newcastle) support the coastal ecology and resiliency of the dynamic shoreline, while
providing direct visual and physical access to the lake, amenities and connections to the
northern urban trails, future GO stations and the historic downtowns.
The two (2) ‘countryside interface’ waterfront experiences (i.e., agricultural heritage and
Port Granby Nature Reserve) also contribute to the protection of the coastal ecology and
dynamic shoreline resilience, while offering visual access to the lake due to the contrasting
topography of the shoreline bluffs and enjoyment through nature-based activities and
programming, and tourism.
Collectively, all five (5) waterfront experiences and their interconnectedness through
movement of people, wildlife and natural processes align with the Guiding Principles.
Next sections explore each location’s waterfront experience and vision, as well as high-
level cost estimates for Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle waterfronts.
DRA
F
T
Page 60
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 26
3.3.1 Courtice Waterfront Experience
DRA
F
T
Page 61
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 27
Note, these images are for illustrative purpose only (from left to right).
1. Betsy Patterson Square, www.mansfieldmdp.org/betsy-paterson-square
2. Assembly Row Urban Plaza Rendering, https://copleywolff1.squarespace.com/all-
projects/assembly-row
3. Lake Wilcox Park Splash Pad, www.vacationnorth.ca/listings/312790
4. Great Divide Nature Interpretation, www.tripadvisor.ca/Attraction_Review-g154912-d1738994-
Reviews-Great_Divide_Nature_Interpretation-Lake_Louise_Banff_National_Park_Alberta.html
5. Nouveaux aménagements à la plage de l’Est, https://estmediamontreal.com/nouveaux-
amenagements-plage-est-pointe-trembles/
6. Park Shelter, https://srpshelter.com/inspirations/sunset-park-id
7.Quai des Cageux (Cageux Wharf) observation tower, Quebec
The future Courtice Waterfront Park is located along the shoreline of Lake Ontario,
between Darlington Provincial Park and Courtice Shores Road. It is a new park that is
planned as part of the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan. The vision for this area will be
integrated into the Strategy, following its approval by Council.
The new municipal-wide park and secondary plan area is envisioned as a vibrant, family-
friendly destination where residents and visitors alike can spend the day enjoying nature,
recreation, and community connection. With its scenic waterfront setting and integrated
trail network, the new park will support a wide range of passive and active uses—from
walking and cycling to picnicking and educational exploration.
Park programs and design are being confirmed through a parallel design process, with a
strong emphasis on recreation, ecological integrity, inclusive access, and long-term
stewardship of the waterfront landscape.
3.3.1.1 Courtice Waterfront Park Concept
The Courtice Waterfront Park will include areas that support gatherings, commercial uses
and events towards the west, and more naturalized areas for trails, outdoor education, and
accessing the water towards the east. There are also additional lands to the north where
the park may be expanded to include additional natural landscapes east of Tooley Creek.
More detailed descriptions of how the Concept addresses the Guiding Principles is
described below and illustrated in Error! Reference source not found.DRA
F
T
Page 62
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 28
Actively plan for erosion hazards and focus shoreline stability interventions
where a balance between accessibility, safety, environmental integrity, and
cost effectiveness can be achieved. Protect, restore, and enhance the natural
environment, including the shorelines, wetlands, woodlots and areas prone to
flooding. Improve climate resilience and management of the waterfront’s
connected landscape in all areas.
Include significant new segments of the Waterfront Trail connecting to the
Courtice Shores Trail to new communities to the north. New trails bridge the
Tooley Creek valley and connect the park to areas north of the rail line.
Provision of new park recreational amenities that are designed to meet the
needs of a new and diverse community through all seasons of the year.
Town Square, Central Active Zone and Event Pavilion envisioned as a
community gathering hub accommodating small business activities, community
events, picnic pavilions and enhanced waterfront experiences. Street D, as
identified in the secondary plan, provides additional opportunities to blur the
line between commercial retail uses and the park edge. Additional
opportunities at the Nature Hub East where canoe, kayak, and stand-up
paddleboard rentals can be accommodated, as well as concessions.
Create high-quality and impactful public and private realm, through thoughtful,
sustainable design that reflects the local character and is guided by
transparent and meaningful community engagement. Design elements and
materials to be selected for durability and sustainability while contributing to a
high-level of design consciousness.DRA
F
T
Page 63
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 29
Figure 7 Courtice Waterfront Park Concept (Draft Courtice Waterfront Park Secondary Plan, 2025)
DRA
F
T
Page 64
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 30
Figure 8 Courtice Waterfront Park Vision - West Area (Draft Courtice Waterfront Park Secondary Plan, 2025)
DRA
F
T
Page 65
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 31
Figure 9 Courtice Waterfront Park Vision - East Area (Draft Courtice Waterfront Park Secondary Plan, 2025)
DRA
F
T
Page 66
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 32
Figure 10 Courtice Waterfront Park Vision - Additional Potential Park to the North (Draft Courtice Waterfront Park Secondary Plan, 2025)
DRA
F
T
Page 67
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 33
3.3.1.2 Courtice Waterfront Specific Recommendations
Village Square
Located at a prominent intersection in the planned Courtice Waterfront neighbourhood
and nestled within the proposed commercial-retail and mixed-use core of the community,
the Village Square is planned to serve as a prominent gateway to the park. The Square
is envisioned as an active programming zone offering opportunities for community
events and gatherings while being well connected to parking, park access points,
gardens and shade tree planting and the linear urban Street D, as per the secondary
plan, promenade.
Village Interface
The street at the northern edge of the park is envisioned as a shared use promenade
that creates a welcoming transition between the proposed mixed use, commercial and
residential uses to the north, and the new waterfront park to the south. This linear
promenade balances urban streetscape uses (vehicle travel, parking, activation areas,
tree planting) while blurring the interface between the street and the park.
Central Active Zone
The Central Active Zone, located at the heart of Courtice Waterfront Park, is designed to
make the park a true destination for visitors. It incorporates active features like a
playground, upland beach, splash pad, fitness hub, and potentially sport courts. The
area is easily accessible from local streets and parking and connects to the Waterfront
Trail. The design incorporates open lawn and picnic spaces throughout, ideal for smaller
events and gatherings. Additional adaptable areas, such as seating nodes, grassy
slopes and open areas provide versatility for seasonal activities and community use.
Event Pavilion and Grassy Slope
The proposed events pavilion and grassy slope takes advantage of naturally existing site
topography. The event pavilion is proposed to include washrooms, a warming feature for
the winter and a shade canopy for the summer. It will be the focus point for special
events and performances throughout the year while providing convenient access to both
the grassy slope and the Central Active Zone.
Flexible Picnic Areas
Flexible use picnic areas are integrated throughout the site to provide the community
opportunities to organize food and celebration-based events within a waterfront park
environment. Picnic areas are proposed to be equipped with barrier free picnic tables,
DRA
F
T
Page 68
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 34
BBQ’s, picnic shelters (various sizes) with electrical and water service and fire pits in
some locations.
Nature Hub West
Nature Hub West is located near the centre of the Courtice Waterfront Park, reflecting
the community’s desire for a passive, naturalized space. This area offers opportunities
for relaxation, play, and education, and can be the focus of Indigenous Place Keeping
initiatives. The location adjacent to the Tooley Creek Valley, is beautiful and peaceful,
lending itself to educational, contemplative and spiritual activities. The design of the area
should be developed in collaboration with local First Nations.
The design proposes several gathering nooks with seating and bike parking, all centrally
positioned and connected to the internal trail network and the Waterfront Trail. These
connections provide easy access to the active family zone, the beach access ramp, and
the kayak drop-off point.
Additionally, this space could feature an outdoor classroom for learning activities and
interpretive signage to enhance educational experiences. It is also envisioned as a
potential location for a communal gathering area, such as a fire pit.
Nature Hub East And Beach Access
Nature Hub East and Beach Access Area provide connections to Courtice Shores Road,
the Waterfront Trail and direct access to the beach. The area is proposed to include a
shade structure with winterized washrooms, a small outdoor education/gathering area,
bike parking, drop-off loop, canoe /kayak/ stand-up paddle boarding short term storage,
parking, access to the Waterfront Trail and barrier-free beach access ramp. The area
also includes access to a beach overlook feature.
Potential Municipal Nature Park
North of The Courtice Waterfront Park on the east side, lies a newly identified parcel
envisioned as a potential municipal park as illustrated in Figure 10. The design intent
prioritizes preserving the site’s natural character, ensuring minimal disruption to existing
vegetation and ecological features.
Access and circulation parking is available at both ends of the park, providing convenient
entry points for visitors. From these entrances, a network is proposed of 2.1-meter-wide
limestone trails winding through the landscape, traversing Environmentally Protected
Areas lands and crossing Tooley Creek via a bridge. These trails would connect
seamlessly to Courtice Shores Drive, Street D as per the secondary plan, and theDRA
F
T
Page 69
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 35
regional Waterfront Trail, creating an integrated loop that links the Courtice Waterfront
Park and surrounding areas.
Parking
Parking has been thoughtfully distributed across the entire site. This approach supports
multiple entry points and reduces congestion, making it convenient for families,
pedestrians, and visitors arriving by car. Approximately 170 parking spaces are planned
for, including regular accessible spaces to accommodate daily use and seasonal events.
Lookouts
The bluffs at the shoreline make physical access to the water’s edge very challenging.
Creating visual and barrier-free opportunities for park visitors to engage with Lake
Ontario will be important in enhancing the waterfront park experience. Three lookout
locations are proposed - each with a unique configuration and elevation to provide a
variety of experiences. The lookouts are proposed to be cantilevered overtop the erosion
hazard areas with abutments and other supports being constructed outside of the hazard
affected areas.
DRA
F
T
Page 70
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 36
Figure 11: Bowmanville Waterfront Vision
DRA
F
T
Page 71
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 37
3.3.2 Bowmanville Waterfront Experience
DRA
F
T
Page 72
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 38
Note, these images are for illustrative purpose only (from left to right).
1. Base 31, Dillon Consulting
2. Harish Forest Park, https://landezine.com/the-harish-forest-park-by-bo-landscape-architecture/
3. Rattray Marsh, www.ontarioconservationareas.ca
4. Dundas Place, https://londonlive.ca/tags/Dundas-Place
5. Port Stanley, www.shutterstock.com
6. Kincardine Beach, www.kincardine.ca
7. Lake Wilcox Park, Dillon Consulting
8.Landscape Design,www.nycgovparks.org
The Bowmanville waterfront is located within the valleys of the Soper and Bowmanville
Creeks, nestled within the Bowmanville Marsh with natural heritage links to the
Bowmanville Westside Marsh. Its vision is anchored by three (3) connected public spaces
at the centre of Bowmanville Creek that create an iconic gateway to one of the most unique
experiences along Clarington’s shoreline – an ecological corridor with flourishing
biodiversity, habitat and community connections to the marshes, West Beach Area, East
Beach Area and the bluffs.
The Bowmanville waterfront will be celebrated for its provincially significant coastal natural
heritage area, expansion of the Waterfront Trail, local business village, public boat launch
and connectivity north of Highway 401 – as per Figure 11. Bowmanville’s waterfront
features enhancements to both West Beach Park and East Beach Pars.
More detailed descriptions of how the Concept addresses the Guiding Principles is
described below.
Enhanced naturalization of the dynamic barrier beach, protecting and
restoring the Flood Damage Area resilience to coastal and marsh
flooding, erosion and hazard. Improved climate resilience and
management of the waterfront’s connected landscape in all directions.
New Waterfront Trail at the east edge of Bowmanville Marsh towards the
dynamic barrier beach at Lake Ontario, crossing Bowmanville Creek with
a new pedestrian bridge towards East Beach Park. Connections from
Waterfront Trail to the new Circle of Green trail system across Highway
401. Revitalized waterfront parks with new amenities and facilities
sensitively integrated into the shoreline’s connected landscape.DRA
F
T
Page 73
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 39
Rooted in the design and experience of the waterfront lands are the
layered Indigenous voices, knowledge and traditions to be shared
through reconciliation, as well as the site’s working harbour and cottaging
cultural remnants.
Established Local Business Village north of East Beach area supporting
community small-scale commercial activity offering an improved public
and visitor experience of the waterfront. Additional economic viability with
picnic pavilion rentals, boat launch and community events/festivals.
Community-led design process. Invested commitment to design
excellence, place making and sustainable design for waterfront lands.
3.3.2.1 Bowmanville Parks Concept
The Bowmanville Parks Concept, presented in Figure 12, illustrates an ecologically
diverse and climate resilient approach to parks design, while also incorporating spaces for
new programming and improvements to public amenities. These three public spaces
include:
The Bowmanville Marsh is the natural anchor of this portion of the Waterfront. Although
managed by CLOCA, the Municipality will need to coordinate conservation efforts and
partnership opportunities to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the Marsh
overtime. Edge conditions, access by trails and roads, stormwater infrastructure tie-ins,
lighting, boating practices and outdoor storage will all have environmental impacts to the
Marsh. It will be important for the Municipality to address potential adverse impacts to the
Marsh as recommended projects progress as part of the Parks Concept.
The West Beach Area is envisioned as Clarington’s main beach, a restored dynamic
barrier beach, with amenities that support ecologically sensitive park programming and
reflect the cultural histories of the place. The transition to a fully naturalized barrier beach
will be phased over time, honouring the existing cottage lease holders. Waterfront
connectivity will be enhanced by a strategically sited pedestrian/cycling bridge linking West
Beach to East Beach across the harbour outlet.
The East Beach Area and Village is envisioned as a pedestrian-oriented active shoreline
zone with improved park amenities, local-scale commercial area, boating access, parking,
and open space. The East Beach Area Parks will allow for more formal programming for
events and is linked to the boat launch and storage located directly to the north.DRA
F
T
Page 74
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 40
Figure 12: Bowmanville Parks Concept
DRA
F
T
Page 75
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 41
3.3.2.2 Bowmanville Parks Specific Recommendations
Pedestrian Circulation and Bridge
In the West Beach area, the Waterfront Trail is designed to extend beside West Beach
Road to the west and along the future service road towards the Waterfront Trail Bridge
Connection to the East Beach area. The bridge unifies the eastern and western park areas,
enabling the west end to support the natural and evolving landscape of the dynamic barrier
beach and hazard lands, and focusing on providing additional amenities in the East Beach
area, outside of the hazard zone. The bridge will be accessible and provide appropriate
height clearance for recreational boating and dredging equipment between the harbour and
Lake Ontario, as determined in future feasibility studies. In the East Beach area, the
Waterfront Trail extends east from the bridge and towards Port Darlington Road.
The meandering boardwalk along the north side of the future access road is designed as
the main pedestrian access to the West Beach from the north and east, with occasional
scenic views to the marsh from seating and lookout areas. As the boardwalk is located
within sensitive and hazard lands, the feasibility of its design will be determined in relation
to all-year public access and safety, environmental impact and engineering, material and
placement considerations. The boardwalk enables educational opportunities for the public
on the biodiversity and functions of the Bowmanville Marsh, an important Provincially
Significant Wetland. An opportunity for a single marsh access point along the boardwalk
should be considered with a seasonal floating dock, offering access to the water with non-
motorized watercraft. A second pedestrian connection is also envisioned along the publicly
accessible areas of the West Beach, looping back to the access road and boardwalk, and
in the long-term planning horizon have a continuous informal path along the beach.
A flexible streetscape along Port Darlington Road, between the commercial village and
East Beach Park, will enable a pedestrian-oriented environment that complements the
scale of the streetscape and weaves the park and vibrant commercial activities. The
flexible streetscape is designed to accommodate pedestrian movement during community
events during peak seasons as a vibrant public space, while lowering traffic speeds and
expanding mobility options.
Lookouts and Open Spaces
A series of lookouts and open spaces are featured, including heritage commons
commemorating the multiple layers of history, traditions and heritage; grassy picnic areas
as overflow parking; open picnic areas at the water’s edge; gathering space with a small
stage; sport courts or flexible active recreational area; picnic pavilions requiring seasonal
facility rental permits, and open area / patios / privately-owned publicly accessible spaces
(POPS) extension to the north of the flexible street.
DRA
F
T
Page 76
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 42
The West Beach Area serves as passive recreational space in recognition of the coastal
hazards and protection of the sensitive natural heritage features. No formal gathering or
programmed zones should be encouraged while the existing cottage residential uses
remain as the predominant use of the area.
Within the East Beach Area existing play facilities and new community amenities become
the central focus, creating a recreational waterfront hub appealing to residents and visitors.
Further design of the East Beach area should consider the seasonal day versus peak time
utilization.
Screening planting is features where adjoining private lands to the parkland converge,
featuring a mix of deciduous and coniferous planting species.
Parking
The West Beach Area retains the existing West Beach Road access to the existing
cottages, supporting park operations access and accessible drop off area and parking. The
main and overflow (for seasonal peak demand periods) permeable parking area is
intentionally located at the periphery of the West Beach Area to minimize vehicular traffic
along the southern access road, protecting the dynamic barrier beach landscape and
encouraging pedestrian movement throughout the site.
Parking in the East Beach Area is provided along Port Darlington Road, extending along
the northern edge of the park. The main and overflow (for seasonal peak demand periods)
parking area is intentionally located to the northeast to service the boat launch, local
business village and the East Beach Park – park users can also use this parking to access
the Waterfront Trail Bridge Connection and West Beach Area. The parking locations
encourages pedestrian movement throughout the site.
Note:further study will be required to mitigate impacts of overflow parking in green/open
space areas, specifically related to stormwater runoff and filtration.
Beach Areas
The West Beach Area is a dynamic barrier beach, and its adaptive management provides
an educational / interpretive opportunity around the natural feature functions and sensitive
landscapes. The dynamic beach is expanded and restored through planting and beach
management best-practices to its natural ecological landscape. The heritage commons,
and West Beach Area in general, feature a culturally significant interpretation of the
Indigenous knowledge, use and traditions on this land, harbour and industrial history, and
use as seasonal cottages. Access to the beach is also provided at the west end by the
parking, with a seasonal watercraft rental facility, and mid-block connections from West
Beach Road. West Beach also features beach volley-ball courts.
DRA
F
T
Page 77
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 43
The East Beach Area features a waterfront promenade and lookout, and no access to the
lake.
Gateways
Key gateways provide a welcoming entrance and distinct sense of place to users of the
waterfront, while also contributing to improved wayfinding and navigation along the
waterfront lands. Gateways should be visible and allow for a combination of structure,
wayfinding signage, planting, lighting, low walls, interpretive signage and/or allow for space
for potential public art commissions. Both West and East Beach Areas feature gateways
that are an intersection between park entrances and bridge with Waterfront Trail.
Park Facilities
The West Beach Area includes a seasonal building for watercraft rentals.
Building on the existing facilities in the East Beach Park, the area also features picnic
pavilions and a public boat launch, as well as play fields. The concept for the East Beach
Park also includes an gathering space with a natural informal stage platform for smaller
local events and performances.
Public Boat Launch
A new public boat launch is proposed in the northern portion of the East Beach Area, with
enhanced circulation and parking lot and edge docking along the harbor outlet. The
location of the public boat launch will be determined upon further strategic actions by the
Municipality, discussions with CLOCA, community consultation and feasibility studies.
Note: All proposed elements of the Bowmanville Parks Concept, including the bridge,
parking, public boat launch and rental facilities, are visionary and subject to further detailed
technical studies to confirm feasibility, ensure public safety, and evaluate the significant
long-term investment and maintenance required.DRA
F
T
Page 78
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 44
Figure 13: Newcastle Waterfront Concept
DRA
F
T
Page 79
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 45
3.3.3 Newcastle Waterfront Experience
DRA
F
T
Page 80
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 46
Note, these images are for illustrative purpose only (from left to right).
1. Vancouver Waterfront Master Plan + Park, www.pwlpartnership.com/projects/vancouver-
waterfront-master-plan-park
2. Cincinnati’s Smale Riverfront Park, https://kzf.com/portfolio/smale-riverfront-park/
3. Intergenerational Playscale at Beverly Park, www.legacyparks.org
4 Outdoor Gym Images, www.pikwizard.com
5. Scenic Fall, www.kincardinewelcomes.ca/scenic-fall
6. Food Truck Evening, www.stockcake.com
7. Destination Ontario, www.ontariobybike.ca/family-fun-bike-rides-exploring-toronto/
The Newcastle Waterfront is nestled in between Wilmot and Graham Creeks. Existing
parks include Lakebreeze Park, Bond Head Parkette and newly acquired lands. The vision
for this area is closely aligned with the Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood Secondary Plan
(2024), which guides development in the adjacent community and emphasizes new trail
connections and view preservation that will integrate with the waterfront.
The Newcastle waterfront will be celebrated as a residential marina village hub, with public
realm access and design excellence:
Lakebreeze Park is envisioned as a resilient shoreline park with flexible park space,
outdoor fitness equipment and naturalization settings.
Bond Head Parkette is envisioned as a community space, integrating the cultural
histories of the place with naturalization.
Newly acquired lands are envisioned as a gateway park with public art, plaza with
mobile food services, and a multi-generational play space.
3.3.3.1 Newcastle Waterfront Parks Concept
The Newcastle waterfront promotes amenities and access to the waterfront with routes for
pedestrians, key gathering and lookout spaces, beach access, park amenities and
enhancements to the public launch facilities. The trail network is envisioned as a loop,
utilizing the hydro corridor for an off-road connection to the north and a southern route
along the waterfront, connecting back up to Toronto Street.
The Bond Head Park offers beach, open space and boating facilities, while areas to the
west include natural meadows, parkland, play areas, an arrival plaza, gathering nodes and
lookout points. Trail routes connect throughout the landscape with links northward to a
connection across the harbor. Public support facilities including parking and washrooms
are proposed on both sides of the waterfront lands.
Figure 13 illustrates the vision for the waterfront lands, with descriptions of the key
features below.
DRA
F
T
Page 81
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 47
Transformed Lakebreeze Park into a resilient shoreline park with flexible
passive space and naturalization by enhancing natural defenses against
erosion and flooding while protecting and promoting biodiversity throughout
the creek valleys.
Expanded local trail system, utilizing both the hydro corridor and the
southern waterfront route to better connect the community to the natural
environment. This network will also integrate various amenities, including
beach access, a public boat launch, and key gathering and lookout spaces.
Continually explore ways to highlight Indigenous history through the
Waterfront amenities, particularly in the harbour and marina, as well as
community based cultural acknowledgement of the lands surrounding the
shoreline.
Fostered sustainable waterfront economy by activating the newly acquired
lands as a gateway park featuring a plaza with a mobile food service area,
creating small-scale, local economic opportunities and encourage tourism
that complements the natural and recreational assets of the marina village.
Created high-quality and impactful public and private realm reflecting the
character of a residential marina village. All design elements, from the arrival
plaza and park amenities to the trail links, will be guided by transparent and
meaningful community engagement to ensure design excellence.
3.3.3.2 Newcastle Waterfront Parks Concept
Newcastle waterfront surrounding Bond Head Park will build upon its current programming
and site amenities to become an enhanced gathering space along the shoreline. This
section of the waterfront will be oriented to community amenity enhancement and
improvement of the coastal landscape. Improvements should support the continued
operations of the marina, as illustrated in Figure 14.
The Newcastle Waterfront Parks Concept features light-touch improvements and
naturalization to Lakebreeze Park to the west, and a new park with mobile food services,
multi-generational playgrounds, flexible open space and washroom facilities south of the
marina with planting screening and landscape buffer. The Bond Head Park features
improvements to the Waterfront Promenade and path system, lookout areas, shaded
central plaza, building with washrooms facilities and food services, and naturalized
shoreline. Improved access and gateway features along Boulton Street will create a
heighted sense of place along the eastern side of the waterway.
DRA
F
T
Page 82
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 48
Figure 14: Newcastle Waterfront Parks Concept
DRA
F
T
Page 83
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 49
3.3.3.3 Newcastle Waterfront Specific Recommendations
Bond Head Park Enhancements
The Bond Head Park provides a waterfront park with enhanced naturalized park areas and
access to a small beach. The small beach is protected with shoreline improvements and an
enhanced waterfront promenade with a defined edge of shoreline naturalization.
The western portion of the park will continue to support a public boat launch with enhanced
circulation and parking for car and trailer movement. Shoreline docking along the harbour
outlet supports the launch facilities with several spaces for mooring.
Lakebreeze Park Naturalization
The western portion of Lakbreeze Park, located on sensitive erosion hazard lands, features
a restored landscape (e.g., meadow) and no-mow zones following best management
practices to create habitat for biodiversity, including migratory pollinator pathways. The low
meadow landscape maintains views from the residential lands, as well as from the
Waterfront Trail and lookouts to Lake Ontario. The meadow landscape once established
will be a low maintenance area with occasional management. The long grasses will also
assist the landscape in up taking runoff and reducing edge erosion.
Integrated along the Waterfront Trail is a natural outdoor fitness station that offers a range
of exercise options along the meadow setting, to be applied further west along Lakebreeze
Park.
Parking
On the west end, a drop off loop and roadside parking along Lakebreeze Drive supports
community access to the western Waterfront Trail, new park and its shoreline amenities.
The Bond Head Parkette includes public parking as part of the boat launch, as well as
layby parking along Boulton Street.
Lookouts and Open Spaces
At the south end of the Lakebreeze Drive roundabout, a small plaza area is included to
support programmed activities, gathering area and location for mobile food services, with
nearby new washroom facilities. An overhead trellis is proposed to provide pedestrian
comfort and gateway into the lake. Additionally, pockets of natural seating are included just
south of the multi-generational play area.
At the east end, Bond Head Park features an enhanced waterfront promenade, extending
eastward that terminates in a gathering plaza with a shade trellis structure, seating and
cultural interpretive signage. This lookout along the outlet provides view over to Bond Head
Park and will offer some of the most unobstructed views of the eastern shoreline and Lake
DRA
F
T
Page 84
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 50
Ontario. Additionally, the park features a lookout at the base of the eastern pier with
seating and shade offering protected views of Lake Ontario, and a smaller lookout on the
east side of the park.
Gateways
Two key gateways in the western area are located at pedestrian intersections at
Lakebreeze Drive and Shipway Avenue providing links northward into the community and
to the Waterfront Trail to the east. These locations also act as visual portals to the trail and
Lake Ontario.
Along the eastward trail an open space is provided for picnicking and informal recreation.
The trail also includes access to playgrounds, seating nodes, and interpretive information
on the heritage of the Newcastle Waterfront.
Note: All proposed elements of the Newcastle Parks Concept, including the washroom
facilities, enhanced parking, outdoor fitness, and lookouts, are visionary and subject to
further detailed technical studies to confirm feasibility, ensure public safety, and evaluate
the significant long-term investment and maintenance required.
DRA
F
T
Page 85
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 51
3.3.4 Agricultural Heritage Experience
DRA
F
T
Page 86
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 52
Note, these images are for illustrative purpose only (from left to right).
1. Clarington shoreline, Municipality of Clarington
2. Tourism Association, https://buchung.urlaub-hamburg-altesland.de/de/719038/rad-touren-
altes-land
3. Ocean Beach Esplanade, https://onetreewellness.ca/yoga
4 Cycling Safety, www.escarpmentmagazine.ca/recreation/cycling-safety/
5. Cycling View, urbanMetrics
6.Picnicking, https://conservationhamilton.ca/activities/picnicking/
Most of the waterfront lands east of Newcastle towards Port Granby represent a unique
and sensitive interface between a dynamic natural environment and shoreline, and a
productive agricultural landscape. Characterized by agricultural heritage—vast, active
farming operations that define the local identity and economy—the lands require careful
stewardship towards adaptation and resilience.
As this area falls within the Protected Countryside Greenbelt Planning Area, and due to the
inherent hazards of the eroding shoreline and bluffs, long-term investment into the
waterfront public space amenities is not recommended within the erosion hazard limits.
The strategic intent for the agricultural heritage waterfront lands is to provide low-key open
spaces and rest-stops along the on-road countryside Waterfront Trail network and visual
access to Lake Ontario.
The overall strategy is defined by a commitment to resilience, passive use, and tourism
through existing agricultural practices. Access is defined by maximizing the enjoyment of
open spaces through environmentally sustainable design, while explicitly avoiding new
structural investment that conflicts with the area's sensitive ecology and increasing erosion
of the bluff shoreline, and planning for potential future abandonment of established natural
amenities.
Very natural and low-impact interventions on such public waterfront lands can integrate the
multi-layered cultural heritage, histories and traditions of the region.
Outlined below is a set of Guiding Principles that maximize public benefit through passive
access while respecting the physical constraints and cultural values of the land.DRA
F
T
Page 87
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 53
A long-term adaptation approach to help recognize the need for a public
safety buffer along the erosive bluff shoreline, suggesting flexible
decommissioning of paths rather than hard infrastructural protection.
