HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-026-26Staff 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: April 20, 2026 Report Number: PDS-026-26
Authored By: Emily Corsi, Principal Planner; Keith Marshall, Planner II.
Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer (Acting CAO)
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: COPA2025-0007 (PLN 41.15)
Report Subject: Soper Springs Secondary Plan Recommendation Report
Recommendations:
1.That Report PDS-026-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2.That Clarington Official Plan Amendment 149 and Durham Region Official Plan
Amendment 3, attached to Report PDS-026-26, for the Soper Springs Secondary
Plan, be approved;
3.That the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines appended to the Secondary
Plan be approved and be used by Staff to guide development applications and
public projects;
4.That Council require the preparation and approval of a joint Master Drainage Plan
for the Soper Springs and the Soper Hills Secondary Plans, informed by the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study and approved by the Municipality and Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority, prior to approval of the first development application
within either the Soper Springs or Soper Hills Secondary Plan areas;
5.That the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services be authorized to finalize
the Transportation Assessment Report, Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report,
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and the joint Master Drainage Plan in support
of the Secondary Plan;
6.That the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services be authorized to execute
any agreements to implement the Secondary Plan once approved by Council; and
7.That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-026-26 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision.
PD-044-26
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-026-26
Report Overview
1. Purpose of the Report
1.1 The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that Council approve Clarington Official
Plan Amendment 149 (OPA 149) to include the Soper Springs Secondary Plan
(Secondary Plan) in the Clarington Official Plan. The recommendation follows an
extensive public engagement process. OPA 149 includes the Secondary Plan and the
associated Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines (UDSG), provided as
Attachment 1 to this report.
1.2 To facilitate the creation of the Secondary Plan, the report also recommends that
Council approve Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 3 (ROPA 3), which removes
two ‘Future Type C Arterial’ roads.
1.3 As of January 1, 2025, Envision Durham, the new Durham Region Official Plan, became
part of the Clarington Official Plan. As a result, Clarington Council is the approval
authority for OPA 149 and ROPA 3.
1.4 This report includes an overview of the recommended Secondary Plan and summarizes
the process and feedback received since the release of the draft Official Plan
Amendment, draft Secondary Plan, and draft Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines (UDSG) as part of the Statutory Public Meeting in May 2025.
2. Background
2.1 The Secondary Plan is located north of Concession Road 3, east of Liberty Street
North, and west of Lambs Road, and its northern boundary aligns with the Bowmanville
urban boundary as shown in Figure 1. The Secondary Plan area is approximately 184
hectares and currently consists of agricultural fields, residential dwellings, the Soper
Creek and other natural heritage features.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-026-26
2.2 Following the initiation of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, the Municipality
received a request from the Soper Springs (Bowmanville North) Landowners Group to
initiate the Soper Springs Secondary Plan in accordance with the policies of the
Clarington Official Plan. In April 2018, Council authorized municipal staff to initiate the
Soper Springs Secondary Plan in co-ordination with the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study.
2.3 The Secondary Plan area is envisioned as a residential neighbourhood with
opportunities for retail and service commercial uses at key intersections, parks, trails,
and protected natural features like the Soper Creek valleylands.
2.4 Soper Springs is planned to accommodate approximately 3,300 residents and 1,300
residential units. The Secondary Plan promotes a complete and inclusive community by
supporting a range and mix of housing options and encouraging affordable housing
opportunities.
2.5 Future development will be organized around the Soper Creek valleylands, connected
by an integrated trail and road network, and located within a short walk of the
Neighbourhood Park or parkette. In addition, two Prominent Intersections will serve as
community focal points where a mix of commercial and residential uses i s encouraged.
2.6 The Statutory Public Meeting Report (PDS-019-25) and presentation outlined the
Secondary Plan’s vision, framework, and key policy directions in detail.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-026-26
Figure 1: Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area
3. Secondary Plan Process
3.1 Development of the Secondary Plan was informed by an extensive public engagement
and several technical background studies.
3.2 The Secondary Plan process for the Soper Springs Secondary Plan involved four
Phases as described below. A full sequence of events is provided in Attachment 3.
Phase 1 (Initial Engagement and Analysis) included technical analysis through
background studies and initial consultation with the community to determine the
vision for the new neighbourhood. An initial Public Information Centre was held on
June 4, 2019, and this phase was concluded with a presentation of the findings at a
Public Information Centre held on December 15, 2021.
Phase 2 (Principles and Land Use Options) involved preparation of urban design
and sustainability principles and three land use options illustrating different
arrangements of land uses, parks and roads. On June 29, 2022, the land use
options were presented to the public and agencies for comment.
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-026-26
Phase 3 (Preferred Land Use Plan) resulted in the development of a preferred land
use plan including environmental protection areas identified through Phase 1 of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. The preferred land use plan was presented at a
joint Public Information Centre on December 6, 2023.