Education and partnership with local landowners on agricultural best practices
and working with Conservation Authorities to identify and close gaps in the
regional wildlife habitat corridor.
Strategic, safe, and publicly accessible rest stops along the Waterfront Trail
and lookouts that are set back well beyond the hazard line of the sensitive
bluffs. No water access.
Rooted in the experience of the waterfront lands are the layered Indigenous
voices, knowledge and traditions to be shared through reconciliation, as well
as the countryside interface area’s blended and preserved local tradition and
food production communities.
Celebrated as an agricultural heritage hub. Agri-tourism (i.e. cidery, spirits,
apple-picking routes, permitted open spaces with views, etc.) opportunities
and tourism. Passive use of space, no new structural investment.
Environmentally sustainable products to support shorter life-cycles of features
proposed to support the passive use of these public lands.
Pedestrian Circulation and Cycling
Lakeshore Road is as a multimodal road active transportation and maximizing the user
experience within its physical parameters. It serves as a vital on-road section of the Great
Lakes Waterfront Trail cycle route, accommodating cyclists, as well as potential walking
and jogging pedestrians, while supporting essential access for interspersed properties.
Future active transportation networks along the rural roads feature separated lane road
profile and/or visibly marked shared roads to prioritize user safety.
Open Spaces and Lookouts
To support the cycling routes and passive enjoyment of the agricultural landscape and
viewsheds to Lake Ontario, the public lands feature nature-based seating (e.g.
armourstone, wood and grass) and enhanced open spaces that are set-back from bluffs,
the plan will provide intentional, informal view nodes of Lake Ontario. These stops are
designed for cyclists and pedestrians to pause and gather briefly, maximizing public benefit
while strategically avoiding costly, high-impact infrastructure in the sensitive, eroding area.
DRA
F
T
Page 88
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 54
Parking
Despite the prominent cycle route and significant vistas, public parking is intentionally
avoided along Lakeshore Road due to the dominant agricultural land use provides minimal
demand, and the rapidly eroding bluffs prevent the safe development of other features that
would deem parking necessary.
DRA
F
T
Page 89
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 55
3.3.5 Port Granby Nature Reserve Experience
DRA
F
T
Page 90
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 56
Note, these images are for illustrative purpose only (from left to right).
1. Ontario Hiking, https://ontariohiking.com/island-lake-conservation-area/
2. Tourism Association, https://buchung.urlaub-hamburg-altesland.de/de/719038/rad-touren-
altes-land
3. Vicki Barron Lakeside Trail, https://ontariohiking.com/island-lake-conservation-area/
https://bestrussm.click/product_details/38439887.html
4 and 5. Picnicking, https://conservationhamilton.ca/activities/picnicking/
5. Forest School by Pinar.Alt.Un https://www.instagram.com/p/Cj3X_o 1Lbbh/
Figure 15 Port Granby Lands
DRA
F
T
Page 91
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 57
The Port Granby Nature Reserve is a vast expanse of federal lands established because of
a collaboration between the Municipalities of Clarington and Port Hope, the GRCA and the
Port Granby community. It is a proposal to the Government of Canada to transfer
ownership of federally owned lands surplus to the Port Granby Project to local agencies for
ecological restoration and preservation. These surplus lands represent the Port Granby
Nature Reserve and are located in the southeast corner of Clarington at the boundary with
Port Hope.
The surplus federal reserve lands have an established concept plan previously endorsed
by Council. The lands represent a unique opportunity for environmental restoration,
education and public access. This remains a significant, long-term project that will be a
significant public asset once larger conversations regarding final ownership and
management are complete and the lands are made accessible.
The description of each feature and how it falls within the Guiding Principles is outlined
below.
Large nature reserve along Clarington’s waterfront. Natural oasis and public
education site that highlights sensitive environmental characteristics of the
site, including enhanced wetlands, forests, meadows, agricultural pastures
and trails.
Publicly accessible as a destination, and a rest stops along the Waterfront
Trail with lookouts that are set back well beyond the hazard line. No lake
water access.
Rooted in the experience of the waterfront lands are the layered Indigenous
voices, knowledge and traditions to be shared through reconciliation, as well
as location’s legacy of past practices and clean-up initiatives.
A trail and other physical structures will promote passive recreation and
encourage eco-tourism.
Trail design outside of hazard and erosion areas but still providing view of
Lake Ontario.DRA
F
T
Page 92
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 58
Trails
The Port Granby Nature Reserve will connect to the Waterfront Trail along Lakeshore
Road. Additionally, the nature reserve will feature primary accessible trails and a
secondary more advance trail network through the various proposed landscape ecologies.
Open Spaces and Lookouts
Open spaces will feature interpretive signage and designated day-time picnic shelter areas
for daily enjoyment and organized educational groups/sessions. Topographical mounds will
feature elevated lookout points to Lake Ontario, and the surrounding context.
Access, Gateway and Parking
Access to the Port Granby Nature Reserve, from Lakeshore Road, will feature a gateway
and parking lot to safely welcome visitors. The size and location of the parking lot will be
determined based on forecasted visitor demand. The design of the parking lot should
feature Low Impact Development features, with planting enhancements to minimize urban
heat island effect and loss of natural cover.
The gateway should accommodate a rest -stop for cyclists on Lakeshore Road and be
designed as an important marker of arrival to the nature reserve.
DRA
F
T
Page 93
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 59
Figure 16: Illustrative Concept for Port Granby Nature Reserve, 2010
DRA
F
T
Page 94
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 60
3.3.6 Waterfront Park Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were prepared for Bowmanville and Newcastle waterfront parks using a
comparative value for waterfront parks. Park improvements and enhancements in existing
parks (i.e., Bond Head Park, Lakebreeze Park, etc.) are itemized in the tables below, and
new parks feature both itemized features and allowances for park areas that maintain a
high-level of conceptual design - new park construction was prepared with a per acre cost.
Both costing approaches are based on 2025 construction and supplier costs, and cost
estimates for comparable waterfront park improvements in other Ontario municipalities.
A detailed cost estimate will be determined upon further site investigation, such as
servicing, geotechnical, natural environment assessments, waterway bathymetry and
fluvial geomorphology and topographic surveys.
Cost estimate exclusions and assumptions are presented below.
3.3.6.1 Cost Estimate Exclusions and Assumptions
The itemized cost estimate for Bowmanville and Newcastle excludes the following items:
1.Soft costs (i.e., consulting services from landscape architecture, engineering,
etc. professions);
2.Site assessments (i.e., survey, geotechnical, site security, vegetation inventory,
etc.);
3.Site servicing to proposed facilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical, etc.);
4.Permitting/approval costs (i.e., CLOCA, GRCA, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
Species at Risk Act, permit to work, etc.)
5.Stakeholder, community and Indigenous engagement;
6.Disposal of soils/contaminated soils and associated reporting; and,
7.Contract administration and site observation of construction works;DRA
F
T
Page 95
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 61
Bowmanville Waterfront Parks Concept – Park Specific Assumptions
1.Gateway features are assumed to be two (2) masonry clad concrete masonry
unit columns, footings and excavations.
2.Lookout features are assumed to be a maximum of 60 squared metres, made of
lumber with guard rails, post and footings and associated excavations.
3.Boardwalks are assumed to be a raised lumber deck, without guard rails.
Includes post and footings and associated excavations.
4.Washroom facilities are assumed to be one (1) floor when determining square
footage. Includes interior mechanical work, foundation walls, but does not
include site utilities (assuming water/sewer/electrical will be tied into an existing
on-site source)
5.Heritage Commons unit rate per acre is based on the average per acre cost of
multiple destination park developments.
6.Beach volleyball cost is based on the average cost of multiple volleyball court
installations, includes sand, edging, base material, nets and posts, concrete and
excavation.
7.Waterfront Trail bridge is based on previous pedestrian bridge costs, plus a
factor of 3x to account for the extended approach slab and raised height to allow
passage of motorized water vehicles. Includes trail tie-in, approach slabs,
railings, bridge abutments, retaining elements, bridge superstructure,
excavations and de-watering.
8.Natural restoration assumes the upper end cost of wild seed mix, topsoil and fine
grading only.
9.Plaza/patio cost assumes a large, custom semi-circular shade structure, footings
and patterned concrete and excavations.
10.Sports courts assume an average per meter unit rate of $168, based on the
average cost of other, similar court installations. Assumes topsoil and fine
grading, turf, line painting and associated equipment (i.e., nets, etc.)
11.Boat launch costs assume a concrete ramp and prefabricated, floating dock,
excavations, shoring piles, trail tie-in and rough grading. Does not include any
retaining wall/shore break elements.DRA
F
T
Page 96
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 62
Newcastle Waterfront Parks Concept
1.Outdoor fitness assumes multiple fitness stations, no moving parts. This includes
the equipment, surfacing, subsurface drainage within the fitness area footprint,
curbs and associated excavations.
2.Plaza/gathering space in Bond Head Park assumes the cost of paving and
associated excavations only. All other features (i.e., washroom, lookout) are
accounted for in other line items.
3.3.6.2 Courtice Waterfront Park Cost Estimate
Cost estimate will be included in the final Strategy.
3.3.6.3 Bowmanville Parks Concepts Cost Estimate
A rough order of magnitude cost estimate for Bowmanville Waterfront Parks is $19.5
million, representing the approximate construction costs to implement the vision as
illustrated in Figure 12. It factors featured areas within West Beach, East Beach, new boat
launch and parking, and new local business village – this totals a park improvement area of
approximately 17.4 acres.
3.3.6.4 Newcastle Park Concept Cost Estimate
A rough order of magnitude cost estimate for Newcastle Waterfront Parks is $6.5 million,
representing the approximate construction costs to implement the vision, as illustrated in
Figure 14. It factors in the proposed areas within Lakebreeze Park, new parkland and
Bond Head Parkette – this totals a park improvement area of approximately 7.84 acres.DRA
F
T
Page 97
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 63
Table 3 Courtice Waterfront Park Cost Estimate
Description Qty.Unit Unit Amount Combined Total
Cost estimate will be included in the final Strategy.
DRA
F
T
Page 98
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 64
Table 4 Bowmanville Waterfront Parks Cost Estimate
Description Qty.Unit Unit Amount Combined Total
West Beach Area
Gateways 2 each $25,000.00 $50,000.00
$10,477,604.00
Lookout 1 each $40,000.00 $40,000.00
Trail (3 m wide)213 linear metre $500.00 $106,500.00
Boardwalk (5 m wide)2154 m2 $2,500.00 $5,385,000.00
Dock 1 lump sum $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Washrooms/ Rental Facility 1 lump sum $475,000.00 $475,000.00
Gravel Parking 882 metre squared $75.00 $66,150.00
Open Parking 882 metre squared $65.00 $57,330.00
Heritage Commons (allowance)2 acre $928,186 $2,285,193.93
Beach volleyball 2 each.$300,000.00 $600,000.00
Restoration 21874 metre squared $20.00 $437,480.00
Tree plantings / Screening 1114 metre squared $175.00 $194,950.00
Waterfront Trail Bridge 1 Lump sum $750,000.00 $750,000.00
East Beach Area
Gateway 2 each $25,000.00 $50,000.00
$5,809,190.00
Lookout 2 each $40,000.00 $80,000.00
Trail (3 m wide)950 linear metre $500.00 $475,000.00
Boardwalk (5 m wide)1395 metre squared $800.00 $3,487,500.00
Boat Launch 1 lump sum $250,000.00 $250,000.00
Gravel Parking 2398 metre squared $75.00 $179,850.00
Open Parking 2176 metre squared $65.00 $141,440.00
Sports Courts 2 each.$185,000.00 $370,000.00
Plaza / Patios 1 Lump sum $210,000.00 $210,000.00
Tree plantings / Screening 2088 metre squared $175.00 $365,400.00
Natural Restoration 10000 metre squared $20.00 $200,000.00
Sub-Total $16,286,794.00
Contingency (20%)$3,257,359.00
Total $19,544,153.00DRA
F
T
Page 99
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 65
Table 5 Newcastle Waterfront Parks Cost Estimate
Description Qty.Unit Unit Amount Combined Total
Lakebreeze Park
$466,250.00
Gateway features 1 each $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
Lookout seating 6 each $ 2,500.00 $ 15,000.00
Lookouts 3 each $ 40,000.00 $ 120,000.00
Outdoor fitness station 1 lump sum $ 85,000.00 $ 85,000.00
Tree planting 15 each $ 750.00 $ 11,250.00
Natural Restoration 10500 squared metre $ 20.00 $ 210,000.00
New Park
Open Space restoration (allowance)2.524 ac. $ 928,186 $ 2,342,742.00 $2,417,742.00Gateway features 3 each $ 25,000.00 $ 75,000.00
Bond Head Park
Gateway features 1 each $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00
$2,561,475.00
Boardwalk 455 squared metre $ ,500.00 $ 1,137,500.00
Lookouts 2 each $ 40,000.00 $ 80,000.00
Parking 1220 squared metre $ 75.00 $ 91,500.00
Washrooms/food services 1 lump sum $ 850,000.00 $ 850,000.00
Plaza/gathering space 1 lump sum $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00
Natural Restoration 2705 squared metre $ 20.00 $ 54,100.00
Tree planting/landscaping 1505 squared metre $ 175.00 $ 263,375.00
Sub-Total 5,445,467.00
Contingency (20%)$1,089,093.00
Total $6,534,560.00DRA
F
T
Page 100
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 66
4.0 ImplementationDRA
F
T
Page 101
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 67
Over the next 30 years, Clarington’s waterfront will thrive as One Connected Waterfront,
Five Distinct Experiences (see Section 3.0) – a publicly-accessible and ecologically
nurturing waterfront that leads to quality-of-life improvements, scalable economic growth,
tourism, and assessment values while generating social, inclusionary, health,
environmental and community benefits.
Table 6 Clarington Waterfront Strategy Implementation Phases
Phase 1: Foundational
Recommendations
(Present to 2030)
Focused on actions that
set the groundwork for
the Strategy and
completing ‘quick win’
projects on Municipal
lands.
Phase 2: Keystone
Initiatives
(2030 to 2040)
Focused on completing
high-impact public
projects within the five
distinct waterfront
experiences in
Clarington.
Phase 3: Waterfront
Legacy
(Beyond 2040)
Focused on completing
transformational projects
that unify and achieve
the full Vision for
Clarington’s waterfront.DRA
F
T
Page 102
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 68
The implementation of the Strategy is structured around an incremental three-phase
process, each with a specific focus and priority level, as described in Table 6, and
associated actions in Section 4.1. The actions are aligned with the Vision and Guiding
Principles of this Strategy (see Section 3.0) and provide the road map to the Municipal
staff, Council, community and its partners. They are organized into the following five
categories to facilitate easier navigation and tracking of the implementation:
1.Capital Projects, Infrastructure and Funding
2.Policy, Zoning, and Regulatory Requirements
3.Studies, Master Planning, and Design
4.Internal Processes and Programs
5.Partnerships
The following section provides the implementation plan for the Strategy
within three (3) phases and organized into the five categories discussed
above. Phase 1 implementation is presented in Section 4.1.1. Phase 2
implementation is presented in Section 4.1.2. Phase 3 implementation is
presented in Section 4.1.3.DRA
F
T
Page 103
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 69
4.1 Implementation Plan
The following section outlines general recommendations and 31 actions within a three-
phased timeline to implement the Strategy.
Adopt ecological and adaptation (i.e., avoid, accommodate, retreat and protect)
approaches to longer-range waterfront planning and land management
Create educational materials for school boards, researchers and visitors to
continuously promote and advance evolving trail system, health, ecological and
environmental impacts to the community.
Continuously engage with the community and stakeholders to help prioritize
implementation of the park, and to advance detail design for the Courtice,
Bowmanville and Newcastle park concepts;
Ensure that Indigenous interests are provided an opportunity to engage with the
Municipality on all work involving the waterfront lands. Safeguard processes towards
the Municipality’s reconciliation goals and actions with Indigenous communities
through the implementation of the Strategy.
Determine priorities for the implementation of the Strategy for all future
Municipality’s Strategic Plans, supported by multi-year budget process;
Update cost estimate and associate capital budget planning for park enhancements
and new park projects as they get defined through future feasibility studies,
servicing needs, master planning and detailed design;
Promote the Waterfront Trail and actively enhance and expand the trail system in
partnership and alignment with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust plans.
Secure a long-term funding source for ongoing waterfront maintenance and
programming.
Update Asset Management Plan (AMP) to include new waterfront assets and
evaluate the condition of existing assets. Also, update core and non-core asset
conditions and priorities on the waterfront lands, aligning implementation of key
projects with the replacement/ repairs needs;
Complete background studies (i.e., survey existing site conditions, soils stability,
contamination, servicing,etc.) for actions in each phase of implementation;
Adapt and reprioritize uncompleted actions at the start of each implementation
phase in response to changing erosion, flood and other unforeseen climate impacts,
and update funding strategy in accordance with next phases of the Strategy; and,
Review the Strategy after every 10 years of implementation to confirm alignment
with the planning and policy frameworks and regulations at the time, and successes
to date.
Note, numbered actions do not imply importance of one action over the other.
DRA
F
T
Page 104
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 70
4.1.1 Phase 1: Foundational Recommendations (Present to 2030)
Table 7: Phase 1 Implementation Categories and Actions
Recommended Action
Capital Projects, Infrastructure and Funding
1.Plan (i.e., capital planning, funding, partnerships, etc.) and complete ‘quick-win’
projects listed below to kick-off the implementation of the Strategy:
a. Establish ‘no-mow’ zones and naturalization of linear waterfront edge
parks (e.g., Lakebreeze Park and Lakebreeze Waterfront Park), with
shaded tree lookouts, seating and natural outdoor fitness equipment.
b. Extend Waterfront Trail south to Courtice Shore Drive and p
parking lot and trail access connecting to Courtice Shores Trail.
c. Provide waterfront lookout areas on existing countryside public lands with
appropriate setbacks, restoration planting, natural materials and low-
maintenance features.
d. Expand waterfront-specific wayfinding at key entry points and decision-
making locations, ensuring consistency with the overall municipal
wayfinding system, in alignment with the Wayfinding System Strategy.
e. Engage in naturalization and habitat restoration projects in partnership
with CLOCA and GRCA for the non-occupied cottage parcels in West
Beach and formalizing natural paths and signage to the dynamic beach.
f. Implement priority action(s) from the new ATMP, enhancing the east-west
and north-south connectivity and access to the waterfront.
2.Prepare a multi-year capital plan and various funding sources for the Courtice,
Bowmanville and Newcastle park concepts to guide large investments at each
location.
3.Develop a funding strategy, and secure funding opportunities to advance
Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle waterfront park priorities to detailed design
development and construction:
a. Provincial and Federal government funding, and in partnership with local
conservation authorities;
b. Joint venture partnerships with local private sector partners for the
financing, design and construction of commercial space in Bowmanville;
c. Corporate and personal sponsorship for supporting new investment and
promotion of tourism/economic development on Clarington’s waterfront
lands (e.g., recreational facilities, signage, etc.); and,
d. Recognize that fundraising and stewardship programs are continually
changing.
DRA
F
T
Page 105
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 71
Recommended Action
Policy, Zoning, and Regulatory Requirements
4.Implement the Strategy into the COP.
5.Consider zoning classifications and specific regulations for the public waterfront
lands during the comprehensive review of the Municipality’s zoning by-law.
6.Undertake feasibility studies for a washroom facility, parking, north waterfront
promenade and boat dock, new boat launch location and pedestrian bridge for
the implementation of the Bowmanville Waterfront Parks Concept.
7.Build sustainability and climate resiliency into development of all waterfront lands
to support the ecological and adaptation planning approaches. Secondary plans
for waterfront lands have established sustainability guidance.
Studies, Master Planning, and Design
8.Formally coordinate the Vision and implementation actions (i.e., studies, capital
projects, etc.) stemming from this Strategy with the concurrent implementation,
capital priorities and recommendations of other plans and master plans (e.g.,
PRC Master Plan, Active Transportation Master Plan, Transportation Master
Plan, Transit Master Plan, etc.).
9.Create (or update existing) timeline for the implementation of the Port Granby
Nature Reserve project, in alignment with the Strategy.
10.Update the Municipality’s 2018 Urban Forest Strategy to establish baseline and
target canopy cover for the urban interface and countryside interface waterfront
lands as they require different approaches (e.g., street tree planting and closing
wildlife corridor gaps). This will allow the Municipality, in partnership with others,
to apply for tree planting funding.
11.In partnership with CLOCA and GRCA, use best management practices and
update standards with new adaptation-based approaches (i.e., abandoning a
trail, etc.) and preparedness for climate resilience (i.e., natural buffers), including
rest area intervals, emergency preparedness, lighting, waste management and
shoreline safety. These will guide the detailed design and construction of all the
future improvements in the waterfront, as well as operations and maintenance.
12.Conduct operational feasibility studies for establishing small-scale, seasonal
commercial opportunities (e.g., watercraft rental building) as part of the strategy
for all five (5) distinct waterfront experiences.DRA
F
T
Page 106
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 72
Recommended Action
Internal Processes and Programs
13.Establish a dedicated, multi-departmental Waterfront Implementation Team to
champion, coordinate, and report on the implementation of the Strategy. This
team will be the central point of accountability.
14.Land acquisition as outlined within the Waterfront Strategy will be supported by
the updated COP’s objectives to improve and create new open spaces through
parkland dedication. This would highlight protection of Lake Ontario shoreline,
creating a continuous trail system and public realm improvements (i.e., lookouts,
parks, public amenities, natural areas).
15.Prepare a monitoring plan for the Strategy to allow the Waterfront
Implementation Team to periodically measure and track the success of the
overall implementation, in concert with the local CLOCA and GRCA watershed
monitoring and protection efforts and standardized watershed report cards.
Partnerships
16.Establish connections for new off-road Waterfront Trail routes in utility corridors,
in collaboration with Hydro One, and other private easements to improve overall
connectivity. Provide acknowledgement of advancement of trail networks through
shared infrastructure and agency partnerships.
17.Continue to collaborate with adjacent municipalities on enhanced trail system
connections. Provide signage and wayfinding to raise awareness of extent of trail
system.
18.Build new (or strengthen existing) partnerships with key partners to help
implement the Strategy, including community groups, key stakeholders, Region
of Durham, conservation authorities for joint habitat restoration and shoreline
management projects, and Indigenous communities towards co-stewardship
and place-keeping along the waterfront lands.DRA
F
T
Page 107
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 73
4.1.2 Phase 2: Keystone Initiatives (2030 to 2040)
Table 8 Phase 2 Implementation Categories and Actions
Recommended Action
Capital Projects, Infrastructure and Funding
1.Begin phased construction of the Bowmanville Waterfront improvements,
focusing on the West Beach enhancements, trail connections, and initial park
amenities.
2.Begin phased construction of the Newcastle Waterfront improvements, focusing
on the new park along Lakebreeze Drive and Bond Head Park enhancements.
3.Establish and complete phased construction the Courtice Waterfront Park in line
with the approved Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan and detailed design.
Policy, Zoning, and Regulatory Requirements
4.Initiate a Cultural Heritage Landscape study of the waterfront lands to identify,
protect, and celebrate significant tangible and intangible elements, building on
the COP direction.
Studies, Master Planning, and Design
5.Prepare and implement a waterfront branding and tourism strategy that:
a. builds upon existing municipal strategies by creating a unified brand
identity for the ‘One Connected Waterfront, Five Distinct Experiences' that
aligns with the broader municipal brand;
b. promotes the waterfront as a tourism destination, with a focus on the
unique experiences of the five distinct destination areas in the
Municipality’s tourism materials; and,
c. Includes programming for waterfront events and festivals to help establish
vibrancy and locally scaled attractions to the waterfront lands.
6.Evaluate the market, economic and community needs for boating, docks and
marine facilities with environmental regulations, and their ownership and
operation models.
7.Advance next steps in the implementation of the Port Granby Nature Reserve
project, in alignment with the Strategy, including partnerships and funding
opportunities.DRA
F
T
Page 108
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 74
Recommended Action
Partnerships
8.Partner with local Indigenous communities to co-develop and install interpretive
signage and public art that shares their history and stories related to the
waterfront.
DRA
F
T
Page 109
Draft Clarington Waterfront Strategy | December 2025 | 75
4.1.3 Phase 3: Waterfront Legacy (Beyond 2040)
Table 9 Phase 3 Implementation Categories and Actions
Recommended Action
Capital Projects, Infrastructure and Funding
1.Complete the construction of the Waterfront Trail Bridge in Bowmanville, which
requires significant studies and funding.
2.Construct any remaining phases or elements of the five (5) distinct waterfront
experiences.
3.In partnership with federal agencies, facilitate the public opening of the Port
Granby Nature Reserve with its trail network and interpretive program.
Policy, Zoning, and Regulatory Requirements
4.Update the Strategy to align with the future COP policies, regulatory frameworks,
economic drivers, waterfront study area conditions, funding opportunities, and
science on climate change and shoreline resilience.
Partnerships
5.Establish a permanent Waterfront Trust or foundation to oversee long-term
stewardship, programming, and fundraising for waterfront enhancement projects.
DRA
F
T
Page 110
Appendix A
B Community Engagement Summaries
DRA
F
T
Page 111
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Clarington Waterfront Round 1
Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
DRA
F
T
Page 112
Table of Contents i
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
Table of Contents
Execuve Summary
1.0 Introducon 1
2.0 Engagement Acvies 2
2.1 Engagement Acvies ......................................................................................................2
3.0 What We Heard 4
3.1 Council Interviews ............................................................................................................5
3.2 Visioning Workshops ........................................................................................................5
3.3 Online Survey ...................................................................................................................8
3.4 Community Pop-ups .........................................................................................................9
3.5 Stakeholder Meengs .....................................................................................................10
3.6 Targeted Youth Engagement ..........................................................................................10
3.7 Parks, Recreaon and Culture Plan (2024) ......................................................................10
4.0 Next Steps 11
Tables
Table 2-0 Engagement Activities ........................................................................................................ 2
Table 3-0 Engagement Summary ....................................................................................................... 4
Table 3-1 Mural Board Summary ....................................................................................................... 6
Table 3-2 Mentimeter Summary ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 3-3 Online Survey Summary ..................................................................................................... 8DRA
F
T
Page 113
Executive Summary ii
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
Execuve Summary
The Municipality of Clarington (the Municipality) is developing the Clarington Waterfront Strategy (the
strategy) with a renewed vision for the 34-kilometre stretch along Lake Ontario. Dillon Consulting
Limited (Dillon) and urbanMetrics Inc. have been retained by the Municipality, to assist in the
preparation of the strategy. This new strategy builds on past successes and aligns with key plans such as
the Clarington Strategic Plan, Official Plan, the 2020 Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan, Parks,
Recreation and Culture Master Plan (2024), and active transportation initiatives.
The approach is guided by fundamental principles rooted in Clarington’s 1992 Waterfront Strategy and
the Crombie Commission. The focus is on providing diverse and usable spaces that are safe and inclusive
for people of all ages and abilities while ensuring efficient use of resources. Building on Clarington’s
cultural and natural heritage assets and previous planning initiatives, the Municipality aims to
understand the needs and desires of the community and stakeholders for the waterfront.
Clarington’s expansive shoreline, with its diverse and evolving land uses, can support a range of
experiences and flourish as a regional destination along the waterfront. To enable the alignment of
social, environmental, cultural, and economic values, extensive engagement has been carried out with
residents, stakeholders, visitors, businesses, and other interested parties.
During the first round of engagement in 2022, a variety of in-person and online activities were
conducted to share information and gather input. Engagement activities included two stakeholder
visioning workshops, a youth engagement activity, interviews with the Mayor and Council, additional
stakeholder meetings, and Indigenous outreach. To gather feedback from the broader public, online
methods of engagement were utilized, including creating a project website, social media posts, and an
intercept survey. Community pop-ups at key locations were held along the waterfront to build project
awareness, engage directly with participants, and advertise the online survey.
Through the engagement activities and events with the public and stakeholders, several key themes
emerged. These themes were deduced from the valuable insights gathered during the interactions and
reflect the primary concerns, interests, and ideas shared by participants and include:
Increasing accessibility and connecvity across and to the waterfront.
Safety for trail users and traffic calming measures.
Commercial development including restaurants and retail.
Creang a desnaon on the waterfront to aract visitors and residents.
Waterfront infrastructure and amenies to support recreaon such as bike parking, equipment
rentals, and washrooms.
Trail improvements such as year-round maintenance and wayfinding.
Opportunies for paid parking for visitors and potenally residents.
Waterfront recreaon opportunies including passive and acve recreaon.
Preserving green spaces, protecng natural heritage and wildlife habitats.
DRA
F
T
Page 114
Executive Summary iii
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
The project was paused in November 2022 and has since been reinitiated in early 2025. The updated
schedule for the project reinitiation will be presented to Council on May 12thth, 2025, including key
strategy elements such as the draft vision, proposed “big moves”, and community input to date.
Additionally, public consultation on the strategy will resume in spring/summer 2025, focusing on
gathering feedback on the vision and “big moves”.
DRA
F
T
Page 115
1.0 Introduction 1
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
1.0 Introducon
The Municipality of Clarington (the Municipality) is currently undertaking the development of the
Clarington Waterfront Strategy (the strategy). The strategy is the first comprehensive update since 1992
and builds on Clarington’s successes while aligning with other relevant plans including the Clarington
Strategic Plan, Official Plan, the 2020 Lake Ontario Shoreline Management Plan, Parks, Recreation and
Culture Master Plan (2024), and active transportation initiatives.
To accomplish the Municipality’s desired objectives and outcomes, there are fundamental principles and
best practices that guide the approach, these principles are shaped by Clarington’s original 1992
Waterfront Strategy and the Crombie Commission:
Clean: Posively contribute to a healthy environment.
Green: Protect and enhance natural, cultural and built heritage features.
Connected: Create a network of linkages for people to enjoy the waterfront.
Open: Frame waterfront views and vistas.
Accessible: Priorize safe and publicly accessible design for people of all ages and abilies.
Usable: Ensure supporve and compable public and private uses.
Diverse: Ensure an offering varied opportunies for residents and visitors are available.
Affordable: Make efficient use of public and private sector resources for all.
Aracve : Strive for excellence in design.
The Municipality is looking to build upon its cultural and natural heritage assets, planning successes and
relationships with the community and key stakeholders, while recognizing the existing and future needs
of a growing and aging community, Indigenous peoples, and visitors to Clarington.
Clarington’s long shoreline with adjacent mixed and evolving land uses needs to support diverse
experiences and thrive as regional destinations along the waterfront - the social, environmental, cultural
and economic values need to align. To confirm the alignment of these values, extensive engagement in
Round 1 has been conducted with area residents, stakeholders, businesses, and interested parties.
This first round of engagement was conducted in June to October 2022 before the pause to the project;
as of January 2025, the project has been reinitiated. Since 2022, several other projects have gathered
input related to the waterfront, including the Active Transportation Master Plan (in progress), 2024-
2027 Strategic Plan, and the Parks, Recreation, and Culture Plan (2024). The feedback received through
these initiatives will be considered for the development of the waterfront strategy.
The following summary looks at what has been completed so far in Round 1 of engagement and the key
themes of feedback.DRA
F
T
Page 116
2.0 Engagement Activities 2
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
2.0 Engagement Acvies
A series of activities to support public and stakeholder engagement were held throughout Round 1. The
activities were designed to provide multiple opportunities to gather feedback on various aspects of the
project. The following section provides a table with a synopsis of the approaches used to gather input in
round 1 of engagement. The input received from the activities below is summarized in Section 3.0 What
We Heard.
2.1 Engagement Acvies
Table 2-0:Engagement Acvies
Engagement Activity Summary
Project Introduction and
Website Update
June 2022
The project was formally launched to build awareness and notify interested parties.
This included a website update with project information and how to get involved.
Stakeholders were also informed of the project, and how to sign up for updates.
Communications
June – October 2022
In addition to the website, additional communications included:
Social Media: Posts on social media directed people to the website, online
survey, and promoted the community pop-ups.
Coroplast Signs: Signs were posted along the waterfront and included a QR code
to direct users to the online survey.
Informaon Sheet: A handout with a summary of the strategy purpose and
engagement opportunies was available.
Postcard: A handout created to raise awareness and direct to project website.
Indigenous Communities
Outreach and Engagement
August -October 2022
Outreach to Indigenous communities was to introduce the project and the vision,
build relationships, and to understand how communities wanted to be engaged.
Council Interviews #1
July - August 2022
The 2022 Council and Mayor were interviewed to introduce the project, and seek
input on the vision, strategy, and engagement activities.
Visioning Workshops with
Steering Committee,
Agencies, Community
Stakeholders (virtual)
October 6th, 2022
2:00 – 4:00 p.m.
6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
seek input on vision, priorities, opportunities and constraints. Workshop attendees
included:
Municipality of Clarington (Infrastructure Engineering – Capital Works, Public
Works – Parks and Cemeteries, Tourism, Planning – Policy and Secondary Plans,
Municipal By-Law Enforcement)
Waterfront Regeneraon Trust
Ontario Power Generaon
Region of Durham – Planning and Works
Ministry of the Environment, Conservaon and Parks - Ontario Parks
DRA
F
T
Page 117
2.0 Engagement Activities 3
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
Engagement Activity Summary
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
St Mary’s Cement
Clarington Board of Trade
Region of Durham – Economic Development
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
Ganaraska Region Conservaon Authority
Intercept Online Survey
August 22 – October 3, 2022
An online survey was conducted to understand the community’s collective vision,
priorities, and the opportunities along the waterfront. Questions sought to gain
insight into the public’s current use of the waterfront, preferences for the future of
the waterfront, and top priorities for the updated Clarington Waterfront Strategy. In
total, 419 people answered the survey and the open-ended questions each received
between 105 and 134 responses.
Five Community Pop-Ups
August – September, 2022
The following community pop-ups were held to introduce the project, raise
awareness, and advertise the online survey, answer questions, and seek input on
the strategy.
Port Darlington East Beach – August 24, 2022
Cource Shores Rd (Trailhead) – August 27, 2022
Bond Head Parkee – August 27, 2022
Chronicle Brewery – September 17, 2022
Newcastle Harvest Fesval – October 1, 2022
Stakeholder Meetings
July – September, 2022
The following stakeholder meetings were held to inform participants and gather
input:
Parks Ontario / Ministry of Environment, Conservaon and Parks (re: Darlington
Provincial Park) – June 27, 2022
Ontario Power Generaon – July 12, 2022
Waterfront Regeneraon Trust – July 12, 2022
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (re: Wilmot Creek Crown Lands) –
July 14, 2022
Clarington Acve Transportaon and Safe Roads Advisory Commiee –
September 7, 2022
Accessibility Advisory Commiee – September 7, 2022
Samuel Wilmot Natura Area Management Advisory Commiee – August 9, 2022
Diversity Advisory Commiee – September 22, 2022
Targeted Youth Engagement
Activity #1
August 1, 2022
A targeted youth engagement activity was held through the Clarington Summer
Camps to introduce the project and seek input from youth. An activity ‘Drawing the
Waterfront’ aimed to understand what participants would like to see developed at a
future waterfront destination.DRA
F
T
Page 118
3.0 What We Heard 4
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
3.0 What We Heard
The following sections provide a summary of what we heard through each of the various engagement
activities in Round 1. The table below provides a high-level summary of the key takeaways and themes
from the input received from all the variety of engagement activities:
Table 3-0:Engagement Summary
Key Themes Takeaways
Increasing Accessibility and
Connectivity
The importance of an accessible, public-oriented waterfront. Accessibility
was identified as a challenge on the waterfront and ideas included a
wheelchair accessible beach access point and trail system. There was desire
for safe active transportation and transit options to access the waterfront.
Safety Safety was a major concern across the waterfront, with a particular focus
on improving pedestrian access through better sidewalks and off-road
options. Additionally, traffic calming measures are needed to address
speeding in high-traffic areas and shared road locations.
Commercial Development There was support for commercial businesses along the waterfront,
especially in Bowmanville. Seasonal ventures like food trucks, paddleboard
rentals, small retail shops, a cidery, and restaurants are seen as acceptable,
with a particular desire for more food and beverage options, such as hot
dog and ice cream stands.
Destination Nodes & Placemaking The primary focus for the next five years should be on Bowmanville, with
efforts directed towards positioning it as a key tourism destination. As
parks become more crowded, there is also a demand for additional
waterfront destinations, and Clarington could look to other municipalities
for inspiration in developing a "destination" waterfront.
Waterfront Infrastructure Support for a boat launch if it is economically viable and, in the meantime,
space for boat launches for non-motorized vessels. Other infrastructure to
support the waterfront included access to washrooms, bike parking, rental
equipment options, and other basic amenities.
Trail Improvements There should be more all-season trails, where the community supports
them. The location of the waterfront trail during the OPG New Build was a
key topic, with an emphasis on improving accessibility and signage. Safety
for trail users, especially on shared road sections, is a major concern across
the waterfront.
Parking There is support for charging non-locals for parking, with some desire for
charging locals as well. Parking was noted as a challenge for the waterfront.DRA
F
T
Page 119
3.0 What We Heard 5
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
Key Themes Takeaways
Waterfront Recreation Opportunities There is value in both active and passive recreation opportunities along the
waterfront, such as non-motorized watercrafts, playgrounds, birding,
pathways, and benches. A desire for better beach access and designated
swimming areas.
Natural Environment Preservation Preserve natural wildlife habitats along the waterfront. Desire for
protecting and enhancing existing natural areas and the opportunity to
educate through signage. Minimize development to protect natural areas
and green spaces.
3.1 Council Interviews
Key themes from the interviews with the Mayor and 2022 Council included the following:
Emphasized an accessible, public-focused waterfront with focus on projects that benefit all.
More commercial business should be supported at the waterfront, parcularly at Bowmanville.
Seasonal commercial enterprises such as food trucks, paddleboard rentals, small retail, cidery or
restaurants are acceptable.
The biggest focus should be on Bowmanville for the next 5 years.
Should be the “desnaon” focus, tourism node, focus on trails.
More all-season trails, but only in targeted places that the community supports.
There is support for charging non-locals for parking, some support for charging locals.
Support having a boat launch if economically feasible and support boat launches for non-motorized
in the meanme.
Recognion that the Bowmanville Pier needs serious work, but challenge is financing.
No support for the Municipality owning/operang a marina, unless it generates revenue.
3.2 Visioning Workshops
The following charts are summaries of the two visioning workshops with stakeholders that were held to
confirm the strategy principles, review the existing conditions, identify opportunities and challenges,
and gather input to inform the development of a vision for the waterfront.
The following chart is a summary of what participants said for each identified sub area that was
gathered through a Mural Board activity, followed by results from Mentimeter polling questions.DRA
F
T
Page 120
3.0 What We Heard 6
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
Table 3-1:Mural Board Summary
Sub-Area Opportunities Challenges Vision Ideas
Waterfront
Spaces
Samuel Wilmot Nature Area (SWNA): Commercial opportunies/aracons,
parking
Year-round acvies and year-round public washrooms
Garden Tourism
Protected natural space along waterfront
Create natural beach area
Compeve cycling hub
o Dining by the water
o Downtown connecon
o Green building design
o Ecosystem based approach to planning
o Connuous hiking trail
Planning around CN rail and 401 highway
Maintaining bond head parkee
Increased traffic causing erosion/damage
Keeping everyone safe around traffic
Balancing economic development with environment
Erosion and flooding safety
Ensuring there is adequate public land and shoreline access for the future
Avoid losing heritage
Getting to waterfront without driving, restaurants, open space, event
space, beach volleyball courts, historical interpretive displays, extend
waterfront trail, water related recreation opportunities, inclusive and
accessible washrooms, robust connected wildlife corridor, enough
amenities to spend a day: food, exercise activities, bike lockups
waterfront rentals.
Lands
Natural garden development
Ecotourism
Increased signage/wayfinding
Recreaon opportunies (e.g. birding, photography, geocaching)
Restrict areas for natural development
Interpreve displays with natural & cultural info
Expand conservaon land sub areas
Idenfy areas of wildlife movement and protect/enhance
Parking
Invasive plant species
Maintaining wildlife populaon with increased human traffic
Bluff safety
Increased potenal for polluon
Protecng natural environment
Integraon with provincial park
Preserve migratory habitat, variety of trails, limit human access in
some areas, make provincial park more accessible to areas residents,
promote indigenous culture, and expand natural areas.
Resiliency
Nodes
Public educaon: on connected watershed, invasive species and spring
flooding levels
Indigenous uses of land perspecves
Highlight natural areas along waterfront with educaon signage
Increase awareness of hazards and direct development away from hazards
Priorize land acquision where appropriate
Assess climate vulnerability and target restoraon
Appropriate public uses like trails
Control of contaminants
Waterfront bluff erosion
Ensure system is resilient to climate change
Overcome invasive species with integrated strategy, balance nature
and humans, promote indigenous history and culture.
Industrial
Areas
Aract business to the community
Engage industry stakeholders, influence their community stewardship
programs
Plant more trees
Create marine conservaon area
Provide beer transit/acve mobility access to area employment
Promote green roofs with bird/pollinator friendly plants
Screen development from adjacent areas
Make hydro one corridors linear trails
Reducing industrial polluon
Maintaining east west connecvity
Land use compability
Screening industrial areas from recreaon uses
Limit/eliminate industrial by the waterfront, more naturalized space
near developments, recognize industry is important to the
community.DRA
F
T
Page 121
3.0 What We Heard 7
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
Sub-Area Opportunities Challenges Vision Ideas
Agricultural
Lands
More support for farmers
Dark night sky areas for migratory species
Preserve these areas as natural buffers
Agri-tourism
Allow farmers to vercally integrate their farms
Require low light polluon
Orchard camping
Incenvize parcular agricultural land uses
Apple picking
Create public hiking trail based on European models
Ensure farming methods don’t damage adjacent areas
Liming amount of ferlizer/pescides that leach into water
Protecng lands from development
Lack of public amenies in these areas
Keeping people away from damaging agricultural lands
Erosion in Bond Head Bluffs area
Farm to table agribusiness, preserve agriculture, allow some return to
natural meadows, use land to increase local food source,
maintaining/establishing natural setbacks from the lake.
Table 3-2:Menmeter Summary
Question 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Session 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm Session (top 3 results)
Where are you participating from today (top 3 results)Outside of Clarington: 10
Bowmanville: 4
Courtice: 2
Bowmanville: 4
Outside of Clarington: 3
Newcastle: 2
What type of organization are you representing (top 3 results)Municipal/Regional Government: 9
Other: 5
Provincial Government & Conservation authority: 3
Ratepayers Association: 3
Advisory Committee of Council: 3
Environmental Interest group & Other community group: 2
Are you familiar with the Clarington Waterfront Strategy (top 3 results)Somewhat familiar: 12
Very familiar: 5
Familiar: 4
Somewhat familiar: 5
Very familiar: 4
Familiar: 2
Top 3 words to describe your vision for the Clarington Waterfront (top 3 results)Recreation, accessible, connected Biodiversity, natural, access
Top priority you want addressed in the Clarington Waterfront Strategy (top 3 results)Green- protects and enhances natural, cultural and built heritage features: 36%
Connected- creates a network of linkages for people who enjoy the waterfront: 32%
Accessible- safe and publicly accessible for all & Usable- supportive and compatible
public and private uses: 14%
Connected- creates a network of linkages for people who enjoy the
waterfront: 42%
Green- protects and enhances natural, cultural and built heritage
features: 25%
Diverse- offering varied opportunities for residents and visitors: 17%
Do you think the 1992 principles are still relevant today (top 3 results)Somewhat agree: 15
Neutral: 4
Strongly agree: 3
Somewhat agree: 9
Strongly agree: 2
Neutral: 2
Do you the presented commercial business opportunities reflect what you would like to see on
waterfront lands (yes/no)
Yes: 14
No: 5
Yes: 7
No: 5
Which business opportunities would be the most exciting to experience in Clarington’s waterfront
(top 3 results)
Canoe, kayak, paddleboard rentals: 5
Agri-tourism (e.g. apple picking): 5
Destination cycling: 4
Accommodation/retreat venue: 3
Canoe, kayak, paddleboard rentals: 2
Bike and mobility supportive businesses: 2
Share one word for what you think will be the biggest challenge facing the waterfront over the
next 30 years
Accessibility, climate, urbanization Erosion, keeping it natural, parking
Share one word for what you think will be the biggest opportunity for the waterfront over the
next 30 years
Tourism, restoration, recreation Tourism, diversified uses, attractive spaceDRA
F
T
Page 122
3.0 What We Heard 8
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
3.3 Online Survey
An intercept public survey was available between August 22nd and October 3rd, 2022. Questions sought
to gain insight into the public’s current use of the waterfront, preferences for the future of the
waterfront, and top priorities for the updated Clarington Waterfront Strategy.
Key themes and main takeaways from the survey include the following:
Table 3-3:Online Survey Summary
Key Themes Feedback Raised
Demographics Of the 419 people surveyed, a majority are visitors to the waterfront area, either
from other parts of Clarington or from outside the Municipality. A notable number
of respondents were also local residents.
General Feedback Respondents’ top priories for the updated strategy were that it be clean, green,
and connected.
Most respondents expressed a desire to improve the exisng features of the
waterfront rather than make drasc changes.
Many respondents were against the idea of addional housing by the water, as it
appeared to privaze the waterfront.
A few respondents strongly advocated for the reopening of the Bowmanville
Marina.
There were repeated requests for clearer boundaries between public and private
property on Port Darlington West Beach.
Recreation The waterfront’s most popular features are its natural beauty, the Great Lakes
Waterfront Trail, hiking or walking opportunies, and the beaches.
While respondents generally wanted most areas to remain natural, there was a
strong desire for dining opons. Specifically, there was interest in a restaurant with
a waterfront pao in Bowmanville or possibly Cource, as well as small-scale
opons like an ice cream truck at Bond Head.
Many respondents menoned that they enjoy non-motorized watersports and
expressed a desire for more locaons to parcipate in these acvies, as well as
more places to rent equipment.
Some respondents expressed a desire for a more vibrant waterfront, featuring
beachside retail, sports facilies (such as tennis courts and skateparks), and other
waterfront aracons.
There were requests for more spaces where people could enjoy the natural beauty
of the waterfront, such as areas for picnics.
Maintenance Many respondents expressed a desire for enhanced beach areas, including more
frequent clean-ups and possibly using beach combing to remove rocks and create
sandy areas.
There was interest in enhancing basic amenies along the waterfront, including
more frequent garbage pick-up.DRA
F
T
Page 123
3.0 What We Heard 9
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
Key Themes Feedback Raised
Circulation & Ease of
Access
Parcipants expressed desire for safe and accessible opons for acve
transportaon. This included improved and more visible connecons along the
waterfront, as well as enhanced links between downtown areas and the waterfront
to allow easier access to the lake without the need for driving.
The need for increased parking was not a major concern. While respondents
preferred not to pay for parking, they were open to the idea of non-residents
paying for parking.
A few respondents requested the addion of wheelchair-accessible beaches, trails,
and playground equipment.
There was a request for improved acve transportaon access, parcularly in
Cource, with a priority on creang a cross beneath the 401.
Safety Parking and boang areas should be disnct from spaces for children and acve
transportaon to enhance safety. The congeson at Bond Head was frequently
highlighted as a safety concern.
A few parcipants strongly supported the idea of increased enforcement regarding
parking, speeding, trespassing, and overall patrolling.
There were requests for traffic calming measures near East Beach and Bond Head.
Natural Preservation The tranquility and serenity of the waterfront are among its most valued qualies.
While respondents are open to some development, preserving the natural green
spaces is their top priority.
Most parcipants preferred green areas to remain natural, with minimal
development. Only a few respondents expressed interest in having the green space
more manicured and landscaped.
3.4 Community Pop-ups
Key themes from input provided at the community pop-ups included the following:
Safety was a key concern across the waterfront.
Safer pedestrian access is needed including beer sidewalks and off-road opons.
Measures to reduce speeding at high traffic areas are needed.
Access to the waterfront is difficult: limited parking, lack of safe acve transportaon routes, and a
lack of transit.
More waterfront desnaons are desired as parks are geng busier.
More commercial expansion is desired, especially food and beverage opons.
More boat launches should be a priority.
Clarington could follow the examples of other municipalies to create a “desnaon” waterfront.DRA
F
T
Page 124
3.0 What We Heard 10
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
3.5 Stakeholder Meengs
Key themes from input received through the various stakeholder meetings included the following:
Waterfront trail locaon during the OPG New Build was a key topic.
Mulple stakeholders voiced the need for beer north-south waterfront connecons both for
recreaon and wildlife, especially in Cource.
Stakeholders appreciated informaon and look forward to connued involvement in the consultaon
process.
Beer accessibility and signage on trails would be appreciated.
Safety for trail users, especially shared road secons, a concern across the waterfront.
3.6 Targeted Youth Engagement
Key themes from the input provided through the Clarington Camp activity included the following:
Valued both acve and passive recreaon opportunies at the water, including playgrounds, paths,
and benches.
More opons for food such as hot dog and ice cream stands.
More access to the beach and places to swim.
No menon of water sports or sports fields.
3.7 Parks, Recreaon and Culture Plan (2024)
Feedback from the Parks, Recreation and Culture Plan included that the Municipality’s waterfront is
highly valued by the community and there is potential for enhancement to encourage greater use such
as passive recreation opportunities, including trails and outdoor spaces for special events, performing
arts, and more.
Public input related to enhancing the waterfront included the following:
Build upon the trail network, including connecons to exisng trail systems and the greater acve
transportaon system, as well as public waterfront access points (parcularly in Cource).
Provide space for picnics and special events, cultural acvies such as performing arts, outdoor
skang, personal watercra launch, public art, and parking.
Establish a greater commercial presence such as retail and restaurants.
Protect and preserve the environment along the waterfront.DRA
F
T
Page 125
4.0 Next Steps 11
The Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Round 1 Engagement Summary
Updated April 2025 – 22-4327
4.0 Next Steps
The Municipality and Dillon will prepare and present an update and revised project schedule for the
project reinitiation to Council on May 12, 2025. The Council will provide direction on moving forward
with the strategy and public consultation. Public consultation is anticipated for spring/summer 2025 and
will include virtual and in person opportunities for public and stakeholder engagement. For more
information on project development and next steps, please visit:Clarington Waterfront Strategy -
Clarington
DRA
F
T
Page 126
Municipality of Clarington
Phase 2 Community Engagement Summary Report
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
August 2025
Table of Contents
Background of Engagement Strategy ......................................................................... 2
Overview ................................................................................................................. 2
Tactics and Timelines ............................................................................................. 3
Response Rates ...................................................................................................... 3
Best Practices - Surveys .......................................................................................... 4
Survey Results
The Vision ............................................................................................................... 5
Themes ................................................................................................................... 6
The Guiding Principles .......................................................................................... 8
Environmental Stewardship - Rating ........................................................................ 8
Economic Viability - Rating ...................................................................................... 9
Public Access, Connection and Enjoyment - Rating .............................................. 10
Design Excellence and Cultural Heritage - Rating ................................................. 11
Guiding Principles - Themes ................................................................................. 12
What Principle is Missing? .................................................................................... 14
The Five Distinct Experiences ............................................................................ 16
Courtice Waterfront Park - Rating and Themes .................................................... 16
Development to Support a Park - Rating and Themes .......................................... 19
Bowmanville Waterfront - Rating and Themes ...................................................... 21
Newcastle Waterfront - Rating and Themes ......................................................... 24
Agricultural Heritage .............................................................................................. 27
Port Granby Nature Reserve - Rating and Themes .............................................. 30
Additional Feedback ............................................................................................ 32
Themes: thoughts, ideas or feedback about the Waterfront Strategy ................... 32
Demographics ...................................................................................................... 34
What area of Clarington do you live in? ................................................................ 34
How long have you lived in Clarington? ................................................................. 35
Age group ............................................................................................................. 36 DRA
F
T
Page 127
Page 2
Engagement Strategy Background
Overview
The renewed Clarington Waterfront Strategy will serve as a bold, long-term vision that
builds on the foundation of the original 1992 strategy and sets the course for the next 30
years. Early stages of the project included a vision intercept survey, community pop-
ups, Councillor interviews, and stakeholder meetings beginning in 2022.
In 2025, a robust engagement process was undertaken to ensure the community had
meaningful opportunities to learn about and shape the draft Vision, Guiding Principles,
and Five Distinct Experiences that will inform the draft Waterfront Strategy. This
document provides an overview of the input received during this second phase of
community engagement. Additional efforts to solicit feedback will be made once the
draft Waterfront Strategy has been developed to receive community input prior to
finalization.
The information and suggestions included in this report should not be interpreted as
recommendations. Ratings and themes based on community input have not been
altered even in instances where comments incorrectly reflect the Municipality of
Clarington’s actual policies, practices or levels of provision. It should also be recognized
that the requests and suggestions expressed by residents, stakeholders and staff may
not result in recommendations within the Waterfront Strategy. The comments collected
from these community engagement efforts will be considered in other inputs, including
analysis that will be undertaken in the next phase to identify community needs related to
the Waterfront Strategy.
DRA
F
T
Page 128
Page 3
Tactics and Timelines:
To ensure broad and meaningful participation in shaping the renewed Clarington
Waterfront Strategy, a community feedback survey was made available both online
at www.clarington.net/WaterfrontStrategy and in person at Clarington Connected kiosks
located in municipal recreational facilities, community complexes, and administrative
centres.
Following a public presentation of the draft Vision, Guiding Principles, and Five Distinct
Experiences in May 2025, the survey ran from June 25 to July 30, 2025—strategically
timed to coincide with the summer season, when lakefront recreation is top -of-mind for
many residents.
To reach as many people as possible, the following tactics were deployed:
•Press release distributed to Clarington.net subscribers and local media outlets.
•Survey promotion featured in the Summer 2025 Clarington
Connected newsletter, mailed to every household in Clarington.
•Social media campaign shared via Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn (paid and
unpaid).
•Advertisements displayed on all digital reach screens in the Municipal
Administrative Centre, recreational complexes, and community centres.
•H-frame signage installed along the Waterfront Trail in five distinct areas.
•Posters and postcards distributed in libraries, recreational complexes, and
community centres; also provided to Councillors for optional constituent
distribution.
•18 radio ads aired across KX96, The Rock, and CKDO.
•Survey featured as the lead banner on the Clarington.net homepage.
•Direct emails sent to the Interested Parties List for the Courtice Waterfront,
Energy Park Secondary Plan, and Waterfront Strategy projects .
•Survey available in-person at all Clarington Connected kiosks located in
municipal facilities.
•Google Ads campaign launched targeting Clarington residents searching for
waterfront activities.
•Lead story featured in the June edition of Growing Clarington
Together newsletter.
•Email invitation sent to registered ActiveNet users.
Response Rates:
•From June 25 – July 30, 2025, more than 4,700 people visited
www.clarington.net/WaterfrontSurvey webpage.
•602 people filled out the survey (making it Clarington’s second-highest survey for
responses to date).
Best Practices (Surveys):
DRA
F
T
Page 129
Page 4
Several tactics were deployed to ensure that Clarington solicited quality feedback from
a high number of respondents, including:
•Asking respondents to register for Clarington Connected to participate in the
survey. This additional step helps eliminate “AI bots” that seek and fill out online
surveys that offer incentives and prizes. This also ensured respondents could
only submit feedback once, which eliminates multiple responses from the same
person or IP address, providing more reliable data.
•Offering a modest, neutral incentive ($250 VISA gift card) to solicit feedback.
This common practice is used by many municipalities and researchers for a few
reasons:
o Increased response rates: Research on best practices for survey design
and distribution shows that incentives and lotteries contingent on
completion of surveys provide a higher response rate by providing
additional motivation to complete the survey.
o Diverse respondent pool: Research shows that providing incentives can
impact the demographic composition of the completed survey sample, by
encouraging more people to participate. The use of gift cards, which can
be used by everyone, helps to reach a wider range of participants and
ensures a more varied, unbiased pool of respondents.
▪For example: prizes like recreational passes can reduce interest
from respondents who either already have access to Clarington’s
recreational facilities or aren’t interested in recreational incentives.
DRA
F
T
Page 130
Page 5
Survey Results
The Vision – Ratings and Themes
A clear vision is essential, as it sets the long-term direction and unites around a shared
purpose. It inspires action, guides priorities and ensures that all decisions contribute to
a cohesive, future-focused outcome.
The Vision: Clarington’s waterfront is a vibrant, accessible destination where
community, nature, parks, and heritage meet. Our shoreline thrives through ecological
resilience, connected trails, diverse recreation, and economic vitality. By focusing on
sustainable growth, cultural preservation, and public access, we’re creating a legacy
that enriches the lives of residents, captivates visitors and establishes a legacy of
stewardship for generations to come.
Q.1: How much do you agree with the overall vision for the Clarington
waterfront?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
overall Vision for Clarington’s waterfront 3.84.
DRA
F
T
Page 131
Page 6
Q2: What aspects of the Clarington waterfront vision do you find most appealing
or concerning, and why?
The community envisions Clarington’s waterfront as a publicly accessible, ecologically
resilient, and culturally respectful space that prioritizes nature preservation, connected
trails, and inclusive recreation over intensive residential or commercial development.
Residents overwhelmingly support a vision that enhances quality of life through
sustainable growth, while expressing concerns about overdevelopment and the loss of
natural and community character.