Phase 4 (Finalize Deliverables) centered on completing the draft and final
Secondary Plan and UDSG. The draft documents were presented at a Statutory
Public Meeting on May 12, 2025. In addition, technical studies were prepared and
circulated for review and feedback. Phase 4 will conclude with the approval of the
Secondary Plan by Council.
3.3 Public engagement included four Public Information Centres between June 4, 2019, and
May 12, 2025, a Statutory Public Meeting held on May 12, 2025, and landowner
meetings held throughout the process. Feedback received over the last several years
was used to inform the creation of this Secondary Plan. A more detailed summary of the
Secondary Plan process and community engagement program is provided in the
Statutory Public Meeting report (PDS-019-25).
Background Reports
3.4 The technical analysis and recommendations from several background and technical
reports informed the preparation of the Secondary Plan. A summary of the following
technical reports is provided in Attachment 4 to this report:
Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Study, 2020
Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, 2020
Phase 1 Background and Analysis Summary Report, 2021
Sustainability and Green Principles Report, 2021
Landscape Analysis Report, 2022
Alternative Land Use Plan Report, 2022
Phase 2 Summary Report, 2022
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study Phase 1 Report, May 2023
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study Phase 2/3 Report, draft October 2024 and
Interim Update Report, April 2026.
3.5 A draft Transportation Assessment Report has assessed the proposed transportation
network and intersection operations within the study area and provided
recommendations to inform future areas of study. Revisions are being made to the
Transportation Assessment Report to address comments from the Region, Soper
Springs Landowners Group and the Municipality. Revisions to this report will not impact
the intent of the recommended Secondary Plan.
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-026-26
3.6 A draft Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report has been prepared as an update to
the Functional Servicing Report completed in May 2025. The Preliminary Municipal
Engineering Report demonstrates that the study area can be serviced in terms of water
supply and distribution, wastewater, and stormwater and provides flexibility on the
selection of infrastructure implementation strategies. The revised PMER will address
comments from the Region, CLOCA, the Soper Springs landowners’ group and
Municipality. The Revisions to this report will not impact the intent of the recommended
Secondary Plan.
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
3.7 A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), which is required for all new or
realigned major roads needed to service the Secondary Plan, is being complete d using
the ‘Integrated Approach’ which jointly satisfies the requirements of the Planning Act
and the Environmental Assessment Act. All public notices, communications and review
periods have been designed to ensure that they conform to the requirements of both th e
Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. The final MCEA report is being
prepared for submission to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
3.8 The Soper Creek Subwatershed Study (Subwatershed Study) was undertaken to inform
the preparation of the Soper Springs and Soper Hills Secondary Plans and assesses
the potential impacts of proposed land use changes on the natural features, outlines
mitigation of the impacts, and establish an implementation and monitoring plan.
3.9 Phase 1 of the Subwatershed Study, completed in May 2023, identified environmental
features, functions, and constraints to inform the development of the draft Secondary
Plans. The draft Phase 2/3 Subwatershed Study was completed in October 2024 and
presented at a Public Information Centre on April 10, 2025. The Phase 2/3 report
evaluated earlier versions of the Soper Springs and Soper Hills land use plans.
3.10 As refinements to the land use plans for the two Secondary Plans have only recently
concluded, there was insufficient time for revised land use plans to be fully reassessed
prior to Council recess. To address timing considerations and ensure continued
protection of the subwatershed, staff, in consultation with agencies and the Soper
Springs and Soper Hills landowners’ groups, advanced an alternative approach. The
Soper Creek Phase 2/3 Subwatershed Study will be finalized utilizing earlier versions of
the Secondary Plans and subsequently a Master Drainage Plan (MDP) will be prepared
to update and complete the assessment.
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-026-26
3.11 The MDP, guided by the Subwatershed Study, will be prepared for the two Secondary
Plans jointly, to assess land use changes, servicing strategies, and stormwater
management solutions to ensure development in the two Secondary Plan areas can
proceed without adverse downstream impacts. The Municipality and CLOCA, supported
by the Subwatershed Study consultant, Aquafor Beech, will approve the Terms of
Reference prior to the joint MDP being prepared by a consultant for the two landowner
groups. Approval of the Master Drainage Plan by the Municipality and CLOCA will be
required prior to the approval of the first development application in either Secondary
Plan.
3.12 Staff recommend that the Secondary Plans be implemented in a manner consistent with
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, and the Master Drainage Plan.
4. Public and Agency Submissions and Summaries
4.1 Comments on the draft Secondary Plan were received through oral and written
correspondence from agencies, landowners, and members of the public. This section
summarizes the comments provided since the release of the draft OPA, draft Secondary
Plan, and draft UDSG at Statutory Public Meeting in May 2025. Section 6 outlines how
these comments have been addressed.
4.2 All the comments on the draft Secondary Plan, along with staff responses, are
documented in the Public and Agency Comment Summary Tables, included as
Attachments 5 and 6 to this report.
General Public Comments
4.3 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the Municipality received one comment through
Clarington Connected raising concerns related to impacts development would have on
traffic along Liberty Street North.
Landowner Group Comments
4.4 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the Soper Springs Landowners Group has
provided site-specific and plan-wide comments addressing a range of topics, including
land use, environmental policy, urban design, transportation, servicing and
implementation matters. Staff have worked closely with the Landowners Group
throughout the Secondary Plan process and have incorporated revisions where
appropriate.
4.5 The Landowners Group also provided comments on the Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines to increase flexibility related to built-form controls, height and
massing transition, parking and garage design, and retail streetscape.
4.6 A complete breakdown of landowner comments and staff responses is provided in
Attachment 5.
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-026-26
Agency Comments
4.7 Region of Durham staff are generally supportive of the Secondary Plan and have
acknowledged that servicing the Secondary Plan area is feasible, however, provided
detailed comments regarding water and sanitary servicing, including the potential need
for additional utility crossings of the Natural Heritage System . The Region of Durham
staff also provided transportation related comments, including matters related to the
proposed road network and the need for an updated transportation asse ssment.
4.8 CLOCA is generally supportive of the Secondary plan however has expressed concerns
related to the potential developability of the lands designated ‘Land Use to be
Determined’ on Schedule A. CLOCA has also provided comments related to stormwater
management and has requested specific policies be included to address watercourse
crossings.
4.9 Both the Region of Durham and CLOCA staff will continue to be engaged as the
Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report and Transportation Assessment Report are
finalized.
4.10 The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and Peterborough Victoria
Northumberland Clarington Catholic School Board have been involved throughout the
secondary plan process and have confirmed that no schools are required in this
Secondary Plan area.
Indigenous Consultation
4.11 The following Indigenous communities were provided Secondary Plan materials
throughout the process and were invited to provide comments or consult directly with
Municipal Staff:
Alderville First Nation
Beausoleil First Nation
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Curve Lake First Nation
Georgina Island First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation
Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation
Métis Nation of Ontario
Chippewas of Rama First Nation
Huron-Wendat First Nation
4.12 Following circulation to the above Indigenous communities, staff received three requests
for funding to engage on the matter. The Municipality of Clarington is currently
collaborating with the other lower-tier municipalities in Durham Region in the creation of
an Indigenous Engagement Guide for Durham Region area municipalities, informed by
Durham Region’s Braiding Pathways framework and upcoming engagement with First
Nations.
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-026-26
5. Key Revisions to the Secondary Plan
5.1 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the draft Secondary Plan was revised to
address feedback from agencies and area landowners. In addition, edits were made to
policies and maps to improve clarity and correct typographical errors. Key revisions are
detailed below.
Land Use Policies
5.2 Several policies related to density, height and permitted uses were revised including:
Increased overall minimum density target to 60 people and jobs per gross hectare to
align with the Durham Region Official Plan;
Reduced minimum density requirements in the medium- and low-density residential
designations to provide greater flexibility in built form while still maintaining overall
density targets established in the Clarington Official Plan;
Increased maximum permitted height to 6 storeys along Liberty Street North in
recognition of its role as an arterial road, supporting compact, transit-supportive built
form; and,
Clarified policies regarding the location of permitted retail, service and office uses.
Urban Design and Public Realm
5.3 Revisions were made to several urban design-related policies including;
Clarified transition requirements for mid-rise buildings to provide design flexibility;
Removed mid-rise step-back policy requirements, building step-backs will be guided
through the UDSG and the implementing zoning by-law; and
Revised policies to clarify that privately owned publicly accessible plazas (POPs) are
encouraged at Prominent Intersections, consistent with the direction of the
Clarington Official Plan.
Natural Heritage Policies
5.4 Revisions were made to natural heritage policies including;
Adjusted policies within Section 6 (Natural Environment) to clarify how the
recommendations of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study are to be implemented
through development applications;
Revised policies to clarify the role of site-specific studies in determining
development limits and the extent of the Natural Heritage System; and
Clarified the studies required to assess development feasibility within the
constrained areas, including lands designated ‘Land Use to be Determined’.
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PDS-026-26
Transportation and Servicing Policies
5.5 Several policies related to transportation and servicing were revised including;
Introduced policies to provide flexibility and clarity regarding transportation and
servicing, including matters related to road alignments and watercourse crossings,
and servicing considerations.
Modifications to Schedule A – Land Use Plan
5.6 Changes made to Schedule A – Land Use Plan are summarized below and detailed in
Figure 2:
Redesignated lands in the northwest portion of the Secondary Plan area from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential to reflect the planned function of
the adjacent collector road in this location;
A parkette located in the eastern portion of the Secondary Plan area was relocated to
a more central location.