Key Themes
Environmental Stewardship & Ecological Resilience
•Strong support for preserving natural habitats, biodiversity, and shoreline
integrity.
•Calls for prioritizing “natural assets” as critical infrastructure.
•Concerns about environmental degradation from increased traffic, boating, and
development.
Connected Trails & Public Access
•Widespread enthusiasm for expanding and connecting trails for walking, biking,
and recreation.
•Emphasis on accessibility for all ages and abilities, including shaded areas,
seating, and safe crossings.
•Desire for year-round use and improved connectivity between communities.
Recreation & Community Use
•Support for parks, splash pads, music venues, and family-friendly amenities.
•Interest in community gathering spaces and sm all-scale local businesses (e.g.,
cafés, markets).
•Preference for low-impact enhancements that maintain the waterfront’s peaceful
character.
Concerns About Residential Development
•Strong opposition to waterfront housing, especially high-density or luxury
developments.
•Fears of increased traffic, noise, pollution, and strain on infrastructure and
services.
•Desire to preserve small-town charm and avoid turning natural areas into service
corridors.
Bond Head Boat Launch Concerns
•Resistance to designating Bond Head Parkette as a primary boat launch.
•Infrastructure limitations, environmental risks, and community disruption cited.
DRA
F
T
Page 132
Page 7
• Suggestions to relocate boat launch to better-equipped areas like Bowmanville
Marina.
Cultural Preservation & Heritage
• Mixed views on cultural preservation; some see it as vague or underprioritized.
• Requests to protect historic cottages and integrate Indigenous and local history
meaningfully.
Community Priorities
• Preserve nature first: Avoid over-commercialization and protect ecosystems.
• Build for people, not profit: Focus on inclusive, accessible public spaces.
• Think long-term: Ensure sustainable infrastructure and stewardship for future
generations.
DRA
F
T
Page 133
Page 8
The Guiding Principles – Ratings and Themes
To support the implementation of this draft Waterfront Vision, four guiding principles
have been developed to establish a framework and set priorities for future decision -
making. They include:
• Environmental Stewardship: Protect and enhance the natural environment,
including the Lake Ontario shoreline, wetlands, and wildlife habitats.
• Economic Viability: Foster a vibrant and sustainable waterfront economy that
supports local businesses, attracts investment and tourism, and creates
employment opportunities.
• Public Access, Connection and Enjoyment: Ensure equitable, safe and
inclusive access to the waterfront for all residents and visitors.
• Design Excellence and Cultural Heritage Preservation: Create high-quality
and impactful public and private realm, while also recognizing, protecting, and
celebrating the rich cultural heritage of the waterfront.
Q.3: How much do you agree or disagree with the draft guiding principle of
Environmental Stewardship?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
Guiding Principle of Environmental Stewardship 4.37.
DRA
F
T
Page 134
Page 9
Q.4: How much do you agree or disagree with the draft guiding principle of
Economic Viability?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
Guiding Principle of Economic Viability 3.73.
DRA
F
T
Page 135
Page 10
Q.5: How much do you agree or disagree with the draft guiding principle of Public
Access, Connection and Enjoyment?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
Guiding Principle of Public Access, Connection and Enjoyment 4.29.
DRA
F
T
Page 136
Page 11
Q.6: How much do you agree or disagree with the draft guiding principle of
Design Excellence and Cultural Heritage Preservation?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
Guiding Principle of Design Excellence and Cultural Heritage Preservation 3.88.
DRA
F
T
Page 137
Page 12
Q.7: What aspects of the draft guiding principles do you find the most appealing
or concerning, and why?
Residents broadly support the guiding principles of Clarington’s waterfront strategy,
especially those emphasizing environmental stewardship, public access, and inclusive
design. However, there is concern that economic development and residential
expansion could undermine the natural character, accessibility, and long-term
sustainability of the waterfront.
Key Themes
Environmental Stewardship
•Most widely supported principle.
•Residents want strong protections for wetlands, wildlife habitats, and shoreline
ecosystems.
•Concerns about habitat loss, pollution, and erosion due to overdevelopment and
increased traffic.
Public Access, Connection & Enjoyment
•Strong desire for safe, inclusive, and barrier-free access to trails, beaches, and
green spaces.
•Emphasis on accessibility for all ages and abilities, including washrooms, shaded
areas, and mobility-friendly paths.
•Public access must remain a priority over privatization or exclusive development.
Cultural Heritage Preservation
•Mixed reactions: some support celebrating Indigenous and local history, while
others question vague or performative approaches.
•Calls for authentic storytelling, Indigenous consultation, and preservation of
historic sites like West Beach cottages.
Economic Viability
•Support for small-scale, local businesses (e.g., cafés, markets, rentals) that
complement public use.
•Strong opposition to large-scale commercial or residential development,
especially condos and high-rises.
•Concerns about increased traffic, loss of green space, and strain on
infrastructure.
Design Excellence
•Support for thoughtful, sustainable design that enhances natural beauty and
community use.
•Desire for charming, well-integrated spaces—not overbuilt or overly
commercialized environments.
Community Priorities
DRA
F
T
Page 138
Page 13
• Preserve nature first: Environmental protection must guide all decisions.
• Access for all: Ensure equitable, safe, and inclusive public use.
• Limit commercialization: Focus on community benefit, not profit.
• Celebrate heritage meaningfully: Engage Indigenous voices and protect
historic character.
DRA
F
T
Page 139
Page 14
Q.8: What principles do you think might be missing from the current draft?
While the current draft guiding principles are broadly supported, residents identified
gaps to be addressed to ensure the waterfront strategy is inclusive, sustainable, and
community driven. These missing principles reflect a desire for stronger environmental
protections, Indigenous engagement, infrastructure planning, and long-term
stewardship.
Key Themes
Climate Resilience & Environmental Integrity
•Calls to expand environmental stewardship to include climate adaptation, erosion
control, and protection of biodiversity.
•Emphasis on natural assets as essential infrastructure.
•Strong opposition to overdevelopment and privatization of green space.
Indigenous Engagement & Cultural Inclusion
•Requests for explicit inclusion of Indigenous voices, history, and stewardship.
•Desire for co-design, land acknowledgment, and cultural education.
Community-Centered Planning
•Principle of resident-first development: protect existing communities, avoid one-
size-fits-all approaches.
•Need for community trust, transparency, and ongoing engagement in decision -
making.
•Concerns about displacement, gentrification, and lack of consultation.
Infrastructure & Accessibility
•Missing focus on transit integration, safe bike/pedestrian access, and parking.
•Suggestions for universal design, shaded areas, washrooms, and year-round
usability.
•Calls for safety measures like lighting, emergency access, and enforcement.
Local Economic Support
•Support for small-scale, local businesses over large commercial ventures.
•Requests for year-round economic viability through tourism, recreation, and
community events.
Youth & Education
•Desire for child-friendly spaces, youth engagement, and educational
programming.
•Suggestions for school partnerships, nature education, and interactive learning
zones.
Community Priorities
DRA
F
T
Page 140
Page 15
• Protect nature and heritage: Avoid irreversible damage to ecosystems and
historic sites.
• Include all voices: Indigenous, youth, seniors, and residents must be part of the
process.
• Plan realistically: Infrastructure, safety, and accessibility must match growth.
• Keep it public: Guard against privatization and ensure equitable access for all.
DRA
F
T
Page 141
Page 16
One Connected Waterfront – Five Distinct Experiences:
Courtice Waterfront Park
The vision: a new waterfront community featuring a prestigious (min) 16-hectare/39-
acre Courtice Waterfront Park – bigger than the former Bowmanville Zoo lands. The
park would significantly increase public access to Lake Ontario, offer year -round
recreational opportunities, preserve the entire shoreline, and enhance the existing trail
network.
Q.9: How much do you agree or disagree with the vision for the Courtice
Waterfront Park?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
vision for the Courtice Waterfront Park 4.03.
DRA
F
T
Page 142
Page 17
Q.10: What aspects of the Courtice Waterfront do you find most appealing or
concerning, and why?
The Courtice Waterfront is seen as a rare and valuable opportunity to create a landmark
public space that balances environmental preservation, recreational access, and
community well-being. While many residents are excited about the potential for trails,
year-round activities, and shoreline protection, there are concerns about
overdevelopment, infrastructure strain, and the loss of natural character.
Key Themes
Environmental Preservation
•Widespread support for preserving the shoreline, protecting habitats, and
enhancing natural features.
•Concerns about loss of biodiversity, disruption of ecosystems, and
greenwashing.
•Desire for naturalized landscapes, shade, and minimal interference with existing
nature.
Public Access & Recreation
•Enthusiasm for year-round recreational opportunities, including trails, splash
pads, and family-friendly amenities.
•Calls for safe, inclusive access via walking, biking, and transit—especially across
barriers like Hwy 401 and rail lines.
•Interest in connecting Courtice to broader trail networks and waterfront
destinations.
Opposition to Housing & Overdevelopment
•Strong resistance to high-density housing, condos, and commercial sprawl near
the waterfront.
•Fears of traffic congestion, infrastructure overload, and loss of peace and quiet.
•Preference for parks over residential expansion, especially south of Hwy 401.
Balanced Economic Activity
•Support for small-scale, local businesses (e.g., cafés, ice cream shops) that
complement public use.
•Concerns about over-commercialization and prioritizing profit over public benefit.
Community Priorities
•Preserve nature first: Protect shoreline and ecosystems from overuse.
•Build for people, not profit: Prioritize public access and recreation.
•Design for long-term use: Ensure infrastructure supports growth sustainably.
•Keep it local: Avoid turning the waterfront into a tourist-only destination.DRA
F
T
Page 143
Page 18
Making the Courtice Waterfront Park a Reality
The Clarington Waterfront Strategy is a long-term vision, but some key decisions are
already on the horizon—like the draft Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary
Plan. The draft plan includes the creation of the prestigious 16-hectare/39-acre Courtice
Waterfront Park noted in the previous question. To bring this park to life, a new
residential neighbourhood (2,500 residential units for 4,800 residents) would need to be
developed – similar to how other waterfront parks in Clarington were made possible.
Why? Only a small portion of the Courtice waterfront is publicly owned. The rest is
privately held, and the municipality cannot afford to purchase the land outright without
placing a significant financial burden on taxpayers. However, through the development
of a new neighbourhood, Clarington would be able to:
• Secure the Courtice waterfront and protect the environmentally sensitive lands
• Create a vibrant waterfront park and expand the trail network
• Support essential infrastructure, including transportation and sewer/water
upgrades
New communities help fund the parks, trails, infrastructure, and public spaces that
improve the quality of life for everyone.
Q.11: How much do you support or oppose the creation of a new residential
community (including shopping, dining, and services) to help fund and acquire
land for the 16-hectare/39-acre Courtice Waterfront Park?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated
support for the development of a new residential community 3.36.
DRA
F
T
Page 144
Page 19
Q.12: What factors influenced your level of support or opposition to this
proposal?
Residents are divided on the proposal to fund the 16-hectare Courtice Waterfront Park
through the creation of a new residential community. While the majority support the idea
in principle—recognizing the need for funding and infrastructure—others express strong
opposition due to concerns about environmental impact, overdevelopment, and loss of
public access.
Key Themes
Support for the Park, Caution About the Trade-Off
• Broad support for the Courtice Waterfront Park itself—especially its potential for
public access, recreation, and shoreline preservation.
• Many residents are willing to accept development if it guarantees the park’s
creation and protects sensitive lands.
• Others feel the park should not be contingent on residential growth, especially
near the shoreline.
Concerns About Residential Development
• Strong opposition to high-density housing, especially condos and tall buildings
near the waterfront.
• Fears of loss of natural character, increased traffic, and strain on infrastructure
(schools, healthcare, roads).
• Worries that development will privatize access or prioritize profit over public
benefit.
Mixed Views on Shopping & Dining
• Some support small-scale, local businesses that enhance the park experience.
• Others oppose commercialization, preferring nature-focused amenities and quiet
public spaces.
Environmental & Infrastructure Priorities
• Calls for strong environmental safeguards, including habitat protection and
sustainable design.
• Emphasis on phased infrastructure delivery—schools, transit, and services must
come first.
• Desire for transparent planning, community oversight, and enforceable
commitments from developers.
Community Priorities
DRA
F
T
Page 145
Page 20
• Park First: Guarantee the waterfront park before any residential development.
• Protect Nature: Preserve shoreline, wetlands, and wildlife habitats.
• Build Responsibly: Ensure infrastructure matches growth and avoids
overburdening services.
• Keep It Public: Maintain open access and avoid exclusive or gated
communities.
DRA
F
T
Page 146
Page 21
Bowmanville Waterfront
The vision for the Bowmanville waterfront includes three key elements:
• Protect and improve environmentally sensitive landscapes and natural heritage
areas, including the Bowmanville Westside Marshes Conservation Area.
• Position Port Darlington West Beach Park as Clarington's main beach, with
excellent access to the water and passive/active onsite programs and amenities
(i.e. beach volleyball, boardwalks, playground).
• Reimagine Port Darlington East Beach Park as an enhanced and accessible
waterfront park.
Q.13: How much do you agree or disagree with the vision for Bowmanville
waterfront?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
vision for the Bowmanville Waterfront 3.98.
DRA
F
T
Page 147
Page 22
Q.14: What aspects of the Bowmanville waterfront vision do you find most
appealing or concerning, and why?
The Bowmanville waterfront vision is widely supported for its emphasis
on environmental protection, improved public access, and recreational amenities.
However, residents raised critical concerns about infrastructure limitations,
environmental risks, and the need for clearer planning and community consultation.
Key Themes
Environmental Protection
•Strong support for protecting the Bowmanville Westside Marshes Conservation
Area and other sensitive landscapes.
•Concerns about erosion, habitat disruption, and the impact of increased human
activity.
•Calls for naturalized design, shoreline restoration, and restrictions on motorized
watercraft.
Beach & Recreation Enhancements
•Enthusiasm for making Port Darlington West Beach Clarington’s main beach,
with amenities like boardwalks, volleyball courts, and playgrounds.
•Support for reimagining East Beach as a more accessible and inclusive space.
•Suggestions for year-round programming, food vendors, and family-friendly
features.
Marina & Boat Launch
•Many residents want the Bowmanville Marina revitalized and a primary boat
launch located here instead of Newcastle.
•Concerns about the decrepit state of the marina, lack of dredging, and missed
opportunities for waterfront tourism.
Infrastructure & Accessibility
•Repeated concerns about limited road access, parking, and traffic congestion,
especially at West Beach.
•Calls for sidewalks, bike paths, public transit, and improved signage.
•Emphasis on accessibility for seniors, children, and people with disabilities.
Community Impact & Preservation
•Mixed views on development—some support small businesses and amenities,
others oppose commercialization or displacement of residents.
DRA
F
T
Page 148
Page 23
•Strong desire to preserve heritage cottages, maintain quiet natural areas, and
avoid over-tourism.
Community Priorities
•Protect nature first: Marshes, wetlands, and shoreline must be preserved.
•Make it usable: Clean beaches, safe access, and inclusive amenities.
•Revitalize smartly: Restore the marina, improve infrastructure, and avoid
overbuilding.
•Respect residents: Engage locals, preserve heritage, and balance tourism with
livability.
DRA
F
T
Page 149
Page 24
Newcastle Waterfront
Newcastle waterfront's vision includes a vibrant marina village with waterfront living and
enhanced public spaces:
•Create a municipal-wide gateway park to the waterfront, featuring public art
installations, a boardwalk, food services, passive/active water programs.
•Position the Port of Newcastle Park on Lakebreeze Drive as a resilient shoreline
park with flexible program spaces (i.e. outdoor fitness areas).
•Position Bond Head Park as a primary boat launch area.
Q.15: How much do you agree or disagree with the vision for Newcastle
waterfront?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
vision for the Newcastle Waterfront 3.76.
DRA
F
T
Page 150
Page 25
Q.16: What aspects of the Newcastle waterfront vision do you find most
appealing or concerning, and why?
The Newcastle waterfront vision—featuring a gateway park, resilient shoreline, and
primary boat launch—has sparked both enthusiasm and concern. While many residents
support improved public spaces and amenities, there is strong opposition to
designating Bond Head Parkette as a primary boat launch due to its size, infrastructure
limitations, and impact on the local community.
Key Themes
Public Space & Recreation
• Broad support for a municipal-wide gateway park with boardwalks, public art,
food services, and water programs.
• Interest in outdoor fitness areas, splash pads, and family-friendly amenities.
• Desire for connectivity between waterfront areas via trails and boardwalks.
Bond Head Parkette Concerns
• There is opposition to making Bond Head Parkette a primary boat launch:
• Too small to accommodate increased traffic and trailers.
• Limited parking, narrow roads, and no sewage infrastructure.
• Environmental risks to mature trees, wildlife habitats, and shoreline.
• Loss of community character and peaceful atmosphere.
• Safety concerns due to speeding, congestion, and lack of enforcement.
Local Economy & Amenities
• Support for small-scale commercial development (e.g., cafés, restaurants,
shops).
• Calls for revitalizing the marina, improving boat docking, and adding waterfront
dining.
• Concerns about over-commercialization and preserving Newcastle’s small-town
charm.
Environmental Stewardship
• Emphasis on resilient shoreline design, erosion control, and habitat protection.
• Requests for clean beaches, better waste management, and ecological
education.
• Calls to preserve natural areas and avoid excessive development.
Infrastructure & Accessibility
• Concerns about parking shortages, traffic, and lack of public transit.
DRA
F
T
Page 151
Page 26
•Need for accessible washrooms, seating, and senior-friendly design.
•Suggestions for bike paths, pedestrian bridges, and trail connectivity.
Community Priorities
•Protect Bond Head: Preserve its heritage, peace, and ecological integrity.
•Build smartly: Ensure infrastructure matches growth and avoids overburdening
services.
•Enhance public use: Focus on inclusive, nature-friendly recreation.
•Respect residents: Engage locals, avoid displacement, and maintain livability.
DRA
F
T
Page 152
Page 27
Agricultural Heritage
The waterfront lands between Newcastle and Port Granby are envisioned as a
celebrated agricultural heritage hub with preserved food production traditions,
opportunities for agri-tourism, continued environmental stewardship and public access
to the waterfront.
New access points to the shoreline will include enhanced and accessible waterfront
trails, rest stops, lookouts, public event spaces and passive activities to enjoy the scenic
beauty of the Lake Ontario shoreline.
Q.17: How much do you agree or disagree with the vision for an Agricultural
Heritage area?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
vision for the Agricultural Heritage area 4.01.
DRA
F
T
Page 153
Page 28
Q.18: What aspects of the Agricultural Heritage vision do you find most appealing
or concerning, and why?
Position Statement
The vision to celebrate Clarington’s agricultural heritage along the waterfront is widely
supported, especially for its focus on preserving farmland, enhancing public access, and
promoting environmental stewardship. However, residents expressed a need for clarity,
balance, and protection—ensuring that development does not compromise the area's
rural character or ecological integrity.
Key Themes
Preservation of Farmland & Food Traditions
•Strong support for protecting fertile farmland and maintaining local food
production.
•Calls to prevent urban sprawl and subdivision development on agricultural lands.
•Interest in educational opportunities, such as farm tours, signage, and community
gardens.
Public Access & Trails
•Enthusiasm for accessible waterfront trails, lookouts, and rest stops.
•Desire for passive recreation that respects the natural landscape.
•Suggestions for bike paths, shade structures, and washroom facilities.
Agri-Tourism & Local Economy
•Support for farmers markets, local food vendors, and seasonal events.
•Interest in celebrating agricultural diversity and connecting urban residents to
rural traditions.
•Concerns about over-commercialization and ensuring affordability and
authenticity.
Environmental Stewardship
•Emphasis on protecting natural habitats, shoreline resilience, and biodiversity.
•Requests for native plantings, wildflower gardens, and low-impact design.
•Concerns about pollution, erosion, and impact on Port Granby Nature Reserve.
Concerns & Considerations
•Need for clearer definitions of “agricultural heritage hub” and “agri-tourism.”
•Worries about traffic, parking, and garbage in rural areas.
•Calls for community consultation, especially with local farmers and residents.
DRA
F
T
Page 154
Page 29
Community Priorities
•Preserve farmland and protect food-producing landscapes.
•Enhance access through trails and scenic lookouts, not large-scale development.
•Support local agriculture through markets and education.
•Respect nature and rural character—avoid overbuilding or disrupting
ecosystems.
DRA
F
T
Page 155
Page 30
Port Granby Nature Reserve
Through the previously endorsed Port Granby Nature Reserve Concept Plan, there are
opportunities for continued environmental restoration, education and public access to
this natural area.
Here, residents can experience the beauty of a nature reserve through protected and
preserved forests, meadows, wetlands, pastures and trails.
Q.19: How much do you agree or disagree with the vision for Port Granby Nature
Reserve?
On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), respondents rated the
vision for the Port Granby Nature Reserve 4.14.
DRA
F
T
Page 156
Page 31
Q. 20: What aspects of the Port Granby Nature Reserve vision do you find most
appealing or concerning, and why?
Position Statement
The Port Granby Nature Reserve vision—focused on environmental restoration,
education, and public access—is widely supported. Residents value the opportunity to
experience protected natural landscapes, but many emphasize the need for minimal
impact, controlled access, and preservation of ecological integrity.
Key Themes
Environmental Restoration & Protection
•Strong support for preserving forests, wetlands, meadows, and pastures.
•Emphasis on restoration of previously contaminated lands and ongoing
monitoring.
•Calls to avoid overdevelopment and maintain the area’s wild, untouched
character.
Public Access & Trails
•Enthusiasm for low-impact trails, lookouts, and quiet nature experiences.
•Support for educational signage, birdwatching, and passive recreation.
•Concerns about garbage, vandalism, and overuse if access is not well-managed.
Education & Stewardship
•Interest in environmental education, especially for youth and schools.
•Suggestions for Indigenous-led programming and interpretive features.
•Desire for community involvement in stewardship and conservation efforts.
Concerns & Considerations
•Worries about public access compromising ecological restoration.
•Requests for clear boundaries, limited infrastructure, and no commercial
development.
•Need for accessibility features for seniors and people with disabilities.
Community Priorities
•Preserve nature first: Restoration and protection must remain the top priority.
•Limit impact: Trails and access should be light-touch and respectful of wildlife.
•Educate & engage: Use the reserve as a platform for learning and stewardship.
•Keep it quiet: Avoid turning the reserve into a busy recreational or tourist hub.
DRA
F
T
Page 157
Page 32
Final Thoughts
Q.21: What thoughts, ideas, or feedback would you like to share about the overall
Waterfront Strategy?
The overall Waterfront Strategy is met with enthusiasm and cautious optimism.
Residents appreciate the vision for connected, accessible, and environmentally
responsible waterfronts, but stress the importance of preserving nature, limiting
overdevelopment, and ensuring community-driven planning.
Key Themes
Environmental Protection First
• Strong calls to prioritize nature, protect wetlands, forests, and wildlife.
• Concerns about residential development, especially near sensitive areas like
Courtice and Bond Head.
• Emphasis on climate resilience, shoreline restoration, and green infrastructure.
Public Access & Recreation
• Support for trails, boardwalks, rest stops, and waterfront parks.
• Desire for year-round amenities like splash pads, skating rinks, and outdoor
fitness.
• Requests for accessible design for seniors, children, and people with disabilities.
Community Engagement & Equity
• Calls for ongoing public consultation, especially with waterfront residents and
Indigenous communities.
• Emphasis on inclusive spaces for families, youth, and diverse cultural groups.
• Concerns about over-tourism, affordability, and preserving local character.
Development & Infrastructure
• Mixed views on housing—some support smart growth, others oppose waterfront
residential expansion.
• Need for better infrastructure: parking, transit, washrooms, and traffic
management.
• Suggestions for small businesses, farmers markets, and local economic
opportunities.
Connectivity & Vision
• Strong support for a connected waterfront trail linking Courtice, Bowmanville, and
Newcastle.
DRA
F
T
Page 158
Page 33
•Desire for distinct experiences across districts, unified by a shared identity.
•Calls for bold, creative planning that reflects Clarington’s unique landscape and
heritage.
Community Priorities
•Protect nature before expanding access or development.
•Design for people: safe, inclusive, and accessible public spaces.
•Think long-term: sustainable growth, climate adaptation, and cultural
preservation.
•Listen to residents: meaningful engagement, transparency, and responsiveness.
DRA
F
T
Page 159
Page 34
Demographics:
Q.22: What area of Clarington do you live in?
Most respondents reside in Bowmanville (37%), followed by Courtice (30%),
Newcastle (23%), rural (4%), and Orono (1%). 4% of respondents reside outside of
Clarington.
DRA
F
T
Page 160
Page 35
Q.23: How long have you lived in Clarington?
Most respondents are long-term residents that have lived in Clarington for 25+ years
(30%), followed by 5-14 years (30%), and 15-24 years (20%).
DRA
F
T
Page 161
Page 36
Q.24: Age Group
The survey collected feedback from a wide range of age groups: from 15 years old to
85+. Most respondents fell between 30-49 years old.
DRA
F
T
Page 162
Appendix B
C Waterfront Lands Analysis
DRA
F
T
Page 163
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
2022 SWOT and Land Analysis
DRA
F
T
Page 164
Waterfront Strategy Study Area
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 165
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
Achievements
1992 2022
DRA
F
T
Page 166
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
Achievements
1992 20222022
DRA
F
T
Page 167
Bridging the Strategy
Carry Forward
•Ecosystem approach to land
use planning (principles)
•Identifying waterfront character
sub-areas
Update Content
•Study area boundary
•Purpose
•Planning context
•Vision & priorities
•Context & profile
•Goals & objectives
•Greenway system
•Park & tourism focal nodes
•Trails
New Content
•Summary of 1992 waterfront strategy outcomes
•SWOT analysis
•Key strategic directions
•Three waterfront place conceptual designs
•Design guidelines & standards
•Cost estimate & phasing
•Recommended strategies & policy directions
•Implementation plan
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 168
•Ecosystem land use planning approach
•Principles
1.Clean – natural processes
2.Green – healthy ecosystem
3.Connected - greenways
4.Open - views
5.Accessible – nodes and areas
6.Useable – public/private sector mix
7.Diverse – landscape and land uses
8.Affordable – all opportunities and facilities
9.Attractive – experiences
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
1992 Waterfront Strategy
Principles
DRA
F
T
Page 169
Existing Uses
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 170
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Policy & Land Use Planning
•Strong policies on
ecological landscape
approach and vision
•Waterfront Places as
Priority Intensification
Areas
•Cultural Heritage
Landscape
Importance
•Courtice Waterfront
and Energy Park
Secondary Plan
•Lack of design
guidelines (Port
Darlington and
Courtice)
•Some residential
development subject
to significant erosion
and flood hazards
•Insufficient hazard
mapping in Official
Plan
•Strengthened policies
on the high quality
public realm, tourism
node, continuous
open space system,
•Implementation of
Secondary Plans
•Port Granby Nature
Reserve proposal
•Lack of urban design
guidance
•Regulatory Shoreline
Area subject to natural
hazards
•Potential land use
compatibility issues with
waste / wastewater
infrastructure
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 171
Natural Heritage System
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 172
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Natural Heritage System
•Protection and
conservation of the
Lake Ontario
Shoreline
•Protection of Natural
Heritage features and
sustaining ecological
health
•Protection of
Provincially
Significant Wetlands
and ANSIs
•Highway 401 and
railways as physical
barriers separating
terrestrial and
waterfront
ecosystems
•Lack of natural land
cover
•Impacts of
agriculture and
urban land uses
•Restoration of the
surplus Federal lands
at Port Granby
•Investment in
wildlife/people
movement corridors
to Lake across
physical barriers
•Regional wildlife
habitat corridor (2 km)
and coastal habitat
improvements
•Diverse land use and
recreational uses
impact coastal
wetlands, habitat,
vegetation and beach
communities
•Development of
Energy Park may
impact wildlife
corridor
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 173
Coastal Functions
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 174
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Coastal Functions
•Lake Ontario
Shoreline
Management Plan
(2020) - coastal
hazard mapping,
summaries and
recommendations for
each Reach within
Clarington
•Shoreline
development located
within hazardous
areas, greater risk for
flooding, erosion and
unstable slopes
•Individual coastal
hazard works
•Failing infrastructure
•Channels infilling
•Restricting
development and
shoreline hardening
•Avoid >
Accommodate>
Retreat > Protect
•Public education and
building resiliency
•Continual swings in
high and low lake
levels observed;
higher 100 year flood
elevation
•Higher erosion and
flood limits
•Failing infrastructure
•Structural and
property damage
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 175
Parks, Open Space & Placemaking
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 176
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Parks, Open Space and Placemaking
•Increase in municipal
waterfront lands
•Proposed Port
Granby Nature
Reserve - expansion
of open space system
•Allocation of park
lands in waterfront
urban areas
•Limited navigability of
channels in
Bowmanville Creek
and Graham Creek
•Limited public access
around large
industrial / utility
waterfront facilities
•Lack of
transportation, parks
development and
parking strategy
•More suitable boat
launch location(s)
•Acquisition of
additional lands
•Placemaking and
visitor amenities at
key destinations
•Improving physical
accessibility, telling
the indigenous
history, and signage
•Privatization of
shoreline access
(physical and visual)
•Natural hazard impact
on public spaces and
park infrastructure
•Population growth
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 177
Cultural Heritage Resources
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 178
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Cultural Heritage Resources
•Listed built heritage
resources,
cemeteries and
archaeological sites
•Significant indigenous
history
•Lack of guidance and
protection for Port
Granby, Port
Darlington and Port of
Newcastle, significant
waterfront landscapes
and views to Lake
Ontario
•Lack of awareness of
indigenous
knowledge and
historical waterfront
uses
•Recommendations on
strengthening
protection of
Clarington’s cultural
heritage resources
•Interpretation and
education on
waterfront’s history
•New development or
redevelopment of
significant waterfront
landscapes
•Loss of cultural
heritage resources
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 179
Vehicular Access
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 180
Transit Access
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 181
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Vehicular & Transit
•Future connections to
the GO Stations
(Courtice Rd. and
Bowmanville Ave.)