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PDS-026-26
Figure 2: Changes to Schedule A – Land Use Plan
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PDS-026-26
Modifications to Schedule B – Environmental Constraints and Transportation
5.7 Changes made to Schedule B – Environmental Constraints and Transportation are
summarized below and detailed in Figure 3:
The Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay was
removed from lands in the southwest portion of the Secondary Plan area as works
associated with the planned roundabout at the corner of Liberty Street North and
Concession Road 3 as well as the installation of new Hydro poles have impacted the
lands immediately adjacent the intersection.
Figure 3: Changes to Schedule B – Environmental Constraints and Transportation
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PDS-026-26
6. Heritage Properties
6.1 As part of the preparation of the Secondary Plan several properties were identified as
Cultural Heritage Resources, including 3347 Liberty Street North and 3136 Mearns
Avenue. The Secondary Plan requires a Heritage Impact Assessment be prepared for
each property as part of a complete development application, as well as a Heritage
Impact Assessment prior to development on or adjacent to properties determined to
have cultural heritage value or interest.
7. Policy Conformity
7.1 The recommended Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning
Statement, 2024, and conforms to the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan and
the Clarington Official Plan, as summarized below.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
7.2 The Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS),
which directs growth to settlement areas and promotes compact urban forms that
efficiently use land and existing infrastructure. The PPS, 2024 supports the planning of
complete communities that provide a range and mix of land uses, housing options
including affordable housing, and transportation options to support accessibility for
people of all ages, abilities, and incomes.
7.3 The PPS, 2024 also encourages the long-term preservation and protection of natural
features. The Secondary Plan establishes Environmental Protection Areas to protect
natural heritage features and includes trails and parkland to support a range of activities
for a diverse population. Soper Springs has been planned to support Clarington’s
housing target, with a variety of housing types and densities that encouraged
walkability, transit use, and access to local amenities.
Durham Region Official Plan
7.4 The Secondary Plan generally conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan (ROP).
Lands in the Secondary Plan area are designated Community Areas and Major Open
Space Areas in the ROP. In addition, portions of the Secondary Plan area are within the
‘Regional Natural Heritage System’.
7.5 The Secondary Plan conforms with Community Areas and Major Open Space policies of
the ROP. Soper Springs introduces a variety of land uses which foster a complete
community including residential, commercial, parks and open space, to serve the needs
of future residents of the community. The Secondary Plan designates the natural
heritage system as Environmental Protection Area as refined through the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study.
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PDS-026-26
7.6 The ROP identifies two Future Type C Arterial roads in the Secondary Plan area,
including a road along the northern boundary and the Mearns Avenue extension. The
draft Transportation Assessment for the Secondary Plan area demonstrates that the
planned transportation network can accommodate projected long-term traffic demands.
without the need for either Type C Arterial Road. The Mearns Avenue extension has
been assessed and is reclassified to a Collector Road based on projected traffic
volumes in Soper Springs. The removal of the northern arterial road is further
supported by an analysis which outlines that the environmental constraints along the
northern boundary limit the feasibility of constructing the arterial road, and that network
connectivity and long-term function are maintained.
7.7 This report recommends approval of ROPA 3 to remove two Future Type C Arterial
roads from the ROP.
Clarington Official Plan
7.8 The Clarington Official Plan directs the development of compact, well-connected
communities that make efficient use of land, support a diversity of built forms and land
uses, encourage active transportation and protect the natural environment. The
Secondary Plan conforms to this direction by planning for a broad range of housing
types and community amenities, supported by a connected street network with
sidewalks and cycling facilities to accommodate multi-modal travel. In addition, the
Secondary Plan prioritizes the preservation and protection of lands designated
Environmental Protection and their ecological function while supporting trail
connections.
7.9 In addition, the Secondary Plan includes a Neighbourhood Park and two parkettes to
meet the recreational needs of residents, supported by a trail network that connects to
the broader trail system. The Community Wide Park is proposed to be removed from
the Secondary Plan, as further review determined that the size, configuration and
topography of the lands would not support a recreational facility or programmed space.
7.10 OPA 149 proposes to add the Soper Springs Secondary Plan to the Clarington Official
Plan.
8. Financial Consideration
8.1 The Clarington Official Plan requires that a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) be undertaken
for Secondary Plans to understand the long-term financial impacts of proposed
development. Accordingly, Hemson Consulting Ltd. (Hemson) have prepared a draft FIA
for the Secondary Plan, which is included as Attachment 7 to this report.
Municipality of Clarington Page 15
Report PDS-026-26
8.2 The draft FIA found that the Secondary Plan would likely have a small net negative
financial impact to the Municipality once fully developed. The analysis estimated that
there would be a deficit of approximately $41 per person annually, or a total of $133,574
annually. Hemson has advised that the draft FIA results should not be viewed as
precise forecasts of what will occur at full build-out, given that there are many
assumptions built into their modelling.
8.3 The fiscal projections of development charge revenue assume the use of the
Municipality’s development charge rates as passed in December 2025 and does not
account for the anticipated passage of new DC by-laws during the build out period. The
draft FIA noted that the total Soper Springs Secondary Plan DC revenue is therefore
likely to exceed their estimates, resulting in a more positive financial impact overall.
8.4 The draft FIA concluded the Soper Springs development will likely be fiscally neutral to
slightly negative overall. Additional revenues such as property taxes and development
charges should generally cover the additional municipal costs generated by the
development.
9. Strategic Plan
9.1 The preparation of the Soper Springs Secondary Plan directly addresses the following
actions in the 2024-2027 Clarington Strategic Plan;
C.1.1.2: Update Secondary Plan policies to include connectivity considerations
and work to address gaps
C.2.2.1 Identify the range of housing needed
G.2.1.3 Update and complete identified Secondary Plans
10. Climate Change
10.1 The Soper Springs Secondary Plan has been planned with sustainability as a key
priority. The Secondary Plan promotes a compact built form that supports transit use
and active transportation, makes efficient use of land, and integrates development with
the surrounding natural environment while protecting the na tural heritage system. The
Secondary Plan also contains policies that encourage energy efficient development, use
of renewable energy and low-impact development.
11. Concurrence
11.1 Not Applicable.
Municipality of Clarington Page 16
Report PDS-026-26
12. Conclusion
12.1 It is respectfully recommended that Clarington Official Plan Amendment 149 and
Durham Region Official Plan Amendment 3 for the Soper Springs Secondary Plan be
approved.
12.2 Implementation of the Secondary Plan and development will be phased to align with the
delivery of required infrastructure and community facilities, including necessary roads
and crossings, sanitary sewers, water services, stormwater management facilities, and
other community facilities.
Staff Contact: Emily Corsi, Principal Planner ecorsi@clarington.net; Keith Marshall, Planner II
kmarshall@clarington.net; Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning
lbackus@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1a – Recommended Clarington Official Plan Amendment 149
Attachment 1b – Soper Springs Secondary Plan
Attachment 1c – Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
Attachment 2 – Recommended Regional Official Plan Amendment 3
Attachment 3 – Sequence of Events
Attachment 4 – Summary of Technical Reports
Attachment 5 – Public Comments Summary Table
Attachment 6 – Agency Comments Summary Table
Attachment 7 – Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Amendment No. 149
to the Clarington Official Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to add the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan to the Clarington Official Plan. This Secondary Plan
creates a planning framework that will guide and facilitate the
development of a complete community in north Bowmanville. The
Secondary Plan includes Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines,
which are not an operative part of the Clarington Official Plan.
Location: This Amendment applies to a 184-hectare area located on the north
side of Bowmanville. The Secondary Plan Area is generally bound by
the Bowmanville urban boundary in the north, Concession Road 3 to
the south, Liberty Street North to the west, and Lambs Road to the
east.
Basis: The Bowmanville North (Soper Springs) Landowners Group Inc.
(Landowners Group) is an incorporated body representing the
majority of the land within the Secondary Plan Area. Weston
Consulting, on behalf of the landowners’ group, requested the
initiation of the Secondary Plan process in early 2018.
Council authorized the commencement of the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan in April 2018.
This Secondary Plan is based on extensive technical study and public
engagement. It incorporates recommendations of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study and has been informed by a Preferred Land Use
Alternative Report, a Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report, a
Transportation Assessment Report, and a Background and Analysis
Summary Report. Public and landowner input was received through
Public Information Centres held in June 2019, December 2021, June
2022, December 2023, at the Public Meeting in May 2025, meetings
with the Bowmanville North Landowners Group, as well as through
Steering Committee Meetings.
Actual
Amendment: Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is
shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a strike-
through.
The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
Attachment 1a to Report PDS-026-26
1. A new Policy is added after Policy 23.3.4 as follows and the
remainder of the policies in subsection 23.3 are renumbered
accordingly:
“23.3.5 Notwithstanding Policy 23.3.4, for the areas subject to the
following secondary plans, where there is a conflict or
inconsistency with the parent Plan, the Secondary Plan shall
prevail, inclusive of density and intensification policies of the
parent Plan:
i) Soper Springs Secondary Plan.”
2. Existing Clarington Official Plan, Map A3 Land Use Bowmanville
Urban Area, is amended as demonstrated on Exhibit A attached
hereto and forming part of this Amendment.
3. Existing Clarington Official Plan, Map C Secondary Plan Areas, is
amended by changing the Soper Springs Secondary Plan to
‘Completed’ as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and forming
part of this Amendment.