•Expanded transit
services to growth
area in Bowmanville
towards the
waterfront
•Numerous Highway
401 road crossings
•Highway 401 and
railways are a
physical barrier
•Transit service gaps
•Resolution of
Highway 401 conflicts
conceptually at
Courtice Waterfront
and Energy Park
•Establishment of
transit routes to
gateway nodes
•At-grade crossings
with the CN Rail
•Single lane
underpasses (CN
Rail)
•Narrow underpasses
(Highway 401))
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 182
Active Mobility
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 183
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Active Mobility
•Part of larger vision
for the Great Lakes
Waterfront Trail
(GLWT)
•Continuous west-east
GLWT, with three
connections to the
Regional Cycling
Network
•Recent north-south
connection via
Bowmanville Creek
Valley
•Limited access for
a continuous
GLWT along the
shoreline
•Limited north-
south and off-road
trail connections
•Irregular access to
amenity spaces
•Additional north-south
trail linkages
•Improvement to
signage and use
safety
•Hydro One Corridor
trail and park
connections
•Improved experience
•Rider safety without
road shoulders to
provide buffer
•Proximity of trail
system to the eroding
beach and bluff
shorelines
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 184
Servicing Infrastructure
Clarington Waterfront StrategyDRA
F
T
Page 185
Clarington Waterfront Strategy
SWOT Analysis – Servicing Infrastructure
•Independent stormwater
management facilities
located in existing
developments
•Well established water
sewer and sanitary
sewer networks within
Bowmanville and
Newcastle urbanized
areas
•Sanitary sewers located
near or through public
lands
•Little to no urban
storm sewer network
•Increased complexity
with infrastructure
crossing over
Highway 401 and
railway lines
•Low Impact
Development;
stormwater viewed as
a resource
•Run water network
along publically
owned land to make it
easier to tie into
existing networks
•Challenges related to
coordination with
other landowners for
water and sanitary
servicing
•Impacts to Species at
Risk for new or
expanding
developments
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
S W O T
DRA
F
T
Page 186
Economic Opportunities
Assessment (draft)
October 4,2022DRA
F
T
Page 187
Guiding
Principles
of this
Assignment
Identify Market Opportunities
Establish Key Activity Nodes
Stimulate DiscussionDRA
F
T
Page 188
A unique
waterfront that
reflects the
needs of
Clarington
DRA
F
T
Page 189
Opportunity Incubators
Existing components of Clarington’s Waterfront have the potential to be kernels for developing
landmark destinations within the municipality’s waterfront plan.
•
•
•
•••
•
•
•DRA
F
T
Page 190
Opportunity Incubators
Future growth in the south-end of Clarington will generate public demand for additional amenities
along the municipality’s waterfront.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
••
DRA
F
T
Page 191
COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
SOURCE: Region of Durham
DRA
F
T
Page 192
Clarington’s waterfront has a foundation of recreation trails that are already used for biking activity. On-going
investments that improve the municipality’s trail network, particularly along the waterfront would increase visitor
traffic, stimulate active transportation and expand the profile of cycling-oriented tourism.
Cycling Tourism
SOURCE: Canadian Cycling Magazine DRA
F
T
Page 193
Cycling Market
•
•
•
•
•DRA
F
T
Page 194
Bike Supportive Businesses
•SOURCE: Bicycling.com DRA
F
T
Page 195
Apple Orchards
•
•
•
DRA
F
T
Page 196
Hard Cidery / Hard Cider Mill
Ontario is one of the largest craft cider-producing provinces in Canada. There is an absence of a dedicated Hard
Cidery in Clarington.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•DRA
F
T
Page 197
Mobile Food Services (Food Trucks)
Mobile food services can be used to help fill the void in areas that are not well -served by restaurants. Working in
partnership or under a co-ordinated umbrella, they provide a unique and scalable destination point.
•Future South Courtice Village Core
•Port Darlington Road Vacant Lands
•Food Truck Alley, Bowmanville
•181 King Street East, Bowmanville
•Food Corral –North OshawaDRA
F
T
Page 198
RECREATIONAL NODES
SOURCE: Municipality of Dysart et al.
DRA
F
T
Page 199
Water Activities
•
Focus on select areas along the Clarington Waterfront that allow the public to safely access Lake Ontario. Provide
opportunities to host activities and diversify offerings available for visitors to the area, transient boaters and other more
occasional users.
•
•
•
•
DRA
F
T
Page 200
Garden Tourism
Garden tourism continues to be a popular travel segment.It involves visits or travel to gardens, places or events
which celebrate excellence in horticultural practices. It can provide opportunities to leverage the attraction of a
garden experience, product, festival or event, raising the profile of an area as a destination.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•DRA
F
T
Page 201
MARINA OPERATIONS & FACILITIES
SOURCE: Google Earth Imagery
DRA
F
T
Page 202
Marina, Boat Charters & Waterfront Experiences
The Clarington Waterfront caters to seasonal boaters but could benefit from more diverse offerings for other visitors.
•
•
•
•
•
•DRA
F
T
Page 203
A variety of distinct activities or special events can also provide an opportunity for municipal revenue
generation but also create an opportunity to attract people to the waterfront through a featured
experience. There are numerous events and facilities the municipality could offer to generate and draw
individuals to the waterfront.
Other Commercial Opportunities
DRA
F
T
Page 204
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: March 9, 2026 Report Number: PDS-013-26
Authored By: Laila Shafi, Coordinator-Projects and Administration, Planning and
Infrastructure
Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number:
Report Subject: Planning Act Application Fee Review and User Fee By-law Amendment
Recommendations:
1. That Report PDS-013-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the by-law appended as Attachment 2 to Report PDS-013-26, to amend
Schedule “E”, the Planning Fees, of By-law 2025-033, a by-law to require the
payment of fees for services, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-013-26, be advised of Council’s
decision.
Page 205
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-013-26
Report Overview
amendments to Clarington’s User Fee By
he Municipality’s current fee
1. Background
1.1 The last comprehensive fee review for Planning Act Application fees was undertaken by
the Municipality of Clarington in 2008 through a third-party consultant, followed by an
internal review of the fees in 2014, as mentioned in Report PSD-054-14.
1.2 On May 16, 2022 report PDS-024-22 was taken to Planning and Development
Committee (PDC) meeting, recommending a 3% increase to all Planning Application
Fees, except pre-consultation fees; anticipating a comprehensive review of fees in
2022.
1.3 In the fall of 2022, the Municipality engaged Hemson Consulting Ltd. to conduct a
comprehensive review of all Planning and Infrastructure Services fees, including those
within the Building Division. The purpose of this review was to inform amendments to
the Planning and Infrastructure section (Schedule E) of the User Fee By-law, ensuring
that fees reflect the full cost of service delivery and support cost recovery.
1.4 The study began with a review of building permit and inspection fees, resulting in a set
of recommendations presented in report FSD-006-24. Due to the significant changes
advanced by the Province, the planning fees review was delayed.
1.5 In 2025, Hemson Consulting was re-engaged to continue the study and provide
recommendations that reflect current legislative and operational realities. As an
independent third-party expert, Hemson was relied upon to maintain transparency and
eliminate bias throughout the review process.
Page 206
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-013-26
Legislative Compliance
1.6 Under Part XII and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Municipal Act, municipalities have
broad authority to impose user fees for services they provide or for services provided on
their behalf. Fees may cover administration, enforcement, and capital costs, and can
apply to both mandatory and discretionary services. However, fees cannot be based on
income or unrelated property or services.
1.7 Section 69(1) of the Planning Act authorizes municipalities to establish a tariff of fees for
processing planning applications, designed to recover only the anticipated cost of each
application type. The Act also permits fee waivers and provides an appeal mechanism
through the Ontario Land Tribunal.
1.8 Fees have been calculated to recover the full cost of processing applications in respect
of planning matter in accordance with the Planning Act.
2. The Fee Study
Approach
2.1 Hemson Consulting Ltd. utilized an activity-based costing approach, which involved
interviewing staff to understand the time and resources required for various application
types. The study also analyzed the roles of different departments involved in the review
process and benchmarked Clarington’s Planning Act Application fees against other
Lakeshore and comparator municipalities to ensure consistency and competitiveness.
2.2 The study accounted for direct costs which includes the cost of staff, (mainly wages and
benefits) involved in providing the service.
2.3 Indirect (corporate overhead) costs were also included, representing costs incurred by
corporate and administration functions to support the direct service providers (e.g. the
cost of information technology or human resources functions). I ndirect costs in
Clarington generally range between 10% and 15% of direct costs, which is consistent
with Ontario municipalities of similar size.
2.4 The total cost of planning services is projected to be approximately $5.9 million in 2026,
with two new full-time equivalent (FTE) positions previously approved in the multi-year
budget to support service delivery. By 2030, the total cost is expected to rise, reflecting
both inflationary pressures and increased application volumes. To meet this
demand, additional staff is projected to be needed between 2027 and 2030, pending
council approval through the multi-year budget process. This staffing approach ensures
that resources scale commensurate with service delivery needs.
Page 207
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-013-26
2.5 The study conducted by Hemson shows the allocation of direct and indirect costs
follows industry best practices and aligns with approaches used by other Ontario
municipalities, supporting the validity of the proposed fee structure .
Ongoing Communication with Council and the Development Community
2.6 Report FSD-019-25, presented to the General Government Committee on May 5 , 2025,
advised Council that Clarington staff, in collaboration with Hemson Consulting Ltd., are
undertaking a comprehensive review of Planning Act Application fees. The primary goal
of this review is to ensure full cost recovery for services provided.
2.7 A presentation was delivered at the September 15, 2025 Planning and Development
Committee, outlining three major, interdependent projects within the Planning and
Infrastructure Services Department. One of these key initiatives is the amendment to the
Planning Act application fees in the User Fee By-law. This presentation helped establish
the broader context and significance of the fee review within the department’s ongoing
work.
2.8 Engagement with the development community occurred throughout the fee review
process. In May 2025, at Planning and Infrastructure’s Community Builders Forum,
developers were advised of the three major projects underway and informed that there
would be amendments to the fee structure, intended to support cost recovery. On
October 23, 2025, Hemson Consulting presented the draft fee study findings and
proposed amendments. The development community was provided with draft
materials ahead of the meeting to allow for review. During this session, attendees were
invited to provide feedback on the proposed fee structure to ensure transparency and
support meaningful stakeholder input, with comments received on November 6,
2025. Following the release of Hemson’s final report, staff received additional comments
and held a consultation meeting in February with the Durham Region Home
Builders’ Association (DRHBA) and the Building Industry and Land Development
Association (BILD).
2.9 Hemson’s report addresses any concerns that were noted in these comments by
providing a detailed cost analysis that supports the proposed fee increases. The report
also confirms that only work performed by municipal staff is included in the
cost-recovery model, with third-party consultant-led work excluded. Additionally, the
draft fee schedule and accompanying notes offer clarification on fee categories and
definitions to ensure transparent and consistent application of the updated fees.
Planning Fee Review and Recommended Adjustments
2.10 Hemson’s review identified significant gaps between current Planning Act
application fees and the actual cost of delivering services, in line with the Planning Act.
The analysis shows that the average annual cost of processing Planning Act
applications from 2026 to 2030 is approximately $5.9 million.
Page 208
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-013-26
2.11 Under the current structure, Planning Act application fees total roughly $2.6 million and
do not cover the full cost of processing applications. The $3.3 million shortfall would be
left to be funded by the general tax base. This underscores the need to adjust fees to
align with cost recovery principles.
2.12 Benchmarking against comparable municipalities indicates that Clarington’s existing
fees are among the lowest in the Greater Toronto Area.
2.13 As part of the review, Hemson recommended establishing a Planning Fee Reserve
Fund to help stabilize revenues and mitigate fluctuations in application volumes, thereby
managing financial risk and supporting consistent service delivery. However, following
staff’s detailed review and consultation with the development sector on February 25,
2026, staff are not recommending the creation of a planning reserve at this time, as the
proposed fee increases are intended to address the long gap since the last
comprehensive fee review in 2008. In response to this direction, Hemson recalculated
the recommended fees after completing their report, and the revised fees are reflected
in this staff report and the accompanying proposed amending by‑law (Attachment 2).
2.14 To address the gap between current Planning Act application fees and the actual cost of
delivering services, Hemson recommends substantial fee increases for major
application types. For example, the fee for a Major Official Plan Amendment would
increase from $27,030 to $63,790 (+136%), and a Zoning By-law Amendment would
rise from $13,890 to $22,510 (+62%).
2.15 In addition, the Hemson report recommended introducing Settlement Area Boundary
Expansion Official Plan Amendment applications as a new “at‑cost” fee. Following staff
review, this approach is not recommended due to challenges related to deeming
applications complete and ensuring cost certainty for both the municipality and
applicants. Instead, staff recommend that these applications be considered as either
major or minor Official Plan Amendments, depending on their scope and complexity.
New fees are also proposed to capture specialized services, including the processing of
Ministerial Zoning Orders and associated amendments, along with fee caps for
residential subdivision per‑unit fees and engineering inspection fees to better manage
large‑scale development scenarios.
2.16 Implementation of the revised fee structure is proposed for the first quarter of 2026,
accompanied by a communication strategy that includes updates to the municipal
website, application guides, and engagement with the development community through
the Community Builders Forum.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 The proposed fees are designed to achieve full cost recovery based on the staff time
required to process planning applications, ensuring that service costs are appropriately
borne by applicants rather than taxpayers.
Page 209
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-013-26
3.2 It should also be noted that the proposed fee schedule maintains the existing 50%
reduction for all planning applications submitted by registered charitable organizations
or registered non‑profit housing providers.
3.3 To ensure fees remain appropriate and reflective of actual service delivery costs, staff
recommend that the fee structure be reviewed every five years, with the necessary
funding to be requested through the annual budget process.
4. Strategic Plan
4.1 L.2 Finances and operations are efficiently and responsibly managed:
Implementing full cost recovery ensures that growth-related costs are funded by
applicants rather than the general tax base, reducing reliance on property taxes and
supporting long-term fiscal health.
5. Climate Change
Not Applicable.
6. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO/ Treasurer of Finance and
Technology who concurs with the recommendations.
7. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that staff recommendations be approved and any related
delegations or communication items, be received.
Staff Contact: Laila Shafi, Coordinator- Projects and Administration, lshafi@clarington.net or
Adam Brooks, Manager of Projects and Capital Planning, abrooks@clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Review of Planning Fees Report from Hemson Consulting Ltd.
Attachment 2- Amending By-Law of By-law 2025-033 – Schedule E
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Durham Region Home Builders Association
Page 210
Final Report
Prepared by Hemson for The Municipality of Clarington
Review of Planning Fees
January 15, 2025
1000 - 30 St. Patrick Street, Toronto ON M5T 3A3
416 593 5090 | hemson@hemson.com | www.hemson.com
Attachment 1 to Report PDS-013-26
Page 211
Contents
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 3
A. General Approach to Cost Recovery 4
B. General Approach to Benchmarking 4
C. Report Structure 5
2. Legislation Governing User Fees 7
A. Municipal Act Part XII Fees and Charges 7
B. Planning Act 8
3. Planning Fee Calculations 9
A. Analysis of Planning fee Revenues 9
B. Planning Cost Analysis 15
C. Full Cost Recovery Planning Fees 23
D. Benchmarking 41
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 42
Appendix A 43
Appendix B 47
Page 212
Executive Summary | 1
Executive Summary
The Municipality of Clarington has retained Hemson Consulting Ltd. to
undertake a comprehensive review of its user fees charged under the Planning
Act, R.S.O, 1990 (Planning Act). This report focuses on analyzing the full cost
of providing municipal services authorized under the Planning Act. Other user
fees and development charges are not addressed in the report.
The review is based on extensive research of municipal documents,
including capital and operating budgets, by-laws, staff reports, and website
materials from Clarington and comparator municipalities, along with e-mail
and video-conference interviews with Municipal staff. Fee benchmarking
was also undertaken to support the cost analysis, particularly where
information on current and future costs and service levels was limited.
All fees have been calculated to recover costs over a five-year period from
2026 to 2030.
Planning Application Review Findings
▪ From 2026 to 2030, the average annual projected full cost of providing
Planning Application Review services in the Municipality is $6.8 million
(2026$). The cost breakdown is as follows:
▪ 59% - staff wages and benefits
▪ 5% - office space costs
▪ 12% - other operating costs
▪ 11% - indirect costs
▪ 13% - reserve fund contributions
▪ Projected average annual revenue for Planning Application Review
services over the same period, at current fee rates, is $2.6 million. In
accordance with the Planning Act, fee adjustments were calculated to
ensure full cost recovery for each application type.
Page 213
Executive Summary | 2
▪ Modifications to the Planning fee structure are also proposed to reflect
staffing needs and new service delivery processes over the next five years
and to ensure that all eligible services are appropriately costed and
charged (see Section 3).
Page 214
Introduction | 3
1. Introduction
Municipalities in Ontario are responsible for ensuring that the delivery of local
services is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Provincial
legislation. To offset the cost of providing services, municipalities are
permitted to charge fees. The Municipality of Clarington has levied such fees
for many years. However, it has not conducted a comprehensive review of
planning fees in over eleven years.
Since then, the Province has introduced changes to various Acts and
Regulations, and the demand for planning services has increased as
Clarington continues to grow and plans for significant development. These
factors have made regular reviews of services and associated costs
increasingly necessary.
Currently, the Municipality levies user fees under By-Law No. 2025-033.
Although fees apply to many services across various departments of the
corporation, this report focuses specifically on fees charged under the Planning
Act, which are contained in Schedule E of the by-law.
To ensure appropriate full cost recovery, the Municipality retained Hemson
Consulting to analyze the cost of providing services and recommend fee rates
for recovering some or all costs as permitted under the Planning Act. In addition
to reviewing the Municipalityʼs existing fees, the analysis explored potential new
fees and fee structures.
This report summarizes the analysis results and makes recommendations for
changing fees and fee structures. It does not address corporate user fees,
building permit fees, recreation and cultural service fees, or development
charges.
Page 215
Introduction | 4
A. General Approach to Cost Recovery
The review is based on extensive research of municipal documents,
including capital and operating budgets, by-laws, staff reports, and website
materials of Clarington and fourteen similar-sized municipalities within or
near the Greater Toronto Area, as well as e-mail and video-conference
interviews with Municipal staff.
Unlike taxes, user fees are levied for a specific purpose - to recover some or
all of the cost of providing a municipal service to the person paying the fee.
Where possible, this review establishes the cost of services provided by the
Municipality with a view to recommending an appropriate fee. In order to do
this, three types of cost are distinguished:
▪ Direct costs ‒ include the cost of staff (mainly wages and benefits)
involved in providing the service;
▪ Indirect costs ‒ include costs incurred by corporate and administration
functions to support the direct service providers (e.g. the cost of
information technology or human resources functions). Indirect costs in
Clarington generally range between 10% and 15% of direct costs, which
is consistent with Ontario municipalities of similar size; and
▪ Reserve fund contributions ‒ which are transfers to reserve funds
designed to manage annual fluctuations in fee revenue, as well as one-
time, unanticipated expenditures (e.g. for legal or capital costs).
B. General Approach to Benchmarking
Fee benchmarking has been used in this report to supplement the cost
analysis as information on current and future costs and service levels is
sometimes limited. Municipalities included in the benchmark review are
shown in Table 1 below.
Page 216
Introduction | 5
Table 1: Benchmark Municipalities
Region Local Municipality Population
(2021 Census)
Durham Ajax
Brock
Clarington
Oshawa
Pickering
Scugog
Uxbridge
Whitby
126,700
12,600
101,400
175,400
99,200
21,600
21,600
138,500
Peel Caledon 76,600
Peterborough Peterborough 83,700
York Aurora
East Gwillimbury
Georgina
Newmarket
Whitchurch-Stouffville
62,100
34,600
47,600
87,900
49,900
Average 75,960
Source: Statistics Canada, 2021 Census of Canada
It is noted that this benchmarking exercise does not take into account any
service level differences that may exist in terms of, for example, the scope and
quality of programs and services that are provided in other municipalities.
As well, given the differences in program scope and the nature of services that
are delivered, it is not possible to compare fee rates for some fees. The
benchmark for each service area is therefore restricted to “like for like” services.
C. Report Structure
After this introductory section, this report is organized into the following sections:
Section 2 describes the legislative authority for imposing user fees in
Clarington, with a particular focus on the Planning Act.
Section 3 sets out the fee calculations for planning services, including a
description of the service, the current fee structure, historical application
Page 217
Introduction | 6
data and fee revenues, analysis of costs, and benchmarking results. A
proposed fee schedule for planning services is provided, with changes to
existing fee descriptions, as well as new fees.
Section 4 provides general conclusions and recommendations.
Page 218
Legislation Governing User Fees | 7
2. Legislation Governing User Fees
The general power of municipalities to impose fees and charges derives
from Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2021 (Municipal Act).
Specific authority to establish many of the fees and charges levied by the
Municipality is contained to Parts XII and IV of the Act. Under Part XII of the
Act, municipalities can establish wide ranging user fees and penalties either
for services they provide or for services provided on their behalf. Part IV of
the legislation gives municipalities the power to impose licensing fees.
As well, the Planning Act confers specific powers to impose fees for the
processing of planning applications.
A. Municipal Act Part XII Fees and Charges
Section 391(1) of the Municipal Act stipulates that a municipality or local
board may impose a fee or charge on persons: for service or activities
provided or done by or on its behalf; for costs payable by it for services or
activities provided or done by or on behalf of municipalities or local boards;
and for the use of its property including property under control.
Fees and charges can be used to pay for service administration and
enforcement costs as well as the cost of acquiring or replacing assets
(Section 391(3)). They can also include capital costs associated with a
deferred benefit (Section 391(2)). Services for which fees are charged can
either be mandatory or discretionary (Section 391(4)).
However, Section 394(1) prohibits fees that are based on:
▪ the income of a person, however it is earned or received, except that a
Municipality or local board may exempt, in whole or in part, any class of
persons from all or part of a fee or charge on the basis of inability to pay;
Page 219
Legislation Governing User Fees | 8
▪ the use, consumption or purchase by a person of property other than
property belonging to or under the control of the municipality or local
board that passes the by-law;
▪ the use, consumption or purchase by a person of a service other than a
service provided or performed by or on behalf of or paid for by the
municipality or local board that passes the by-law;
▪ the benefit received by a person from a service other than a service
provided or performed by or on behalf of or paid for by the municipality or
local board that passes the by-law; or
▪ the generation, exploitation, extraction, harvesting, processing, renewal
or transportation of natural resources.
B. Planning Act
The Planning Act stipulates that planning application fees must “meet only
the anticipated cost to the municipality” of each type of application provided
in its tariff of fees. Section 69 (1) of the Act contains the following provision:
69. (1) The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by
resolution, may establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made
in respect of planning matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet only the
anticipated cost to the municipality or to a committee of adjustment or land
division committee constituted by the council of the municipality or to the
planning board in respect of the processing of each type of application provided
for in the tariff. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s.69 (1); 1996, c. 4, s. 35 (1).
The Planning Act also allows for fees to be waived for any application (s.69
(2)). Moreover, it provides a mechanism for fees to be appealed to the
Ontario Land Tribunal.
Page 220
Planning Fee Calculations | 9
3. Planning Fee Calculations
This section calculates fees that recover the full cost of processing applications
in respect of planning matters in accordance with the Planning Act.
A. Analysis of Planning fee Revenues
In Clarington, the “tariff of fees” referred to in the Planning Act is contained
in Schedule “E” of By-law 2025-033 and is available on the Municipalityʼs
website. Most planning fees are one-time payments required upon
application submission.
Planning and Infrastructure Services is responsible for reviewing and project
managing on all planning applications submitted to the Municipality. Some
applications, such as minor variances, involve relatively less effort. Others,
such as official plan amendments or plans of subdivision, may take several
months to process. Most application review work is done in-house by
Municipal staff. The Municipality also provides and strongly encourages the
use of pre-consultation services to support applicants in preparing complete
applications. The main types of planning approvals in the Municipality are
summarized as follows:
i. Official Plan Amendment
The former Durham Region Official Plan, now incorporated in the
Municipalityʼs Official Plan, together with the Municipalityʼs Official Plan,
comprise broad policy documents that set out the long-range planning
objectives for the Municipality.1 All development must conform to the
policies in the Official Plans. In some cases, a planning application requires
1 The new Durham Regional Official Plan, “Envision Durham”, which was approved by the
Province in late 2024, has become part of each local municipalityʼs official plan. Each local
municipality has the ability to repeal or amend the Regional Official Plan as it pertains to their
jurisdiction.
Page 221
Planning Fee Calculations | 10
an amendment to an Official Plan (OPA) before approval can be granted.
The review of an OPA application is done by Municipal staff.
The amendment process at the Municipality typically takes months to
complete and involves detailed review by staff and Council. The amendment
process can be lengthy and involves a public consultation process. OPAs are
less common than other types of applications, with the Municipality
processing 0 to 3 annually.
ii. Zoning Amendments
The Zoning By-Law regulates the use of land in the Municipality. When a
proposal for development includes a plan for uses which are not permitted
under the Zoning By-Law, an amendment to the by-law is required for the
proposal to be approved. The amendment process can be lengthy and involves a
public consultation process. The Municipality has processed an average of 21
zoning by-law amendments per year over the last four years.
iii. Site Plan Control
Site plan control is the process that regulates the detailed design of a site
including building location, landscaping, parking, drainage, lighting and
pedestrian and vehicular access. The number of site plan control applications is
highly variable̶the Municipality processed an average of 17 per year between
2021 and 2024. The review process also includes significant review time by the
Development Engineering group that is not currently accounted for in the fee
schedule.
iv. Subdivision and Condominium
The process for subdividing land is lengthy and involves considerable Municipal
planning resources and public consultation. The actual length of any one review
is highly dependent on the nature of the subdivision (or condominium) being
processed. In general, larger subdivisions require greater time for review. The
review process also includes significant time by the Development Engineering
Page 222
Planning Fee Calculations | 11
group. Much of the review work takes place after the draft plan has been
approved.
Over the past four years, the Municipality has processed an average of 14
subdivision applications annually, though the number of housing units per
application ̶ and corresponding level of review effort ̶ varies significantly.
Looking ahead, subdivision applications are anticipated to rise substantially as
new greenfield areas of the Municipality are approved for development.
Condominium applications are typically fewer in number, averaging 2 per year.
However, given the higher rate of intensification planned for by the Municipality
in the coming years, condominium applications are anticipated to increase.
v. Minor Variances
A Committee of Adjustment is responsible for approving applications for
minor variances. Often a proposed development will require that one or
more development standards established by the Zoning By-Law be revised
to allow the development to proceed. In such cases an approval for variance
from the Committee must be secured. The Municipality has averaged 48
minor variance applications annually from 2021 to 2024.
vi. Consents
The Committee of Adjustment is also the approval authority for applications
for consent to sever land. The Municipality has averaged 34 consent
applications per year over the last four years.
vii. Telecommunications Tower
The Municipality is a commenting authority on new telecommunication
towers and levies a fee from telecommunication companies for this work.
Approval authority lies with the Federal government. The Municipality has
averaged 12 telecommunication tower reviews annually from 2021 to 2024.
Page 223
Planning Fee Calculations | 12
viii. Part-Lot Control
The Planning Act permits municipalities to pass by-laws to exempt lots
within a plan of subdivision from part-lot control so that further subdivision
can take place. Applications for part-lot control are infrequent and less
labour intensive than other applications in Clarington.
Table 2 below outlines the number of planning application per application
type between 2021 and 2024.
Table 2: Planning Fee Applications 2021 - 2024
Application Type 2021 2022 2023 2024
Official Plan
Amendment 3 2 0 1
Zoning By-law
Amendment 21 20 14 29
Subdivision 17 23 11 4
Condominium 6 1 0 0
Residential Site Plan 12 11 3 1
Other Site Plan 23 16 3 1
Minor Variance 32 59 44 56
Consent 32 25 28 49
Pre-consultation 48 76 107 73
Telecom Tower 4 6 17 21
Zoning Compliance 166 236 238 123
Signs 67 79 85 112
Agreements 38 35 21 51
Table 3 shows the revenue generated from planning applications for each
application type between 2021 and 2024. The table shows that average
annual revenue is $1.4 million. However, revenues are highly variable,
ranging from a low of $740,000 in 2023 to a high of $1.6 million in 2022. The
primary revenue generators are applications for subdivisions (29% of total
Page 224
Planning Fee Calculations | 13
revenue), zoning by-law amendments (19% of total revenue), and site plan
amendments (11% of total revenue).
It is noted that fluctuations in planning application revenue on any given
year do not necessarily reflect the level of building or development activity
because the timing of fee payments and development activity do not always
correspond.
Table 3: Planning Fee Revenues 2021-2024 (Inflated to 2025$)
Application
Type 2021 2022 2023 2024
% of
Historical
Revenues
Official Plan
Amendment $39,666 $52,562 $0 $25,158 3%
Zoning By-law
Amendment $197,402 $250,011 $116,138 $260,256 19%
Subdivision $517,555 $660,752 $49,451 $19,217 29%
Condominium $55,414 $8,584 $0 $0 1%
Residential Site
Plan $13,176 $174,025 $9,169 $6,648 5%
Other Site Plan $91,483 $152,502 $9,169 $6,648 6%
Minor Variance $28,518 $54,253 $41,497 $39,993 4%
Consent $50,925 $24,607 $75,086 $76,600 5%
Pre-consultation $10,661 $40,284 $175,323 $102,403 8%
Telecom Tower $40,558 $48,049 $113,935 $138,665 8%
Zoning
Compliance $35,137 $46,348 $47,467 $25,412 4%
Signs $22,643 $47,958 $31,014 $27,874 3%
Agreements $97,829 $60,910 $71,209 $69,832 7%
Other $1,814 $1,843 $288 $1,311 <1%
Total $1,202,781 $1,622,688 $739,746 $800,017 100%
Page 225
Planning Fee Calculations | 14
Historical revenue data in Table 3 show a significant fluctuation in planning
revenues received over the past four years. Internal Municipal forecast data
and the Municipalityʼs recently released Development Charge (DC)
Background Study, indicate that application activity and associated
revenues will rise substantially over the next five years.
A five-year revenue forecast has been prepared for fee-setting purposes.
The forecast is based on historical application data and forecasts of
residential and non-residential development set out in the 2025
Development Charges Background Study. Revenue is forecast separately for
residential and non-residential planning applications as follows, with
forecast annual growth for 2026-2030 assumed to be:
▪ Residential revenue growth (compared to 2021-2024): +33% per year
▪ Non-residential growth (compared to 2021-2024): +5% per year
The anticipated revenue generated from each application type (at current
fee rates) is shown in Table 4. These revenue projections form the basis of
the full-cost recovery fee calculations.
Page 226
Planning Fee Calculations | 15
Table 4: Planning Revenue Forecast - 2026 - 2030
Application Type Annual Projected Revenue
Official Plan Amendment $77,227
Zoning By-law Amendment $541,971
Subdivision $820,369
Condominium $42,104
Residential Site Plan $133,563
Other Site Plan $80,294
Minor Variance $108,066
Consent $149,484
Pre-consultation $216,228
Telecommunications Tower $105,453
Zoning Compliance $101,554
Signs $40,019
Agreements $197,221
Other $3,458
Total $2,617,009
B. Planning Cost Analysis
This section presents an analysis of the direct and indirect costs of delivering
services required to review planning applications in Clarington. All costs are
expressed in 2026 dollars.
i. Direct Costs
A number of staff across six departments at the Municipality are responsible
for processing applications in respect of planning matters. The departments
that process planning application or participate in the process include:
▪ Planning & Infrastructure Services
▪ Emergency and Fire Services
▪ Legislative Services
Page 227
Planning Fee Calculations | 16
▪ Public Works/Operations
▪ Chief Administrative Officer
To cope with increased application volumes, it is assumed that the Municipality
will require new staff over the planning period. The costs associated with these
new staff members are assumed to be phased in over the five-year planning
period.
Time shares of existing and anticipated new staff incurring direct costs were
determined based on extensive interviews and correspondence with staff
during the third quarter of 2025. A summary of the time share breakdown is
provided in Appendix A.
Table 5 displays the calculations of direct costs. Payroll costs, amounting to
$4.0 million and including all salaries, benefits, and overtime, account for the
majority (77%) of the direct costs.
Direct (non-salary) operating cost were determined by multiplying the time
shares attributed to planning application staff by 2026 operating budget
projections. The total direct operating cost that can be attributed to planning
approval activities is $830,900, or 16% of total direct costs.
Space allocations were determined based on the Municipalityʼs 2026
operating budget projections, floor plans, and asset management
allocations. Direct costs associated with space total $359,900 and account
for approximately 7% of total direct costs.
The total direct cost of planning applications and approvals amounts to $5.2
million.
Page 228
Planning Fee Calculations | 17
Table 5: Planning Review Average Direct Cost 2026-2030 (2026$)
Application Type Salaries Other
Direct Space Total
Official Plan Amendment $118,928 $19,898 $10,715 $149,541
Zoning By-law
Amendment $615,523 $98,829 $55,084 $769,435
Subdivision $849,095 $240,164 $84,190 $1,173,449
Condominium $95,154 $36,563 $8,924 $140,641
Residential Site Plan $275,509 $59,344 $25,087 $359,941
Other Site Plan $252,264 $47,792 $22,709 $322,765
Minor Variance $189,956 $29,636 $17,386 $236,978
Consent $301,822 $47,096 $27,648 $376,567
Pre-consultation $273,166 $45,726 $24,934 $343,826
Telecommunications
Tower $59,981 $10,962 $5,597 $76,539
Zoning Compliance $119,197 $18,648 $11,061 $148,906
Signs $35,730 $5,589 $3,313 $44,632
Agreements $155,652 $29,546 $826 $186,023
Ministerial Zoning Order &
Settlement Area Boundary
Expansion
$87,128 $18,061 $8,269 $113,458
Development
Engineering Fees $563,835 $123,006 $54,192 $741,033
Total $3,992,940 $830,858 $359,937 $5,183,735
ii. Indirect Costs
The indirect (or overhead) costs of processing planning applications in
Clarington represent the share of costs of the Municipalityʼs corporate
departments that can reasonably be attributed as overhead support of the
planning application review service.
Indirect costs are estimated based on what drives the cost of the corporate
departmentsʼ support of planning activities. The calculation is undertaken in
two steps. First, the total cost of each overhead department is determined.
Next, it is determined what cost driver should be used for each department
Page 229
Planning Fee Calculations | 18
involved in the planning application process. The corporate overhead
departments and the relative metrics are provided in Table 6 below. Cost
drivers are consistent with those used in the Municipalityʼs recent Building
Permit Fee Review.
Table 6: Corporate Costs and Indirect Cost Drivers
Corporate Department Service Unit Total Cost
(2026$) Cost Driver
Mayor & Council Mayor $538,439 Payroll & Budget
Mayor & Council Council $606,105 Payroll & Budget
Mayor & Council Ward Council $54,672 Payroll & Budget
Mayor & Council Administration $3,570 Payroll & Budget
Chief Administrative Officer Administration $596,603 Payroll & Budget
Chief Administrative Officer Communications $1,489,266 Payroll & Budget
Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Performance $1,062,456 Payroll & Budget
Legislative Services Administration $1,765,421 Payroll & Budget
Legislative Services Human Resources &
Payroll $1,860,030 Payroll & Budget
Finance & Technology Finance Administration $4,131,707 Payroll & Budget
Finance & Technology Information Technology $4,233,695 Payroll & Budget
Next, it is determined how each overhead cost applies to each department
involved in the planning application process. Using these calculated shares
of corporate costs, the amount attributable to processing planning
applications is estimated based on the time shares identified in Appendix A.
Table 7 below summarizes how each corporate overhead cost relates to
each department involved in the planning application process.
Table 8 summarizes the indirect costs for each application type, based on the
time shares provided in Appendix A. The calculated cost shares are applied to
the corporate departments projected net costs excluding costs for activities
which are clearly unrelated to planning applications. The total indirect costs
amount to about $736,900.
Page 230
Planning Fee Calculations | 19
Table 7: Average Annual Planning Review Indirect Costs 2026-2030
Corporate Department Time Spent on
Planning Applications
Indirect Costs
(2026$)
Planning 56% $577,096
Engineering 23% $116,683
Fire Prevention <1% $4,865
Public Works <1% $8,639
Chief Administrative Officer <1% $307
Legal 3% $29,344
Total Indirect Cost $736,934
Table 8: Average Planning Review Indirect Costs 2026-2030
Application Type Indirect Costs (2026$)
Official Plan Amendment $21,179
Zoning By-law Amendment $108,964
Subdivision $167,293
Condominium $19,432
Residential Site Plan $50,607
Other Site Plan $45,319
Minor Variance $33,528
Consent $53,267
Pre-consultation $48,680
Telecommunications Tower $10,816
Zoning Compliance $21,024
Signs $6,302
Agreements $29,344
Ministerial Zoning Order & Settlement
Area Boundary Expansion $16,055
Development Engineering $105,124
Total Indirect Cost $736,934
Page 231
Planning Fee Calculations | 20
iii. Reserve Fund Contribution
The Municipality does not have a reserve fund in place for Planning Act fees.
Given the variation in historical fee revenue, as well as the uncertainty of
short-term development forecasts, a provision to establish a planning fee
reserve fund over the next five years has been incorporated into the cost
analysis.
Planning fee reserve funds are a prudent financial management tool for
municipalities. The Planning Act does not require municipalities to adjust
their planning fees every year in order to match their costs. Indeed, as the
majority of application review costs are payroll costs it would be impractical
to even attempt to match revenues and costs on an exact annual basis. As
shown in Table 2 and Table 3 there have been fluctuations in both the
number of applications and the amount of fee revenues from any one year to
the next. This could result in an imbalance between costs and revenues. In
years of high activity revenues will likely exceed costs. However, in quieter
years costs may well exceed revenues.
The proposed Planning Fee Reserve Fund is therefore intended to mitigate
operating pressures in the departments involved in planning application
reviews during years of low application volume and, to a lesser extent, to
fund future capital. Revenues in the reserve fund are designed to pay for
“the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters” per the
Planning Act. They are not to be used to fund general operations.
The reserve fund target set for fee calculation is 75% of operating costs in
2030. This is generally lower than equivalent targets established by other
municipalities, which generally range from 100% to 150% of operating costs.
Under the proposed fees, this target would be achieved by the end of a five-
year planning period. The target is set at 75% as the Municipality currently
has no planning fee reserve fund. The 75% target will allow the Municipality
to build up a reserve fund consistently and over a reasonable period of time.
A larger reserve fund target would cause an unreasonable increase in the
fees.
Page 232
Planning Fee Calculations | 21
In order to achieve this target, an annual contribution of $852,700 to the
reserve fund has been incorporated into the application fees. It is
recommended that the Municipality review its reserve fund balances and
target at a subsequent fee review update at the end of the five-year period.
A summary of the reserve fund costs broken down by application type is
shown in Table 9. These shares are based on the time shares in Appendix A.
Table 9: Average Yearly Reserve Fund Contribution Cost 2026-2030
Application Type Reserve Fund Contribution
Cost (2026$)
Official Plan Amendment $32,384
Zoning By-law Amendment $173,581
Subdivision $213,724
Condominium $24,107
Residential Site Plan $68,452
Other Site Plan $60,683
Minor Variance $42,661
Consent $68,031
Pre-consultation $65,278
Telecommunications Tower $14,065
Zoning Compliance $26,378
Signs $7,948
Agreements $34,446
Ministerial Zoning Order & Settlement
Area Boundary Expansion $20,963
Development Engineering (1) $0
Total Indirect Cost $852,701
(1) Development Engineering has a previously-establish, and separate, reserve fund.
It is noted that the Municipality already maintains a separate reserve fund
for costs related to development engineering review. The balance of this
reserve fund is $1.4 million, equivalent to 71% of the anticipated cost of
development engineering review services. No further contributions to this
reserve fund have been included in the fee calculations in this report.
Page 233
Planning Fee Calculations | 22
iv. Cost Summary
A summary of the cost analysis is displayed in Table 10. The table shows
that the average annual cost of processing planning applications under the
Planning Act in the Municipality is $6.8 million, of which 59% of costs are
wages, 12% of costs are direct operating costs, 5% of costs are related to
office space, 11% of costs are indirect costs, and 13% of costs are reserve
fund contributions.
Table 10: Average Planning Review Costs 2026-2030 (2026$)
Application Type Salaries Other
Direct Space Indirect Reserve
Fund Total
Official Plan
Amendment $118,928 $19,898 $10,715 $21,179 $32,384 $203,104
Zoning By-law
Amendment $615,523 $98,829 $55,084 $108,964 $173,581 $1,051,980
Subdivision $849,095 $240,164 $84,190 $167,293 $213,724 $1,554,466
Condominium $95,154 $36,563 $8,924 $19,432 $24,107 $184,180
Residential Site Plan $275,509 $59,344 $25,087 $50,607 $68,452 $479,000
Other Site Plan $252,264 $47,792 $22,709 $45,319 $60,683 $428,767
Minor Variance $189,956 $29,636 $17,386 $33,528 $42,661 $313,168
Consent $301,822 $47,096 $27,648 $53,267 $68,031 $497,864
Pre-consultation $273,166 $45,726 $24,934 $48,680 $65,278 $457,784
Telecommunications
Tower $59,981 $10,962 $5,597 $10,816 $14,065 $101,420
Zoning Compliance $119,197 $18,648 $11,061 $21,024 $26,378 $196,308
Signs $35,730 $5,589 $3,313 $6,302 $7,948 $58,882
Agreements $155,652 $29,546 $826 $29,344 $34,446 $249,813
Ministerial Zoning
Order & Settlement
Area Boundary
Expansion
$87,128 $18,061 $8,269 $16,055 $20,963 $150,475
Development
Engineering $563,835 $123,006 $54,192 $105,124 $0 $846,158
Total $3,992,940 $830,858 $359,937 $736,933 $852,700 $6,773,368
Page 234
Planning Fee Calculations | 23
C. Full Cost Recovery Planning Fees
This section presents full cost recovery fee rates in light of the cost analysis
presented above. The full cost recovery analysis demonstrates that the
Municipality is currently subsidizing the planning application review process
through the tax rate to a considerable degree. Given the provisions of the
Planning Act, Council has the authority to increase current fees in order to
recover the full cost of the process for each application type.
The planning fees required to recover the full cost of processing planning
applications are set out in Table 11. Full cost fees have been calculated by
dividing the total (direct and indirect) cost of providing applications review
services by the average annual revenues anticipated over the next five
years. Fees are rounded to the nearest hundred, ten, or one dollar
depending on the fee amount.
Table 11 shows that the current fee rates for most applications, aside from
pre-consultation, are insufficient to recover the full cost of services. Full
cost recovery fees are therefore higher than current fee rates for almost all
types of applications.
When setting fee rates, the Municipality should consider the following:
▪ the revenue shortfall that would result from imposing less than full cost
recovery fees, a shortfall would most likely need to be funded from taxes;
▪ the possibility that a “general” benefit to the Municipality might arise as
a result of processing certain types of applications (e.g. Official Plan
amendments with broad application);
▪ the competitiveness of the Municipalityʼs fees relative to other
comparable municipalities in or near the Greater Toronto Area (see
below); and
▪ the ability of applicants to pay the fee.
Page 235
Planning Fee Calculations | 24
i.Fee Elimination and Fee Structure Recommendations
Given the changes in Provincial legislation and projected growth for the
Municipality, a number of proposed textual and structural changes to the
planning fee schedule are proposed. They include:
▪dividing Regional Official Plan Amendment fees into two (minor and
major) fee categories;
▪eliminating fees for Comments on Applications under the Green Energy
Act; and
▪eliminating the Extension of Site Plan Approval fee.
These changes to the fee structure are set out in Table 11.
ii.New Fees
In order to recover costs of reviewing applications for which fees are not
currently imposed, it is also recommended that the Municipality consider
introducing the following new fees:
▪“at cost fees” based on staff time spent, for applications for Settlement
Area Boundary Expansion;
▪similar “at cost fees” based on staff time spent, for applications for
Ministerial Zoning Orders and Ministerial Zoning Order Amendments;
▪$5,280 flat fee for temporary use applications;
▪$21,640 flat fee for revisions to existing or registered condominium
agreements;
▪$400 flat fee for telecommunications tower letters of exemption;
▪fee equivalent to 100% of the base minor variance application fee for
minor variance change of use applications;
▪fee equivalent to 15% of peer review costs, to cover staff administration
costs associated with peer reviews;
▪$0 for heritage permits;
▪$400 flat fee for lighting review applications;
Page 236
Planning Fee Calculations | 25
▪site plan engineering fees set as the same as subdivision engineering
inspection fees;
▪$1,880 flat fee for Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental
Compliance Reviews;
▪$400 flat fee for providing existing drawing or reports; and
▪$3,000 flat fee for pre-servicing agreements.
iii.Fee Caps
Additionally, it is recommended that:
▪the Municipality maintain a combined “base + variable” approach to fees
for plan of subdivision (for residential and non-residential development)
but introduce a maximum fee payable of:
▪$472,000 for residential subdivision per unit fees; and
▪$617,500 for engineering inspection fees (this cap also applies to site
plan application related engineering inspections).
The proposed fee caps recognize Claringtonʼs context in the Greater Toronto
Area, where a significant volume of greenfield development is expected in
the coming decade. The proposed caps assume no planning fee will be
charged for units exceeding 800 or engineering costs exceeding $30 million
in any single subdivision application. It is noted that some future
subdivisions are likely to exceed this threshold.
Page 237
Table 11 ‒ Planning & Infrastructure Fee Schedule
Official Plan Amendment (Note
9)
Current
Fee Proposed Fee
$18,440 $45,920 149%
$27,030 $77,580 187%
$40,810 $107,330 163%
$5,640 New
Major Regional Official Plan
Amendment Application $9,530 New
Neighbourhood Design Plan
Amendment $6,150 $16,170 163%
Settlement Area Boundary
Expansion At Cost New
Ministerial Zoning Order
At Cost New
Zoning By-law Amendment
(Note 9)
Current
Fee Proposed Fee
$9,270 $17,990 94%
$13,890 $26,960 94%
$3,200 $6,210 94%
Temporary use application
Extension of a temporary use
Combined Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
(%)
$25,385 $59,400 134%
$33,975 $91,060 168%
Planning Fee Calculations | 26Page 238
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Note 9
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Change
%Unit
$19,670 $37,270 89% Base
amount
Residential (Note 13)
$310 $590 89% Per unit
$520 $990 89%
Per
development
block
subject to
site plan
Non-Residential $8,140 $15,420 89%
Preparation of
Subdivision Agreement
Note 5
$5,548 $7,030 27%
Preparation of
Subdivision Agreement
Amendment Note 5
$1,390 $1,760 27%
Recirculation Fee (Note
11)
50% of the
base
Current Fee
50% of the
base
Current Fee
N/A
Red Line Revisions to
Draft Approval Plan of
Subdivision Note 9
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Change
(%) Unit
$10,860 $20,580 89% Base amount
All revisions $310 $590 89% Per unit
$520 $990 89%
Per development
block subject to site
plan
Planning Fee Calculations | 27
Page 239
Major Revisions to
Subdivision Applications
Not Draft Approved (Note
9 and 13
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
Change
(%) Unit
$17,190 $32,570 89% Base amount
Where original application
was filed prior to July 1,
2000
$310 $590 89% Per unit
$520 $990 89%
Per development
block subject to
site plan
Where original application
was filed between July 1,
2000 and December 31,
2006
$8,610 $16,310 89% Base amount
$310 $590 89% Per unit
$520 $990 89%
Per development
block subject to
site plan
Where original application
was filed after December
31, 2006
$8,610 $16,310 89%
Subdivision Clearance $3,130 $5,930 89%
Extension of Draft Plan
Approval $3,130 $5,930 89%
Other Related Subdivision
Applications (Note 9)
Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
(%) Unit
Part Lot Control Exemption
Subsection 50(7)
$1,230 $2,330 89% Base
amount
$65 $123 89% Per
unit
Deeming By-law Subsection
50(4) $1,230 $2,330 89%
Planning Fee Calculations | 28
Page 240
Draft Plan of Condominium (Note 9) Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
%
Residential and Non-residential $8,960 $39,190 337%
Application for Condominium
Conversions $10,860 $47,510 337%
Preparation of Condominium
A reement Note 5 $1,028 $1,028 0%
Revision to existing or registered
condominium a reement $21,640 New
Site Plan Approval /
Amendment Note 9 and 14 Current Fee Proposed
Fee
Change
%Unit
$7,390 $26,500 259% Base
$235 $840 259%
Per unit for
first 100
units
Residential Use (Note 14)
$155 $560 259%
Per unit
after first
100 units
(maximum
$140,000
total per
unit fee
$6,150 $32,870 434%
Base
Commercial Use
$3.00 $4.80 60%
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
Planning Fee Calculations | 29
Page 241
Site Plan Approval /
Amendment Note 9 and 14 Current Fee Proposed
Fee
Change
%Unit
$5,540 $29,580 434%
Base
Mixed Use Building (Note 6) $0.80 $4.30 434%
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
$65 $347 434%
Per
residential
unit (max
$100,000
$3,700 $16,400 343%
Base
Industrial / Other Uses
$0.60 $2.40 300%
Per m2
gross floor
area (max
$40,000
Amendment – Residential
Use
$1,230 $4,410 259% Base
$55 $197 259%
Per unit
(maximum
$21,400
$2,220 $11,870 434%
Base
Amendment – Commercial
Use
$3.00 $4.80 60%
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
(maximum
$16,400
Planning Fee Calculations | 30
Page 242
Site Plan Approval /
Amendment Note 9 and 14 Current Fee Proposed
Fee
Change
%Unit
$2,610 $13,940 434%
Base
Amendment – Mixed Use
(Note 6)
$0.80 $4.30 434%
Per m2
commercial
gross floor
area
$65 $347 434%
Per
residential
unit
(maximum
$85,000
$1,000 $4,430 343% Base
Amendment – Industrial /
Other Use $0.80 $3.20 300%
Per m2
gross floor
area
(maximum
$25,000
Minor Site Plan Note 7 $800 $2,870 259%
Sales Trailer / Model Home $2,470 $13,190 434%
Preparation of Section 41
A reement Note 5 $836 $1,060 27%
Landscape Inspection Fee
For projects
with greater
than 2500
sq.m. of
floor area, or
25 units or
greater
(0.5% of the
landscape
cost
estimate
with a
minimum of
$1,000
For projects
with greater
than 2500
sq.m. of
floor area, or
25 units or
greater
(0.5% of the
landscape
cost
estimate
with a
minimum of
$1,000
New
Recirculation Fee (Note 11)
50% of the
base
Current Fee
50% of the
base
Current Fee
New
Planning Fee Calculations | 31Page 243
Committee of Adjustment (Note 9) Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
%
Request for Deferral by Applicant
Tablin Fee $320 $1,000 211%
Recirculation Fee (per additional
circulation) or Additional Committee
of Ad ustment Meetin
$520 $1,620 211%
– Minor Variance (Notes 8 and 9)Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
%
Accessor Buildin s and Structures $700 $2,030 190%
Residential Minor (single, semi-
detached, townhouse or proposed
lot
$910 $2,640 190%
Residential Major (all other
residential $1,480 $4,290 190%
Commercial $2,110 $6,110 190%
Other non-residential $910 $2,640 190%
Change of Use 100% of base
application fee New
Land Division (Note 9) Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
%
Application Fee $2,125 $7,080 233%
Preparation of Section 53
A reement Note 5 $836 $850 2%
Deed Stampin Fee $1,130 $1,130 0%
Pre-Consultation Fees Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
%
Pre-Consultation Meetin Request $1,055 $2,230 112%
Pre-Consultation Minor Note 10 $320 $680 112%
Planning Fee Calculations | 32
Page 244
Signs Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
%
Permanent Si n Permit $245 $360 47%
Temporar Si n Permit $135 $200 47%
Si n B -law Variance $860 $1,270 47%
Si n B -law Amendment $2,155 $3,170 47%
Additional Dwelling Unit Current
Fee Proposed Fee Change
%
Application and Re istration $255 $260 0%
Registration for Applications
submitted prior to Januar 1, 2015 $120 $120 0%
Rental Protection Act $1,590 $1,590 0%
Land Use Information and
Compliance Letter
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Change (%) Unit
Zoning, Building, and all other
propert information $205 $400 93%
Subdivision and Site Plan (per
a reement $205 $400 93%
Environmental Review Letter $205 $400 93% Per
propert
Peer Review Current Fee Proposed
Fee
Change
%
Peer review
(Applicant
responsible for
100%
Municipality's
full costs of
undertaking a
Peer Review
(Applicant
responsible
for 100%
Municipality's
full costs of
undertaking a
Peer Review
N/A
Peer Review Administration Fee 15% of
Cost New
Planning Fee Calculations | 33
Page 245
Other Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee Change (%) Unit
$1,485 $1,485 0% Base
Street Name Change
Request $55 $55 0%
Per
Municipal
ddress
Activation of a dormant
application not requiring
a public meeting
Greater of
25% of
initial
application
fee or
$1,650
Greater of
25% of
initial
application
fee or
$1,650
0%
Application Requiring
Additional Public
Meeting or Open House
$2,470 $2,470 0%
Additional
fee for
each
subsequent
public
meetin
Application Involving
Review Under EPA
and/or EAA Process
additional fee
$17,830 $17,830 0%
Preparation o
Development / Servicing
Agreement (note 5 and
note 12)
See Notes
5 and 12
See Notes
5 and 12 0%
Folding of drawings
accompanying a
submission (fee per
sheet
$5.92 $5.92 0%
Per sheet
Herita e Permit $0.00 New
Telecommunications
Towers $9,830 $9,830 0%
Telecommunications
Towers Letter of
Exemption
$400 New
Planning Fee Calculations | 34
Page 246
Real Propert Transactions Fee Unit
Preparation of any agreements relating
to real property transactions not
otherwise specifically addressed in
this Fee schedule; land transfers (e.g.,
right-of-ways, encroachments, leases
and licensed, easements) the person
requiring the agreement shall be
required to pay fees and
disbursements in accordance with
notes 5 and 12 below.
Development
En ineerin Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee Change (%) Unit
ROW Closure and
Conveyance
Application Fee
$290.13 $290.13 0% Per
application
ROW Closure and
Conveyance
Processing Fee
$870.38 $870.38 0%
Per closure
and
conveyance
processed
Winter Maintenance
Fee $5,751.20 $5,751.20 0%
Per km of
road in the
development
Streetlighting Fee $128.38 $128.38 0% Per light in
subdivision
Engineering Review
Fee
1.25% of the
Final Works
Cost
Estimate or
$2,000,
whichever is
reater.
1.25% of the
Final Works
Cost Estimate
or $2,000,
whichever is
greater.
0%
Planning Fee Calculations | 35
Page 247
Development
En ineerin Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee Change (%) Unit
En ineerin Inspection Fee: Estimated Cost of Services Note 13
Less than $500,000
$8,000 or
3.5% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
hi he
$8,000 or 3.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
higher
0%
$500,000-$1,000,000
$17,500 or
3.0% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
reater.
$17,500 or 3.0%
of the Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
0%
$1,000,000-
$2,000,000
$30,000 or
2.5% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
reater.
$30,000 or 2.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
0%
$2,000,000-
$3,000,000
$50,000 or
2.25% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
reater.
$50,000 or
2.25% of the
Estimated Cost
of Services,
whichever is
greater.
0%
$3,000,000 or
greater
$67,500 or
2.0% of the
Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
reater.
$67,500 or 2.0%
of the Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
greater.
0%
Lighting Review
Fee $400 New Per
application
Planning Fee Calculations | 36
Page 248
Development
En ineerin Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee Change (%) Unit
Site Plan En ineerin Inspection Fees Note 14
Less than $500,000
$8,000 or 3.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
hi he
New
$500,000-$1,000,000
$17,500 or
3.0% of the
Estimated Cost
of Services,
whichever is
reater.