4. Existing Clarington Official Plan, Map J1 and J3 Transportation
Network Roads and Transit Clarington, are amended by removing
the Type C Arterial Road between Liberty Street North and Lambs
Road along the north boundary of Soper Springs Secondary Plan,
by changing the road classification of the Mearns Avenue
extension between Concession Road 3 to Liberty Street North
from Type C Arterial Road to Collector Road, and by adding the
northern collector road, as shown on Exhibits C and D attached
hereto and forming part of this Amendment This road network will
be added to all other maps in the Official Plan.
5. Existing Clarington Official Plan, Map K Trails Clarington, is
amended by removing the Community Park symbol in accordance
with the Secondary Plan as shown on Exhibit E attached hereto
and forming part of this Amendment.
6. Existing Part Six, Section 3 “General Policies for Secondary Plans”
is hereby amended as follows:
“3. Secondary Plans have been prepared for the following
areas:
a) Bowmanville East Town Centre;
b) Bowmanville West Town Centre;
c) Courtice Main Street;
d) Newcastle Village Main Central Area;
e) Port Darlington Neighbourhood;
f) Bayview (Southwest);
g) Clarington Energy Business Park;
h) Brookhill Neighbourhood;
i) Clarington Technology Business Park;
j) Foster Northwest;
k) Southeast Courtice;
l) Wilmot Creek Neighbourhood; and
m) Courtice Waterfront; and
n) Soper Springs. ”
7. Existing Part Six, SECONDARY PLANS, is amended by adding
the Soper Springs Secondary Plan shown in Attachment 1.
k
k
! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!! !!! !
!
!! !
!!!!! !
!
! !
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!!!!! !! !! !
!
! !
!
!
!! !!! !
!
!! ! !
!
å
å
å
å
SPECIAL
STUDY
AREA 3
SPECIAL
POLICY
AREA E
TRAN
S
-
N
O
R
T
H
E
R
N
P
I
P
E
L
I
N
E
HYDRO
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
SPECIAL
POLICY
AREA C
BE
N
N
E
T
T
RO
A
D
SPECIAL
POLICY
AREA F
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
LONG
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
NORTHGLEN BOULEVARD
KING STREET
BOULEVARD
CONCESSION ROAD 3
SI
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
BROOK
H
I
L
L
C.N.R.
C.P.R
.
ASPE
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
D
R
I
V
E
CL
A
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
OL
D
S
C
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
³
Lake Ontario
SECONDARY SCHOOL
REGIONAL CORRIDOR
URBAN CENTRE
å
URBAN BOUNDARY
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
SPECIAL POLICY AREA
SPECIAL STUDY AREA
UTILITY
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL AREA
BUSINESS PARK
GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL AREA
PRESTIGE
EMPLOYMENT AREA
GATEWAY COMMERCIAL
AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE
k TOURISM NODE
WATERFRONT PLACE
MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK
WATERFRONT
GREENWAY
COMUNITY PARK!CP
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AREA
GREEN SPACE
TRANSPORTATION HUB
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
GO
BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
LAND USE
MAP A3
GO
MP
CP
CP
MP MP
MP
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
OL
D
S
C
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
SC
U
G
O
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
CONCESSION STREET
ME
A
R
N
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LA
M
B
S
R
O
A
D
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
BASELINE ROAD
BE
N
N
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
HIGHWAY 401
!MP
Exhibit 'A', Amendment No. 149 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map A3.
Remove 'Community Park',
designation change to
'Urban Residential'
Remove 'Arterial Road'
Add 'Collector Roads'
BUTTERY
RO
A
D
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
/
1
1
5
ENERGY DRIVE
CO
U
R
T
I
C
E
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
ROAD
ST
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
ME
A
R
N
S
MA
P
L
E
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
(TAUNTON ROAD)
RO
A
D
CONCESSION
FI
C
E
S
R
O
A
D
TAUNUS CRT
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
1
7
RO
A
D
CRT
ROAD
BET
H
E
S
D
A
OL
D
S
C
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
CONCESSION
LA
M
B
S
CONCESSION
PO
L
L
A
R
D
BE
L
L
W
O
O
D
CRAGO ROAD
TO
O
L
E
Y
HA
N
C
O
C
K
DURHAM
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
(M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
BR
A
G
G
ROAD 4
RI
L
E
Y
GLENELGE ME
A
R
N
S
PR
E
S
T
O
N
V
A
L
E
NASH
RO
A
D
TR
U
L
L
S
ROAD 5
AV
E
N
U
E
ENERGY DRIVE
LO
C
K
H
A
R
T
R
O
A
D
CONCESSION ROAD 3
CONCESSION
RO
A
D
SQ
U
A
I
R
R
O
A
D
ROAD
HIGHWAY 40
1
RO
A
D
CRT
MI
D
D
L
E
GR
E
E
N
CONCESSION
ROAD 4
REGIONAL ROAD 4
RO
A
D
3
4
RO
A
D
GAUD
PEBBLESTONE
SO
L
I
N
A
RO
A
D
BU
C
K
L
E
Y
MI
L
L
STREET
DR
I
V
E
ANDELWOOD
TR
U
L
L
S
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
RO
A
D
GI
B
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
4
2
(TAUNTON ROAD)
RO
A
D
BLEWETT
RO
A
D
CRT
HO
L
T
RI
C
K
A
R
D
RO
A
D
CRT
AV
E
N
U
E
ROAD
LA
M
B
S
GR
O
V
E
RO
A
D
AR
T
H
U
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
MO
F
F
A
T
R
O
A
D
PR
O
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
BROWVIEW
ROAD
CRAIG CRT
RU
N
D
L
E
RO
A
D
OC
H
O
N
S
K
I
R
O
A
D
MARYLEAH
BASELINE
ROAD 4
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
CONCESSION
ROAD
GATE
RO
A
D
ST
R
E
E
T
DURHA
M
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
GA
M
S
B
Y
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
RO
A
D
STEPH
E
N
S
M
I
L
L
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
S
.