New
$1,000,000-
$2,000,000
$30,000 or 2.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
reater.
New
$2,000,000-
$3,000,000
$50,000 or
2.25% of the
Estimated Cost
of Services,
whichever is
reater.
New
$3,000,000 or
greater
$67,500 or 2.0%
of the Estimated
Cost of
Services,
whichever is
reater.
New
Consolidated
Linear
Infrastructure
Environmental
Compliance Review
$1,880 New
Providing Existing
Drawin or Reports $400 New Per
application
Preservicing
A reement $3,000 New
Planning Fee Calculations | 37
Page 249
Note 1
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a Major Official Plan
Amendment application:
•New golf courses or expansion to existing golf courses;
•New waste facility or expansion to existing waste facility;
•Commercial Development greater than 2,500 m2;
•Deletion or addition of arterial or collector road; and/or
•Any application that due to the broader policy implications for the Municipality
would require the need to review or manage studies, or any application deemed
to be a major by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure Services.
•Associated with a Regional Official Plan Amendment
Note 2
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a major Zoning By-law
Amendment application:
•Associated with an Official Plan Amendment;
•Associated with an application for proposed Plan of Subdivision;
•Application involving multiple properties, except for commercial and industrial
related applications; and/or
•Any application that requires the review of technical support documents or
studies (e.g., environmental analyses, transportation).
Note 3
Where Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are submitted together a reduction
of 50% of the Major Zoning By-law Amendment Fee shall apply.
Note 4
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a minor application for red-
line revisions to Draft Approval:
•Does not require circulation to outside agencies.
Planning Fee Calculations | 38
Page 250
Note 5
Agreement preparation fee does not include the cost of registering the agreement and
all related documents (e.g., Transfers, Postponements, or inhibiting orders) in the Land
Registry office. The cost of such registrations is as follows:
•Initial registration $270 plus HST, plus disbursements.
•All subsequent registrations $135 plus HST, plus disbursements. Applicants must
provide the Municipality (Legal Services) with all such costs prior to registration.
Note 6
The fee for a Mixed-Use Building will apply when residential units are proposed and a
minimum of 50% of the ground floor of a building is for non-residential purposes.
Note 7
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a Minor Site Plan application:
•A dog kennel and similarly scaled uses; and/or
•A minor alteration to an existing site plan to revise parking, add a patio, add a
storage building, revise signage, add or delete portables, etc.
Note 8
Minor Variance applications for the construction or placement of an accessibility device
to provide access to a single-detached/link or townhouse dwelling is exempt from the
fee. An “accessibility device” is defined as a device including a ramp that aids persons
with physical disabilities in gaining access to a dwelling unit.
Note 9
Fees for all Planning applications submitted by a registered charitable organization or
for a registered non-profit housing organization will be reduced by 50%.
Note 10
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a minor Pre-consultation:
•Associated with a Land Division Application;
•Applications associated with a single detached dwelling; and/or
•Applications associated with an agricultural use.
Planning Fee Calculations | 39
Page 251
Note 11
Recirculation fees will be required on the 4th resubmission and every submission
therafter of application materials that require circulation to internal departments and/or
external agencies.
Note 12
For preparation of any development/servicing agreement other than a subdivision
agreement, Section 41 agreement or a Section 53 agreement, the applicant is required
to reimburse the Municipality for its legal costs. If the legal work is undertaken by the
Municipal Solicitor, it will be charged at the rate of $195/hour. If the legal work is
undertaken by other legal counsel, it will be charged at the legal counsel’s hourly rate.
The minimum fee for any such agreement shall be $515 plus HST.
Note 13
Planning subdivision per unit fees are capped at $472,000 (the cost of 800 units).
Engineering inspection fees are capped at $617,500 (the equivalent of $30,000,000 of
estimated cost of service).
Note 14
Site plan per unit fees are capped at $140,000 (the cost of 200 units) for residential site
plan and $100,000 for mixed use buildings. Industrial/other uses per square metre site
plan fees are capped at $40,000. Engineering inspection fees are capped at $617,500
(the equivalent of $30,000,000 of estimated cost of service).
Planning Fee Calculations | 40
Page 252
Planning Fee Calculations | 41
D.Benchmarking
In order to better understand current and full cost recovery fee rates in
Clarington in relation to similar and surrounding municipalities, a planning
application fee comparison was prepared. The results of this comparison are
presented in Appendix B. The fees for other municipalities are those that are
currently in force and may not recover the full cost of providing planning
application review services.
The benchmarking analysis looks at the full cost of a range of typical
planning applications.
Appendix B shows that the current planning application fees in Clarington
are on the lower end of the benchmark range for all major application types.
Each municipalityʼs fees are from their most recently available planning fee
schedule.
The calculated full cost recovery rates, if adopted, would move the
Municipalityʼs fees to the middle or high end of the benchmark range for
most fees. Fees for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-Law Amendments,
and Site Plans would move to within the middle of the benchmark range
while fees for Consents, Minor Variances, and Plans of Condominium would
shift to the higher end of the range. Although these fees would be in the
higher end of the range, they would not be the highest among the
benchmarked municipalities. Subdivision fees would remain at the lower to
middle end of the benchmark range.
It is noted that this comparison does not take into account any service level
differences that may exist between municipalities in terms of, for example,
the time taken to process an application or the level of customer service
provided to applicants.
Page 253
Conclusions and Recommendations | 42
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
This section provides general user fee recommendations over and above the
service-specific recommendations set out in each section above. In this
respect, it is recommended that the Municipality:
▪ undertake a comprehensive fee review every ten years to ensure that its
fees are achieving appropriate cost recovery and align with municipal
benchmarks;
▪ ensure that user fees increase at the same (or greater) rate as increases
in program operating costs. In keeping with municipal leading practices,
this means that the Municipality should index its fees on an annual basis
to cover changing costs arising from inflation and (given that the majority
of costs are payroll-related) wage agreements;
▪ monitor municipal benchmark fees annually for key services and
programs to ensure its fees remain competitive; and
▪ continue to make information on fees accessible to the public via the
municipal website.
Page 254
Appendix A | 43
Appendix A
Time Shares
Page 255
Appendix A | 44
Time Shares
The tables below provide estimated time shares for all staff involved in
Planning and Infrastructure applications. The time associated with
application review is further broken down by specific application type. The
time matrix is based on extensive consultation with staff.
Page 256
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PLANNING FEE STUDY
APPENDIX A - TABLE 1
Existing Staff Position PLN ENG Non-Fee OPA ZBA Sub.D Condo Res. SP Other SP
Chief Fire Prevention Officer 3% 0% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fire Prevention Officer 12% 0% 88% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1%
Traffic Supervisor 5% 0% 95% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2%
Traffic Coordinator 4% 0% 96% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1%
Manager, Roads 3% 0% 98% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Manager, Parks 3% 0% 98% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Arborist 3% 0% 98% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Forestry Coordinator 3% 0% 98% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Director of Infrastructure 19% 5% 77% 0% 0% 15% 1% 1% 0%
Director of Planning 70% 11% 19% 2% 13% 14% 1% 6% 6%
Manager, Development Review 95% 0% 5% 1% 14% 19% 1% 11% 11%
Principal Planner 93% 0% 7% 2% 7% 31% 1% 19% 6%
Principal Planner 95% 0% 5% 3% 21% 30% 3% 18% 9%
Senior Planner 98% 0% 2% 3% 28% 15% 1% 15% 15%
Senior Planner 98% 0% 2% 3% 28% 15% 1% 15% 15%
Senior Planner 98% 0% 2% 3% 28% 15% 1% 15% 15%
Senior Planner 98% 0% 2% 3% 28% 15% 1% 15% 15%
Planner II 98% 0% 2% 0% 4% 6% 0% 10% 24%
Planner II 78% 0% 22% 0% 3% 5% 0% 8% 20%
Planner I 72% 0% 28% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Planner I 60% 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Planner I 60% 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Planner I 72% 0% 28% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Development Application Coordinator 100% 0% 0% 0% 6% 4% 1% 2% 4%
Development Application Coordinator 100% 0% 0% 0% 6% 4% 1% 2% 4%
Infrastructure and Construction 12% 3% 85% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0%
Development Construction Inspector 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 80% 0% 0% 0%
Utility and infrastructure coordinator 18% 2% 80% 0% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0%
Manager of Construction 24% 6% 70% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0%
Senior Construction inspector 10% 0% 90% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0%
Manager, Development Engineering 46% 44% 10% 5% 12% 18% 3% 0% 0%
Development Review Technician 40% 45% 15% 3% 8% 14% 3% 0% 0%
Development Review Technician 60% 30% 10% 5% 12% 21% 4% 0% 0%
Engineering Coordinator 0% 85% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Transportation Engineer 65% 30% 5% 10% 23% 24% 4% 0% 0%
Water Resources Engineer 65% 30% 5% 10% 23% 24% 4% 0% 0%
Manager, Park Design & Development 30% 0% 70% 1% 2% 12% 7% 5% 1%
Landscape Architect Technician 30% 0% 70% 1% 2% 12% 7% 5% 1%
Law Clerk 65% 0% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Manager of Engineering Design 0% 8% 93% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Capital Works Engineer 0% 5% 95% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Capital Works Engineer 0% 5% 95% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Capital Works Coordinator 0% 5% 95% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Manager of Community Planning 10% 0% 90% 0% 4% 4% 0% 1% 1%
Principal Planner 10% 0% 90% 0% 4% 4% 0% 1% 1%
Principal Planner 10% 0% 90% 0% 4% 4% 0% 1% 1%
Senior Planner 25% 0% 75% 0% 2% 6% 0% 0% 0%
Accessibility Coordinator 1% 0% 99% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Total of Current Staff Salaries $2,946,131 $505,310 $3,973,811 $89,725 $437,916 $718,058 $79,779 $236,961 $225,799
Total of New Staff Salaries $831,473 $94,940 $795,203 $53,742 $331,076 $228,775 $27,019 $66,293 $43,038
Appendix A | 45
Page 257
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PLANNING FEE
APPENDIX A - TABLE 1
Existing Staff Position MV Consent Precon. Telecom Zone Comp. Signs Agreement MZO/SAB Dev. Eng
Chief Fire Prevention Officer 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fire Prevention Officer 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Traffic Supervisor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Traffic Coordinator 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Manager, Roads 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Manager, Parks 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Arborist 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Forestry Coordinator 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Director of Infrastructure 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Director of Planning 7% 9% 6% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 11%
Manager, Development Review 8% 12% 11% 0% 0% 2% 0% 4% 0%
Principal Planner 3% 6% 12% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3% 0%
Principal Planner 0% 2% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Senior Planner 1% 1% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Senior Planner 1% 1% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Senior Planner 1% 1% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Senior Planner 1% 1% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Planner II 0% 31% 16% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 0%
Planner II 0% 26% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Planner I 27% 23% 0% 4% 15% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Planner I 22% 19% 0% 3% 13% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Planner I 22% 19% 0% 3% 13% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Planner I 27% 23% 0% 4% 15% 0% 0% 4% 0%
Development Application Coordinator 8% 15% 20% 3% 25% 12% 0% 0% 0%
Development Application Coordinator 8% 15% 20% 3% 25% 12% 0% 0% 0%
Infrastructure and Construction 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Development Construction Inspector 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20%
Utility and infrastructure coordinator 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Manager of Construction 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 6%
Senior Construction inspector 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Manager, Development Engineering 1% 4% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44%
Development Review Technician 3% 6% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45%
Development Review Technician 4% 9% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30%
Engineering Coordinator 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 85%
Transportation Engineer 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30%
Water Resources Engineer 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30%
Manager, Park Design & Development 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Landscape Architect Technician 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Law Clerk 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 65% 0% 0%
Manager of Engineering Design 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8%
Capital Works Engineer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Capital Works Engineer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Capital Works Coordinator 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%
Manager of Community Planning 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Principal Planner 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Principal Planner 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Senior Planner 3% 3% 8% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0%
Accessibility Coordinator 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total of Current Staff Salaries $183,466 $290,421 $246,427 $55,301 $116,860 $34,849 $152,600 $77,970 $505,310
Total of New Staff Salaries $5,532 $10,967 $42,765 $7,009 $0 $361 $0 $14,898 $94,940
Appendix A | 46
Page 258
Appendix B | 47
Appendix B
Benchmarking Analysis
Page 259
Appendix B | 48
Benchmarking Analysis
Fee benchmarking is used extensively throughout the report to supplement
the cost analysis and ensure the proposed fees are aligned with those
charged in comparable municipalities. The following municipalities were
used as comparators for Clarington:
▪ Ajax, Brock, Oshawa, Pickering, Scugog, Uxbridge, and Whitby in Durham
Region
▪ Caledon, in Peel Region
▪ the City of Peterborough
▪ Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Georgina, Newmarket, and Whitchurch-
Stouffville in York Region
The benchmarking analysis was undertaken for all fees considered under
this report. The following tables provide the results of the analysis, including
details on the average, median, minimum, and maximum fees within the
benchmark range.
Page 260
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REVIEW OF BUILDING, PLANNING, & ENGINEERING FEES
APPENDIX B - TABLE 1
Application Type Ajax Brock Oshawa Pickering Scugog Uxbridge Whitby Caledon Aurora Newmarket Whitchurch-
Stouffville Georgina East
Gwillimbury Peterborough Benchmark
Average
Benchmark
Median Pickering,
Oshawa Avg.
(Current
Fees)
(Calculated
FCR)
Official Plan Amendment
Minor $38,879 $10,000 $53,560 $12,470 $10,200 $40,382 $27,700 $29,027 $48,019 $10,300 $22,221 $21,214 $31,720 $27,361 $27,700 $44,274 $18,440 $45,920
Major $102,212 $15,000 $26,523 $109,180 $30,025 $10,200 $55,022 $51,300 $50,314 $48,019 $33,643 $34,504 $34,607 $46,196 $34,607 $73,234 $27,030 $77,580
Revision Requiring Recirculation $2,125 $5,100 $2,515 $4,653 $278 $2,934 $2,515 $2,125
Additional Public Meeting $1,195 $1,000 $867 $1,280 $8,400 $1,834 $2,090 $2,381 $1,280 $1,237 $2,470 $2,470
Zoning By-Law Amendment
Minor $32,224 $5,000 $11,081 $14,000 $6,960 $6,100 $30,000 $39,900 $17,909 $41,236 $17,053 $17,272 $13,986 $6,000 $18,480 $15,527 $21,826 $9,270 $17,990
Major $34,357 $7,500 $21,218 $41,415 $17,765 $13,580 $50,000 $49,900 $31,954 $41,236 $28,422 $25,122 $24,527 $22,920 $29,280 $26,772 $36,747 $13,890 $26,960
Removal of "H" Provision $9,454 $1,500 $4,775 $4,050 $3,115 $1,700 $10,000 $4,100 $11,328 $7,203 $5,815 $4,410 $7,266 $5,747 $4,775 $7,070 $3,200 $6,210
Temporary Use Application $32,224 $5,000 $3,051 $22,470 $1,455 $3,537 $14,876 $39,900 $19,341 $8,140 $16,184 $8,764 $7,124 $6,090 $13,440 $8,452 $18,155 $0 $5,280
Amendment
Recirculation Fee $2,120 $5,000 $1,843 $4,653 $278 $2,779 $2,120 $2,120
Additional Public Meeting $1,195 $1,000 $867 $1,280 $8,400 $1,834 $2,090 $2,381 $1,280 $1,237 $2,470 $2,470
Part Lot Control (10 lots, 1 extension) $2,946 $1,200 $3,125 $2,277 $2,295 $887 $17,340 $11,600 $5,698 $3,136 $6,752 $6,289 $11,921 $3,130 $5,614 $3,133 $6,422 $1,880 $3,560
Per Lot $37 $111 $105 $1,734 $90 $103 $150 $194 $198 $50 $277 $108 $627 $65 $123
Extension $2,581 $650 $1,044 $3,051 $2,564 $1,978 $2,564 $1,813
Reapplication
Site Plan
Small Development(1)
Mid-Size Development(2)
Large Development (3) $659,298 $5,000 $313,540 $580,235 $314,960 $14,843 $814,176 $660,020 $923,346 $1,166,772 $496,600 $304,421 $696,462 $672,190 $544,419 $619,766 $591,812 $46,040 $517,580
Subdivision
Small Development
Mid-Size Development(5) $1,064,642 $17,000 $2,026,187 $1,285,215 $763,590 $157,189 $1,507,258 $1,031,050 $2,125,836 $219,354 $723,776 $1,123,372 $1,102,044 $1,166,635 $1,022,368 $1,083,343 $1,470,825 $730,060 $822,980
Large Development
Plan of Condominium $23,901 $12,500 $15,239 $22,325 $20,990 $13,291 $41,100 $34,551 $72,051 $46,500 $10,750 $26,335 $47,340 $29,760 $23,901 $18,689 $9,988 $39,190
Sign By-law
Permanent Sign Permit $140 $615 $260 $200 $242 $356 $519 $446 $320 $290 $339 $305 $332 $245 $360
Temporary Sign Permit $113 $140 $615 $104 $93 $53 $100 $179 $131 $191 $446 $137 $265 $197 $137 $230 $135 $200
Sign By-law Variance $1,127 $1,065 $695 $634 $313 $6,194 $833 $536 $539 $763 $514 $1,350 $1,213 $729 $2,270 $860 $1,270
Sign By-law Amendment $2,925 $14,092 $356 $1,260 $4,658 $2,092 $8,508 $2,155 $3,170
Committee of Adjustment
Minor Variance $2,674 $1,500 $1,410 $2,300 $3,533 $1,039 $2,251 $3,067 $4,636 $2,194 $3,838 $1,692 $2,058 $1,350 $2,396 $2,222 $2,159 $1,195 $2,640
Land Division/Consent $4,498 $3,250 $3,296 $5,625 $8,725 $4,228 $4,000 $11,310 $8,939 $7,293 $7,906 $11,620 $10,051 $540 $6,520 $6,459 $4,355 $3,255 $7,080
Base $5,950 $6,281 $4,208 $5,480 $5,950
Per Unit $2,989 $5,339 $1,896 $3,408 $2,989
(1)A small site plan is 20 dwellings, no non-residential space, 1,960 sq.m of GFA, $1,000,000 of engineering construction works, and $15,000 of landscaping construction works
(2)A mid-size site plan is 200 dwellings, 3000 sq.m of non-residential space, 12,600 sq.m of GFA, $2,000,000 of engineering construction works, and $15,000 of landscaping construction works
(3)A large site plan is 500 dwellings, 10,000 sq.m of non-residential space, 42,000 sq.m of GFA, $10,000,000 of engineering construction works, and $50,000 of landscaping construction works
(4)A small subdivision is 20 dwellings, 1 ha, 1,000 sq.m of non-residential space, $1,000,000 of engineering construction works, and $15,000 of landscaping construction works
(5)A mid-size subdivision is 269 dwellings, 12 ha, no non-residential space, $18,464,366 of engineering construction works, and $1,144,937 of landscaping construction works
(6)A large subdivision is 500 dwellings (singles), 25 net ha, 5,000 sq.ft. of non-residential space, $30 million of engineering construction works, and $2.5 million of landscaping construction works
(7) Plan of Condominium includes agreement fee and no engineering fees
Appendix B | 49
Page 261
Attachment 2 to
Report PDS-013-26
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 2025-033, a by-law to require the payment of
fees for services, by amending Schedule “E”- Planning and Infrastructure
Services Fees with new and revised fees.
Whereas Subsection 69(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.12, as amended,
provides that a municipality may establish a tariff of fees for the processing of
applications made in respect of planning matters;
And whereas Subsection 391(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as
amended, authorizes a municipality to impose fees or charges for services or activities
provided or done by or on behalf of it.
And whereas, the Municipal Council has adopted the recommendations contained in
Staff Report PDS-013-26.
Now therefore the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. That Schedule “E’ – Planning and Infrastructure Services Fees of By-law 2025-
033, be deleted and replaced with Schedule “E” as Attachment 1 to this By-law.
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 23rd day of March, 2026.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
By signing this by-law on March 23, 2026, 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 262
Planning Fee Calculations | 26
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Schedule “E”
Planning and Infrastructure Services Fees
Fee Schedule Effective February 23, 2026
Fees include HST where applicable.
For Building Permit Fees, please refer to the Building By-law.
$37,990 Exempt
$63,790 Exempt
$90,220 Exempt
$4,670 Exempt
$7,840 Exempt
$13,600 Exempt
At Cost Exempt
$15,020 Exempt
$22,510 Exempt
“(H)” $5,190 Exempt
$4,410 Exempt
$3,570 Exempt
Page 263
Planning Fee Calculations | 26
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Combined Official Plan and Zoning
By-law Amendments (Note 3) Fee HST Included/
Exempt
Associated with a Minor OPA $49,245 Exempt
Associated with a Major OPA $75,045 Exempt
Page 264
Planning Fee Calculations | 27
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Draft Plan of Subdivision (Note 9) Fee Unit HST Included/
Exempt
Residential (Note 13)
$32,150
Base
amount
Exempt
$510
Per unit Exempt
$850
Per
development
block subject to
site plan
Exempt
Non-Residential $13,300 Exempt
Preparation of Subdivision
Agreement (Note 5) $6,060
Included
Preparation of Subdivision
Agreement Amendment (Note 5) $1,520
Included
Recirculation Fee (Note 11) 50% of the
base
Current
Fee
Red Line Revisions to Draft
Approval Plan of Subdivision
(Note 9)
Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
All revisions
$17,750 Base amount Exempt
$510 Per unit Exempt
$850
Per
development
block subject to
site plan
Exempt
Page 265
Planning Fee Calculations | 28
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Major Revisions to Subdivision
Applications Not Draft Approved
(Note 9 and 13)
Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
Where original application was filed
prior to July 1, 2000
$28,090 Base amount Exempt
$510 Per unit Exempt
$850 Per development
block subject to
site plan
Exempt
Where original application was filed
between July 1, 2000 and
December 31,
2006
$14,070 Base amount Exempt
$510 Per unit Exempt
$850 Per development
block subject to
site plan
Exempt
Where original application was
filed after December 31, 2006 $14,070
Exempt
Subdivision Clearance $5,120 Exempt
Extension of Draft Plan Approval $5,120 Exempt
Other Related Subdivision
Applications (Note 9) Fee Unit HST Included/
Exempt
Part Lot Control Exemption
Subsection 50(7)
$2,010 Base amount Exempt
$106 Per unit Exempt
Deeming By-law Subsection 50(4) $2,010 Exempt
Page 266
Planning Fee Calculations | 29
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Draft Plan of Condominium (Note 9) Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
Residential and Non-residential $34,060 Exempt
Application for Condominium
Conversions $41,290 Exempt
Preparation of Condominium
Agreement (Note 5) $1,028 Included
Revision to existing or registered
condominium agreement $18,805 Exempt
Site Plan Approval / Amendment
(Note 9 and 14)
Fee Unit HST Included/
Exempt
Residential Use (Note 14)
$22,720 Base Exempt
$720
Per unit for first
100 units
Exempt
$480
Per unit after
first 100 units
(maximum
$140,000
total per unit
fee)
Exempt
Commercial Use
$28,220 Base
Exempt
$4.10
Per m2
commercial
gross floor area
Exempt
Page 267
Planning Fee Calculations | 30
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Site Plan Approval / Amendment
(Note 9 and 14)
Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
Mixed Use Building (Note 6)
$25,400
Base Exempt
$3.70
Per m2
commercial
gross floor area
Exempt
$298
Per residential
unit (max
$100,000)
Exempt
Industrial / Other Uses
$14,100 Base Exempt
$2.10
Per m2 gross
floor area (max
$40,000)
Exempt
Amendment – Residential Use $3,780 Base Exempt
$169
Per unit
(maximum
$21,400)
Exempt
Amendment – Commercial Use
$10,190
Base Exempt
$4.10
Per m2
commercial
gross floor area
(maximum
$16,400)
Exempt
Page 268
Planning Fee Calculations | 31
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Site Plan Approval / Amendment
(Note 9 and 14)
Fee Unit HST Included/
Exempt
Amendment – Mixed Use (Note 6)
$11,960 Base
Exempt
$3.70
Per m2
commercial
gross floor area
Exempt
$298
Per residential
unit (maximum
$85,000)
Exempt
Amendment – Industrial / Other
Use
$3,810 Base Exempt
$2.80
Per m2 gross
floor area
(maximum
$25,000)
Exempt
Minor Site Plan (Note 7) $2,460 Exempt
Sales Trailer / Model Home $11,320 Exempt
Preparation of Section 41
Agreement Note 5)
$910 Included
Landscape Inspection Fee
For
projects
with greater
than 2500
sq.m. of
floor area,
or 25 units
or greater
(0.5% of the
landscape
cost
estimate
with a
minimum of
$1,000)
Recirculation Fee (Note 11)
50% of the
base
Current Fee
Page 269
Planning Fee Calculations | 32
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Committee of Adjustment (Note 9) Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
Request for Deferral by Applicant
(Tabling Fee) $860 Exempt
Recirculation Fee (per additional
circulation) or Additional
Committee of Adjustment Meeting $1,400 Exempt
– Minor Variance (Notes 8 and 9) Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
Accessory Buildings and
Structures $1,750
Exempt
Residential Minor (single, semi-
detached, townhouse or proposed
lot) $2,280 Exempt
Residential Major (all other
residential) $3,700 Exempt
Commercial
$5,280
Exempt
Other non-residential
$2,280
Exempt
Change of Use 100% of base application fee
Land Division (Note 9) Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
Application Fee $6,110 Exempt
Preparation of Section 53
Agreement (Note 5) $850 Included
Deed Stamping Fee $1,130 Included
Pre-Consultation Fees Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
Pre-Consultation Meeting Request $1,920 Exempt
Pre-Consultation – Minor (Note 10) $580 Exempt
Page 270
Planning Fee Calculations | 33
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Signs Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
Permanent Sign Permit $310 Exempt
Temporary Sign Permit $170 Exempt
Sign By-law Variance $1,090 Exempt
Sign By-law Amendment $2,740 Exempt
Additional Dwelling Unit Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
Application and Registration $260 Exempt
Registration for Applications
submitted prior to January 1, 2015 $120 Exempt
Rental Protection Act $1,590 Exempt
Land Use Information and
Compliance Letter
Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
Zoning, Building, and all other
property information $340 Exempt
Subdivision and Site Plan (per
agreement) $340 Exempt
Environmental Review Letter $340 Per
property
Exempt
Peer Review Fee HST
Included/
Exempt
(Applicant responsible for 100%
Municipality's full costs of
undertaking a Peer Review)
Peer review
Peer Review Administration Fee 15% of Cost Exempt
Page 271
Planning Fee Calculations | 34
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Other Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
Street Name Change Request
$1,485 Base Exempt
$55 Per
Municipal
Address
Exempt
Page 272
Planning Fee Calculations | 35
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Activation of a dormant
application not requiring a public
meeting
Greater of
25% of initial
application
fee or
$1,650
Application Requiring Additional
Public Meeting or Open House
$2,470
Additional
fee for
each
subsequen
t public
meeting
Exempt
Application Involving Review
Under EPA and/or EAA
Process (additional fee)
$17,830
Exempt
Preparation of Development /
Servicing Agreement (note 5 and
note 12)
See Notes 5 and
12
Folding of drawings
accompanying a submission (fee
per sheet)
$5.92
Per sheet Included
Heritage Permit $0.00
Telecommunications Towers
$7,860 Exempt
Telecommunications Towers
Letter of Exemption $340 Exempt
Page 273
Planning Fee Calculations | 36
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Real Property Transactions Fee Unit
Preparation of any agreements
relating to real property
transactions not otherwise
specifically addressed in this Fee
schedule; land transfers (e.g.,
right-of-ways, encroachments,
leases and licensed, easements)
the person requiring the
agreement shall be required to
pay fees and disbursements in
accordance with notes 5 and 12
below.
Development Engineering Fees Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
ROW Closure and Conveyance
Application Fee $290.13 Per
application
Included
ROW Closure and Conveyance
Processing Fee
$870.38
Per closure
and
conveyance
processed
Included
Winter Maintenance Fee $5,751.20 Per km of
road in the
developme
nt
Exempt
Streetlighting Fee $128.38 Per light in
subdivision
Exempt
Engineering Review Fee
1.25% of the Final
Works Cost
Estimate or
$2,000,
whichever is
greater.