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
TO
W
N
L
I
N
E
R
O
A
D
N
O
R
T
H
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
³Lake Ontario
Courtice
Newcastle Village
Bowmanville
NOTE:
ALL EXISTING SECONDARY PLANS NEED
TO BE UPDATED TO CONFORM TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAN EXCEPT FOR COURTICE
MAIN STREET SECONDARY PLAN.
Orono
CLARINGTON URBAN AREAS
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
SECONDARY PLAN AREAS
MAP C
SETTLEMENT AREA BOUNDARY
SECONDARY PLAN BOUNDARIES
NOT COMPLETED
COMPLETED
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
4
1
8
Change to 'Completed'Add 'Collector Roads'
'Arterial Road' Removed
Exhibit 'B', Amendment No.149 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map C.
'Arterial Road' Removed
XY XY XY XY XYXY
XY
XY
XY XY
XY
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
XY
XY
XY XY XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!!!!!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !!!!!! ! !! !!!!! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! !! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !!!!!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!! !!!!! !
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !
!!!!! !
!!!! !
! !
!
! !
XY XY XY XY XYXY
XY
XY
XY XY
XY
XY
XY
XY XY XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
HAYDON
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
1
8
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
REGIONAL ROAD 3
CANA
D
I
A
N
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
4
2
REGIONAL ROAD 20
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
3
4
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
HIGHWAY 407
REGIONAL ROAD 9
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
4
1
8
DURHAM HIGHWAY 2
BROWNSVILLE
HIGHWAY 401
CAN
A
D
I
A
N
P
A
C
I
F
I
C
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
COURTICE
URBAN AREA
(SEE MAP J2)
BLOOR ST
DURH
A
MHIGHWA
Y
2
HIG
H
W
A
Y
3
5
HIGH
W
A
Y
1
1
5
BOWMANVILLE
URBAN AREA
(SEE MAP J3)
ORONO
ENNISKILLEN
HAMPTON
MITCHELL
CORNERS
TYRONE
MAPLE
GROVE
KIRBY
KENDAL
NEWTONVILLE
BURKETON
SOLINA
NEWCASTLE
URBAN AREA
(SEE MAP J4)
REGIONAL ROAD 4
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
/
1
1
5
LESKARD
ENFIELD ³
Lake Ontario
GO
GO
CLARINGTON RURAL AREA
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
ROADS AND TRANSIT
MAP J1
Settlement Area Boundary
Proposed
Grade Separation!(
Existing
Grade Separation!(
Existing Freeway
InterchangeXY
Railway
Collector Road
Type C Arterial Road
Regional Transit Spine
Type B Arterial Road
Type A Arterial Road
Freeway
Rail Transit Line! ! ! ! !
Freeway Bus Rapid Transit Line! ! ! !
Future Freeway
InterchangeXY
Freeway Transit Station!(
Future Partial Freeway
InterchangeXY
GO Transportation Hub
Exhibit 'C', Amendment No.149 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map J1.
Remove section of
'Type C Arterial Road'
Change to 'Collector Road'
Add 'Collector Road'
!! !
!
!!!!! !
!
!
! !
!
XY XY
XY
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
XY
AVENUE
CONCESSION STREET
KING STREET
BASELINE ROAD
C. P
R
.