Page 274
Planning Fee Calculations | 37
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Development Engineering Fees Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
Engineering Inspection Fee: Estimated Cost of Services (Note 13)
Less than $500,000
$8,000 or 3.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
higher
$500,000-$1,000,000
$17,500 or 3.0%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
$1,000,000-
$2,000,000
$30,000 or 2.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
$2,000,000-
$3,000,000
$50,000 or 2.25%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
$3,000,000 or
greater
$67,500 or 2.0%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
Page 275
Planning Fee Calculations | 38
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Lighting Review Fee $400 Per
Application
Page 276
Planning Fee Calculations | 39
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Development Engineering Fees Fee Unit HST
Included/
Exempt
Site Plan Engineering Inspection Fees (Note 14)
Less than $500,000
$8,000 or 3.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
higher
$500,000-$1,000,000
$17,500 or 3.0%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
$1,000,000-
$2,000,000
$30,000 or 2.5%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
$2,000,000-
$3,000,000
$50,000 or 2.25%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
$3,000,000 or
greater
$67,500 or 2.0%
of the Estimated
Cost of Services,
whichever is
greater.
Consolidated Linear Infrastructure
Environmental Compliance
Review
$1,880
Providing Existing Drawing or
Reports $340 Per
application
Page 277
Planning Fee Calculations | 40
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Preservicing Agreement $3,000
Page 278
Planning Fee Calculations | 41
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Note 1
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a Major Official Plan
Amendment application:
New golf courses or expansion to existing golf courses;
New waste facility or expansion to existing waste facility;
Commercial Development greater than 2,500 m2;
Deletion or addition of arterial or collector road; and/or
Any application that due to the broader policy implications for the Municipality
would require the need to review or manage studies, or any application deemed
to be a major by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure Services.
Associated with a Regional Official Plan Amendment
Note 2
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a major Zoning By-law
Amendment application:
Associated with an Official Plan Amendment;
Associated with an application for proposed Plan of Subdivision;
Application involving multiple properties, except for commercial and industrial
related applications; and/or
Any application that requires the review of technical support documents or
studies (e.g., environmental analyses, transportation).
Note 3
Where Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are submitted together a reduction
of 50% of the Major Zoning By-law Amendment Fee shall apply.
Note 4
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a minor application for red-
line revisions to Draft Approval:
Does not require circulation to outside agencies.
Page 279
Planning Fee Calculations | 42
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Note 5
Agreement preparation fee does not include the cost of registering the agreement and
all related documents (e.g., Transfers, Postponements, or inhibiting orders) in the Land
Registry office. The cost of such registrations is as follows:
Initial registration $270 plus HST, plus disbursements.
All subsequent registrations $135 plus HST, plus disbursements. Applicants must
provide the Municipality (Legal Services) with all such costs prior to registration.
Note 6
The fee for a Mixed-Use Building will apply when residential units are proposed and a
minimum of 50% of the ground floor of a building is for non-residential purposes.
Note 7
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a Minor Site Plan application:
A dog kennel and similarly scaled uses; and/or
A minor alteration to an existing site plan to revise parking, add a patio, add a
storage building, revise signage, add or delete portables, etc.
Note 8
Minor Variance applications for the construction or placement of an accessibility device
to provide access to a single-detached/link or townhouse dwelling is exempt from the
fee. An “accessibility device” is defined as a device including a ramp that aids persons
with physical disabilities in gaining access to a dwelling unit.
Note 9
Fees for all Planning applications submitted by a registered charitable organization or
for a registered non-profit housing organization will be reduced by 50%.
Note 10
The following are criteria for determining what constitutes a minor Pre-consultation:
Associated with a Land Division Application;
Applications associated with a single detached dwelling; and/or
Applications associated with an agricultural use.
Page 280
Planning Fee Calculations | 1
Attachment 1 to
By-law 2026-xxx
Note 11
Recirculation fees will be required on the 4th resubmission and every submission
thereafter of application materials that require circulation to internal departments and/or
external agencies.
Note 12
For preparation of any development/servicing agreement other than a subdivision
agreement, Section 41 agreement or a Section 53 agreement, the applicant is required
to reimburse the Municipality for its legal costs. If the legal work is undertaken by the
Municipal Solicitor, it will be charged at the rate of $195/hour. If the legal work is
undertaken by other legal counsel, it will be charged at the legal counsel’s hourly rate.
The minimum fee for any such agreement shall be $515 plus HST.
Note 13
Planning subdivision per unit fees are capped at $472,000 (the cost of 800 units).
Engineering inspection fees are capped at $617,500 (the equivalent of $30,000,000 of
estimated cost of service).
Note 14
Site plan per unit fees are capped at $140,000 (the cost of 200 units) for residential site
plan and $100,000 for mixed use buildings. Industrial/other uses per square metre site
plan fees are capped at $40,000. Engineering inspection fees are capped at $617,500
(the equivalent of $30,000,000 of estimated cost of service).
Note 15
Settlement Boundary Area Expansion applications will be captured as Major or Minor
Official Plan Amendments (OPA). The scale of OPA required will be determined
through pre-consultation between the applicant and Planning and Infrastructure staff.
Page 281
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: March 9, 2026 Report Number: PDS-022-26
Authored By: Ben Courville, Utility and Infrastructure Coordinator
Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: S-C-2013-0001
Report Subject: Apple View (Ace Developments), Plan 40M-2612 Assumption Bylaw
Recommendations:
1. That Report PDS-022-26 and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2. That the draft By-law (Attachment 2) to Report PDS-022-26, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-022-26 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 282
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-022-26
Report Overview
1. Background
Subdivision Agreement
1.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington entered into a Subdivision Agreement
Registered on December 15, 2017, with Ace Holdings (Scugog Village) LTD. to develop
lands by plan of subdivision, located in Bowmanville and described as Plan 40M-2612
(Attachment 1, Key Map). The agreement required the developer to construct all
roadworks, including hot-mix paving, street trees, a storm drainage system, and
streetlights. These works were completed and accepted by the Deputy CAO of Planning
and Infrastructure Services through provisions in the Subdivision Agreement.
The Subdivision Agreement Provides for:
1.2 Base Works
These works were issued a “Certificate of Completion” and a subsequent “Certificate of
Acceptance” by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure Services.
1.3 Streetlighting Works
These works were issued a “Certificate of Completion” and a subsequent “Certificate of
Acceptance” by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure Services.
1.4 Landscaping Works
These works were issued a “Certificate of Completion” and a subsequent “Certificate of
Acceptance” by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure Services.
1.5 Storm Water Management System
Not Applicable
1.6 Surface Works
These works were issued a “Certificate of Completion” and a subsequent “Certificate of
Acceptance” by the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure Services.
Page 283
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-022-26
2. Proposal
2.1 A by-law is required to dedicate the streets within Plan 40M-2612 as public highways.
The proposed by-law may be found as Attachment 2 to this report.
3. Financial Considerations
3.1 Upon assumption of the subdivision, the Municipality will assume the infrastructure
assets. Once the assets are assumed by the Municipality, repair, maintenance, and
replacement are the responsibility of the Municipality of Clarington.
3.2 The operational costs, including winter control, will be included in the Municipality’s
operating budgets.
4. Strategic Plan
4.1 Not Applicable
5. Climate Change
5.1 Not Applicable.
6. Concurrence
6.1 Not Applicable.
7. Conclusion
7.1 It is respectfully recommended that Council pass the by-law found as Attachment 2 to
this report. Following its passage, the Municipal Solicitor will register it in the Land
Registry Office.
Staff Contact: Tony Ricciardi, Manager of Construction and Inspections,
TRicciardi@Clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Key Map
Attachment 2 – By-law Report to PDS-022-26
Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department
Page 284
BONS AVENUE
HOCKLEY AVENUE
REBE
C
C
A
C
T
DA
R
R
Y
L
C
A
S
W
E
L
L
W
A
Y
SC
U
G
O
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
AR
G
E
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
NI
C
K
S
S
T
R
E
E
T
LU
N
N
E
Y
CR
E
S
C
E
N
T
CR
O
C
K
E
T
T
PL
A
C
E
CHILDS COURT
CONCESSI0N ROAD 3
BONS AV
E
N
U
E
KAU
K
O
N
E
N
C
T
JENNINGS
JENNINGS DRIVE
MC
C
O
R
K
E
L
L
S
T
AL
L
W
O
R
T
H
CR
E
S
C
E
N
T
GO
O
D
A
L
L
CR
E
S
C
E
N
T
CR
E
S
C
E
N
T
PI
P
E
R
BROUGH COURT
COURTNEY STREET
KE
E
L
E
R
CR
E
S
C
E
N
T
COLVILLE AVENUE
HONEY
M
A
N
D
R
I
V
E
WY
S
E
G
A
T
E
CO
U
R
T
HO
N
E
Y
M
A
N
D
R
I
V
E
AL
L
I
S
O
N
ST
R
E
E
T
GEORGE WEBSTE
R
W
A
Y
COURTNEY STREET
GI
M
B
L
E
T
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
GI
M
B
L
E
T
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
DA
V
I
D
B
A
K
E
R
HOOPER AVENUE
TA
I
T
C
R
.
NO
R
T
H
G
L
E
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
KEMP
C
R
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS KEMP CR
RONALD
AVENUE
HOOPER
BI
L
L
H
U
T
C
H
I
N
S
O
N
C
R
.
TH
O
M
A
S
B
I
R
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
BI
L
L
H
U
T
C
H
I
N
S
O
N
C
R
.
JOHN S
T
A
L
K
E
R
GAT
E
BAVIN STREET
AMBEREEN PLACEHI
G
B
E
E
L
A
N
E
HONEY
LANE
CR
I
S
P
CONCESSION ROAD 3
Ace Developments
DRAWN BY:
.
BOWMANVILLE
KEY MAP
Li
b
e
r
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Nash Road
Sc
u
g
o
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
DATE:
FILE NAME:
January 2026
E.L.
PDS-022-26
ATTACHMENT No. 1
J:\Engineering\Attachments\Attachments Post ESRI Upgrade\KeyMaps_Engineering\Subdivision Assumption Keymaps
Gr
e
e
n
R
o
a
d
Appleview
Subdivision
Plan 40M-2612
Re
g
.
R
d
.
5
7
Concession
Road 3
Attachment 1 to Report PDS-022-26
Page 285
Attachment 2 to Report PDS-022-26
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 establish, lay out and dedicate certain lands as public highways in the
Municipality of Clarington, to assume certain streets within the Municipality of Clarington
as public highways in the Municipality of Clarington, and to name them.
Now therefore, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. That the blocks shown on Plan 40M-2612, and listed below in this section, being
in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, is hereby
established, laid out, and dedicated by The Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington as public highway:
Blocks 35 (0.3m Reserve), to Blocks 38 (0.3m Reserve) Inclusive
Block 73 (0.3m Reserve) – 40M-2524
2. That the streets and blocks shown on Plan 40M-2612, and listed below in this
section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of
Durham, are hereby accepted by the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
as public highways, and assumed by the said corporation for public use:
Blocks 35 (0.3m Reserve), to Blocks 38 (0.3m Reserve) Inclusive
Block 73 (0.3m Reserve) – 40M-2524
Courtney Street
Passed in open Council this 9th day of March, 2026.
_____________________________________
Adrian Foster, Mayor
_____________________________________
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 286
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: March 9, 2026 Report Number: PDS-025-26
Authored By: Alicia da Silva, Planner I, Community Planning
Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: PLN 34.5
Report Subject: Intention to Pursue Heritage Designation – Multiple Properties in
Bowmanville and Enniskillen
Recommendations:
1. That Report PDS-025-26, 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, substantially in accordance with the Statements of Significance and
Lists of Character Defining Features for each property outlined in Attachments 1-3 of
this Report;
a. 3 Ontario Street, Bowmanville
b. 75 Wellington Street, Bowmanville
c. 7755 Old Scugog Road, Enniskillen
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-025-26 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
Page 287
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-025-26
Report Overview
Ontario Heritage Act
Ontario Heritage Act
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.
Page 288
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-025-26
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 listed
property on the Municipal Register must be removed from the Register after two years if
no Notice of Intention to Designate has been issued.
1.5 Clarington has 49 properties listed under Section 27 of the OHA, 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 Register. Evaluation of the listed properties is underway in accordance with the
criteria under the OHA.
1.6 In the past months, four separate Staff reports have recommended designating a total of
27 properties under Part IV of the OHA including:
a. PDS-035-25 which recommended designation of five properties,
b. PDS-067-25 which recommended designation of one property,
c. PDS-003-26 which recommended designation of 17 properties, and
d. PDS-015-26 which recommended designation of four properties.
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 CHC conducted a preliminary evaluation of the following properties which are listed
on the Municipal Register. See Figures 1-4 below.
Page 289
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-025-26
Figure 1: Map of Subject Properties
Page 290
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-025-26
1.9 Using the CHC subcommittee’s preliminary evaluation information as a foundation,
Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. (ARA) conducted their own assessments and
completed Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports for the subject properties. Each ARA
report concluded that the property possessed significant heritage attributes, met the
designation criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06, and recommended that the property be
designated under Part IV of the OHA.
1.10 The Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features for the subject
properties can be found in Attachments 1-3 of this report.
Figure 2: 3 Ontario Street Figure 3: 75 Wellington Street
Figure 4: 7755 Old Scugog Road
Page 291
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-025-26
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 resources 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 4 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.
Envision Durham, the 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.
Page 292
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-025-26
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 in September 2024
inviting them to a heritage information session which took place in October 2024. 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 via registered mail sharing that
Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports had been completed on their properties and
offering to provide 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 either virtually or
in-person when the report was being discussed.
4.3 Property owners have been notified of the CHC’s recommendations and that a Staff
Report would be presented to the Planning & Development Committee March 9, 2026,
recommending the designation of the subject properties under Part IV of the OHA. Two
of the three property owners have engaged with Staff, and none of the subject property
owners have expressed objection to designation.
5. Properties Recommended for Designation
5.1 This section provides an overview of each property recommended for designation.
3 Ontario Street, Bowmanville
5.2 3 Ontario Street, also referred to as the Orr House, is located on the east side of Ontario
Street in Bowmanville. The property consists of a two -storey, red brick Italianate
residence likely built between 1882 and 1890.
5.3 The property has design value as a representative example of a residential building
constructed in the Italianate architectural style. The property is also important in
supporting the late-19th and early-20th century residential area associated with the
historic Town of Bowmanville.
Page 293
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-025-26
5.4 The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report indicates the property meets the designation
criteria and recommends the property be designated. The report was circulated to the
CHC and was reviewed by Staff.
5.5 The CHC passed Motion 25.60 in October 2025 to recommend to Council the
designation of the property under Part IV of the OHA. The CHC also passed Motion
25.81 in December 2025 to add additional attributes to the Statement of Significance for
the designation of the property, which includes interior attributes and recognition of
notable former residents of the home.
5.6 Staff generally does not recommend the designation of interior attributes except in rare
circumstances, recognizing the challenges these designations may create for functional
renovations, adaptive reuse, and the practical monitoring of interiors within residential
homes.
5.7 Staff concurs with the Statement of Significance and the List of Character-Defining
Features as produced by ARA and presented in Attachment 1.
75 Wellington Street, Bowmanville
5.8 75 Wellington Street is located on the south side of Wellington Street in Bowmanville.
The subject property contains a one-and-a-half storey, brick building, constructed circa
1875.
5.9 The property has design value as a representative example of a residential building
constructed in a subtype of Gothic Revival architecture style, known as Gothic/Ontario
Cottage design. The property is also important in supporting the 19th and early 20th
century residential area associated with the historic Town of Bowmanville.
5.10 The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report indicates the property meets the designation
criteria and recommends the property be designated. The report was circulated to the
CHC and was reviewed by Staff.
5.11 The CHC passed Motion 25.57 in October of 2025 to recommend to Council the
designation of the property under Part IV of the OHA. Staff notified the property owner
of the Committee recommendation.
5.12 See Attachment 2 for the detailed Statement of Significance and List of Character-
Defining Features.
7755 Old Scugog Road, Enniskillen
5.13 7755 Old Scugog Road is located on the east side of Old Scugog Road in the Hamlet of
Enniskillen. The property consists of a one-storey, wood frame shed, built in 1869.
Page 294
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-025-26
5.14 The property has historical value for its direct association with Robert McLaughlin and
the McLaughlin Carriage Works. In 1867, McLaughlin built two cutters in his driving
shed on Concession Road 7 in Tyrone, and by 1869 the business had prospered to the
extent that he established the McLaughlin Carriage Works in Enniskillen. Known locally
as “the McLaughlin shed,” the building is among the only remaining evidence of
McLaughlin’s Enniskillen Carriage Works and serves as a visual and historical landmark
in the community. A historical plaque and commemorative shed (with a carriage within)
are currently located near the original location of the driving shed on Concession Road
7.
5.15 The Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report indicates the property meets the designation
criteria and recommends the property be designated. The report was circulated to the
CHC and was reviewed by Staff.
5.16 The CHC passed Motion 26.05 in January of 2026 to recommend to Council the
designation of the property under Part IV of the OHA. Staff notified the property owner
of the Committee recommendation.
5.17 See Attachment 3 for the detailed Statement 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.
9. Concurrence
9.1 Not Applicable.
Page 295
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PDS-025-26
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) 3 Ontario Street, Bowmanville
b) 75 Wellington Street, Bowmanville
c) 7755 Old Scugog Road, Enniskillen
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.
10.2 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.
10.3 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 to Report PDS-025-26
Attachment 2 to Report PDS-025-26
Attachment 3 to Report PDS-025-26
Attachment 4 to Report PDS-025-26
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 296
ATTACHMENT 1 TO REPORT PDS-025-26
3 Ontario Street, Bowmanville
Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features
Description
3 Ontario Street, also referred to as the Orr House, is located on the east side of
Ontario Street, in Bowmanville, Ontario. The property consists of a two-storey, red brick
Italianate residence likely built between 1882 and 1890.
Physical/Design Value
3 Ontario Street has design value as a representative example of a residential building
constructed in the Italianate architectural style. 3 Ontario Street was constructed in the
late 19th century, likely between 1882 and 1890. While it showcases stylistic features
which align with Queen Anne and Gothic Revival design, the overall massing and
inclusion of brackets are representative of the Italianate style. 3 Ontario Street is a two-
storey, three bay, red brick building with a hip roof. The wide overhanging eaves
showcase the ornamental cornice with rhythmically placed wood brackets which are key
characteristics of the Italianate style. The building follows a rectangular plan and has a
symmetrical composition across the façade and side elevations. The façade’s central
projecting frontispiece with central gable peak is centered by the prominent entrance
topped by a rectangular transom. The rhythmically placed rectangular window opening
showcase the flat or “jack” arch brick voussoirs. The entrance is flanked by decorative
one-storey canted bay windows which are adorned with brackets are in keeping with the
Italianate architectural style.
Contextual Value
3 Ontario Street is important in supporting the late-19th and early-20th century
residential area associated with the historic Town of Bowmanville. The lot lines and
block layout of the historic town was well established in the late-19th century are
reflected in the commercial core found along King Street and the large presence of
residences located along several side streets at this time. The development of
commercial and residential during this time played a significant role in the social and
economic development and growth of the Bowmanville. Located off or parallel to King
Street, the buildings in the historical town located along the side streets are comprised
of predominantly one to two-and-a-half storey residences, primarily brick construction
and often showcase ornate details. 3 Ontario Street exhibits, massing, style, and
decorative details consistent with character of the historic Town of Bowmanville.
Description of Heritage Attributes
Page 297
2
3 Ontario Street has design value as a representative example of a residential building
constructed in the Italianate architectural style. The property contains the following
heritage attributes that reflect this value:
- Two-storey building constructed in the Italianate architectural style
- Red brick construction
- Symmetrical and balanced composition
- Hip roof with central front gable peak adorned with decorative vergeboard
- Wide eaves with decorative cornice showcasing rhythmically placed wood
brackets
- Central projecting frontispiece
- Centred entranceway opening topped by a rectangular transom
- Rectangular window openings with flat arch and brick voussoirs
- One-storey Bay windows showcasing wooden brackets
3 Ontario Street is important in supporting the late-19th and early-20th century
residential area associated with the historic Town of Bowmanville. The property contains
the following heritage attributes that reflect this value:
- Two-storey building constructed in the Italianate architectural style
- Overall form, massing, and setback
- Location on Ontario Street
Page 298
ATTACHMENT 2 TO REPORT PDS-025-26
75 Wellington Street, Bowmanville
Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features
Description
75 Wellington Street is located on the south side of Wellington Street in the Town of
Bowmanville. The subject property contains a one-and-a-half storey, brick building,
constructed circa 1875.
Physical/Design Value
75 Wellington Street has design value as a representative example of a residential
building constructed in a subtype of Gothic Revival architecture style, known as
Gothic/Ontario Cottage design. The one-and-a-half-storey, brick building includes a side
gable roof with overhanging eaves and a high-pitched central gable peak finished with
decorative vergeboard and finial which are key characteristic of the Gothic/Ontario
Cottage design. Similarly, the symmetrical and balanced three-bay façade exhibits
typical massing and decorative elements associated with the Gothic/Ontario Cottage.
The segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs and the centered
rectangular door opening with classically inspired surrounds are additional features
representative of the Gothic/Ontario Cottage aesthetic.
Contextual Value
75 Wellington Street is important in supporting the 19th and early 20th century
residential area associated with the historic town of Bowmanville. The lot lines and block
layout of the historic town was well established in the late-19th century and reflected in
the commercial core found along King Street and the large presence of residences
located along several side streets at this time. The development of commercial and
residential area during this time played a significant role in the social and economic
development and growth of the Bowmanville. The location of the subject property along
Wellington Street supports the character of the streetscape and the local context.
Located off or parallel to King Street, the buildings in the historical town located along
the side streets are comprised of predominantly one to two-and-a-half storey
residences, primarily brick construction and often showcase ornate details. 75
Wellington Street exhibits, massing, style, and decorative details consistent with
character of the historic town of Bowmanville.
Description of Heritage Attributes
75 Wellington Street is important in supporting the 19th and early 20th century
residential area associated with the historic town of Bowmanville. The property contains
the following heritage attributes that reflect this value:
Page 299
2
- One-and-a-half-storey, building constructed in a subtype of Gothic Revival
architecture style, known as Gothic/Ontario Cottage design
- Brick construction
- Side gable roof with over hanging eaves and a central gable peak adorned with
decorative vergeboard
- Symmetrical and balanced three-bay façade
- Rectangular front entrance opening with classical detailing
- Segmentally arched window openings with brick voussoirs
75 Wellington Street is important in supporting the 19th and early 20th century residential
area associated with the historic town of Bowmanville. The property contains the
following heritage attributes that reflect this value:
- One-and-a-half-storey, building constructed in a subtype of Gothic Revival
architecture style, known as Gothic/Ontario Cottage design
- Setback, massing and decorative details
- Location along Wellington Street
The following heritage attributes were provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at
their meeting on October 21st, 2025:
- Moniker on the front fascia of the porch
- The property was once owned by the White Family. Members of the White Family
were stone masons who worked in the community and nearby villages, with
notable work including the construction of five stone houses along Concession
Road 7.
Page 300
ATTACHMENT 3 TO REPORT PDS-025-26
7755 Old Scugog Road, Enniskillen
Statement of Significance and List of Character-Defining Features
Description
7755 Old Scugog Road, known locally as the McLaughlin Shed, is located on the east
side of Old Scugog Road in the village of Enniskillen. The property consists of a one-
storey, wood frame shed, built in 1869.
Historical Value
7755 Old Scugog Road has historical value for its direct association with Robert
McLaughlin and the McLaughlin Carriage Works. Robert McLaughlin was born in Cavan
Township in 1836, and moved to Tyrone, in Darlington Township, in 1837. After building
several carriages in the drive shed of his family farm during the 1860s, Robert
McLaughlin moved to Enniskillen in 1869, and opened the Enniskillen Carriage Works
on Old Scugog Road, across from his family residence. The family was actively involved
in Enniskillen’s daily village life and especially tied to the Presbyterian church where
Robert McLaughlin taught Sunday School. The wooden outbuilding was part of the
original carriage operations and severed McLaughlin’s business as a storage shed. By
1878, the continued success of McLaughlin’s business necessitated its move to
Oshawa. The Oshawa’s location on Lake Ontario provided access to the GTR which
was instrumental in the business’ success. McLaughlin success as a carriage builder
continued into the 20th century, and by 1907, an automotive branch of the company had
been established by Robert’s two sons, George and Sam McLaughlin. The company
was called the McLaughlin Motor Car Company and proved so successful that Robert
McLaughlin discontinued the carriage business entirely in 1915 in order to devote the
company solely to making cars. In 1918, the company became General Motors Canada.
Robert McLaughlin died in November 1921, of colon cancer, and is buried in Oshawa
The wooden storage building is the last vestige of Robert McLaughlin’s Enniskillen
Carriage Works and showcases a painted sign commemorating its former use and
connection to the McLaughlin family.
Contextual Value
Known locally as “the McLaughlin shed,” the building is among the only remaining
evidence of Robert McLaughlin’s Enniskillen Carriage Works and serves as a visual and
historical landmark in the community of Enniskillen. The shed highlights the connection
with a painted sign commemorating its former use and local connection to the
McLaughlin family.
Description of Heritage Attributes
Page 301
2
7755 Old Scugog Road has historical value for its direct associated with Robert
McLaughlin and the McLaughlin Carriage Works. The property contains the following
heritage attributes that reflect this value:
- One-storey shed
- Gable roof
- Wood construction
Known locally as “the McLaughlin shed,” the building is the only remaining evidence of
Robert McLaughlin’s Enniskillen Carriage Works and serves as a visual and historical
landmark in the community of Enniskillen. The property contains the following heritage
attributes that reflect this value:
- One-storey shed
- Overall form and massing
- Location on Old Scugog Road
The following heritage attribute was provided by the Clarington Heritage Committee at
its meeting on January 20th, 2026, and is also reflected in Staff Report PSD-072-10:
- In 1867, Robert McLaughlin built two cutters in his driving shed located on
Concession Road 7 in Tyrone and by 1869 his business had prospered to the
extent that he established the McLaughlin Carriage Works in Enniskillen on
Scugog Street. The enterprise expanded rapidly and was moved to Oshawa in
1877 where it became the largest carriage works in the British Empire. A
historical plaque and commemorative shed (with a carriage within) are currently
located near the original location of the driving shed on Concession Road 7.
Page 302
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 4 to PDS-025-26
Page 303
Municipality of Clarington
Planning & Development Committee Meeting Motion
Date: March 9, 2026
Moved By: Councillor Anderson
Seconded By: Councillor Elhajjeh
Whereas Clarington is committed to ensuring the public receives factual information
which enhances transparency and combats misinformation; and
Whereas residents are encouraged to obtain correct information with verified facts using
credible sources such as the Municipality of Clarington’s website, and official Social
media accounts; and
Whereas access to trusted and reliable hard-copy print information is now limited in
Clarington due to the loss of the printed Clarington This Week newspaper; and
Whereas Clarington Council has approved an Official Plan Amendment to incorporate a
new Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan into the Clarington Official Plan; and
Whereas the Secondary Plan area is envisioned as a residential neighbourhood with
visitor-oriented commercial businesses, a new Municipal Wide Park at the waterfront,
and protected natural features like the Lake Ontario shoreline and Tooley Creek valley
lands; and
Whereas Clarington has also created a Waterfront Strategy which includes a vision for
enhancing public access to the waterfront, preserving the natural environment,
thoughtful growth, and year-round recreation and tourism opportunities that celebrate
the unique character of the waterfront communities, including the Courtice Waterfront;
and
Whereas Ajax, Oshawa and Whitby have been or will begin charging non-residents for
parking related to lakefront use; and
Whereas Clarington residents should have free access to a vibrant, accessible, and
sustainable Courtice waterfront that serves residents, welcomes visitors, and protects
the environment - now and for generations to come; and
Page 304
Whereas misinformation about the Courtice Waterfront has been circulated through
social media community groups, including images of houses and buildings adjacent to
the waterfront; and
Whereas through the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan, any buildings will be further
away from the waterfront than along the waterfront in Ajax; and
Whereas the Secondary Plan identifies the entire stretch of the Courtice waterfront
shoreline as an Environmental Protection Area (EPA), which means it must be
protected, maintained, restored and, where possible, improved for the long term; and
Whereas between the EPA and proposed neighbourhood, there will be a 16-hectare
(39-acre) prestigious municipal park – bigger than the former Bowmanville Zoo lands;
and
Whereas the Courtice Waterfront Park will significantly increase access to Lake Ontario
and attract residents from across Clarington with year-round recreational opportunities;
and
Whereas Clarington aims to combat the spread of misinformation (often through social
media platforms) and ensure that the public has access to truthful information;
Therefore, be it resolved:
1. That Staff be directed to produce and send a hard-copy mail out to every
Clarington household outlining the factual information related to the Courtice
Waterfront, including the conceptual drawing of the waterfront park; and
2. That that the estimated cost of $10,400 for delivery and printing of the mailout be
funded from the General Municipal Reserve.
Page 305