C. N. R.
HIGHWAY 4
0
1
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
CONCESSION ROAD 3
SC
U
G
O
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
AV
E
N
U
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
PR
O
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
R
O
A
D
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
LONG
W
O
R
T
H
ME
A
R
N
S
LA
M
B
S
R
O
A
D
NORTHGLEN BOULEVARD
NASH ROAD
MA
P
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
RO
A
D
MI
D
D
L
E
R
O
A
D
BE
N
N
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
³
Lake Ontario
GO
BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
ROADS AND TRANSIT
MAP J3
Proposed Grade
Separation!(
Existing Grade
Separation!(
Future Freeway
InterchangeXY
Existing Freeway
InterchangeXYUrban Area
Type C Arterial Road
Type B Arterial Road
Type A Arterial Road
Freeway
Railway
Collector Road
Regional Transit Spine
Rail Transit Line! !
GO Transportation Hub
Exhibit 'D', Amendment No.149 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map J3.
Remove section of
'Type C Arterial Road'
Change to 'Collector Road'
Add 'Collector Road'
BOUNDARY ROAD
EN
A
D D
R A A
H O O Burketon
C R R
OC CONCESSION ROAD 10
D
A
O
D
R 7 A
L 5 O D
O D R A
NE O A O
D
H DT O R
A
T A
C R
O O
O S T
L
D W C SION LONCESRA U R
N A N A Y
O GOI KOONRA S H
R I G P REGIONAL ROAD 20 BOUNDARY ROAD
H G G P R
T ROAD 9 U NUEO U
R C R D L MS 5
O A 3Y N OR A
D REGIONAL ROAD 20ACONCESSION W
OR Enfield ROAD 9 CONCESSION ROAD 10 H 5
A
1
1
GHI Y
E W
N G H
I R I
L D H
D L E
N P H
OA P T
W O O R
O R O
T HS Y N
D DNSEAAL WILCOX O A O ODTRTDRRSGOS A ROAD
D I O E OLMY
N WR T I REIRL
F O DN N
N A EB DOEDOI W
ATL O
A R
R O T
O RO AD 8 CONCESSION RREGIONAL ROAD 3 A E
B R K SKELDING ROAD
³
Haydon D R MA cMILLAN E LHKTAC D ROAR-D N AOO 5O1NT D
R 1En s A ni killen TTG /
R 5
L S N 3 O
C AN I O R
O AMBRI D Y L T YPOATRSAS D
O E DHR OAD R A O W A
C R D BE A THERTELL ROAD
M H O
S B OREIDG R
L I RELA L R D D HDDDDENO N L D D A AAAD SAKATRO E
A O OOAOEI I D
O O
Tyrone
O M R N S R DR D D D
R B R L R R R A
Primary Trails
ICONCESS ION ROAD 7 L W R A A E
A
CONCESSION ROAD 7 L A A O H
O O T O D
CONCESS ION ROAD 8 A D H R R R R
A
O
S R
B L P
A BI O M
NI G Leskard O A
)L D
C
D A
O I 5 C
A A M 7 H
S
S WILL D S O G
Urban Trails
O RTAD D
R KL A NDMILL ROAD DOADD ADD N I
O AAROHA O R
RL O EDHAO D
R P
O D TL O RAERERODA F S
I R A Soli na G A K R A D O F
N N
O F O R DONNR D
O SNN O ATDIRRLRAR
Y T L
S R G O AI N S WN C S
D AK S E EE S
E P EEO P D O
Waterfront Trail
(Y U G E D A N T C G AS C
N W N
R C RE M H A R Y R I M
R
A D T O O O H NNRB O
S R A E E
R O AAO A OEET A
A R
E D L M C WL L
O B R H
W E C C MVT
R C CONCESSION ROAD 6 CO NCESSION ROAD 7 Kirby Y D RE GIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD)
D R ALDEO Kendal Oak Ridges Moraine Trail
O AE 5 W RKO11
R R /O
A 5 L
4 D N R
3L3A E
T OC Y PDDOE-XARN O
A E I A
N W S
O R OO
Po tent i al Regional Trail Connections
N D HRDTTROASGGADLTOI
I NO HAGRAESIDRL S
N NM LI E E R N
G H D Hampton ROTRL A O W
I L A DGSOT E
NN O C D K T D N
S D R D
U C A DASAR E DAEAHEAA A
R W R EL O D L REGIONAL ROAD 4 O O ALBORNOL O
M R O R REGIONAL ROAD 4 R A R IH R CONCESSION ROAD 6 (TAUNTON ROAD)
D D (TAUNTON ROAD)
A A L
O O E
R D 7
7 WRA1)
4 5S Y T
3 D JEOEDTEDACDRAR D E
8
I A OAE
1
F Mitchell G O R e s O S O T ACorn r Remove ' CO
IRomRi B E
R G LUA mun ty LPark P HE RNOS T D L S DRA N A ANEM
C 'I L
N R L O O I O OKUASR
S OroN A oA D nI DDOA A RSOIDNDI M OS N (O R LDDAGGER E EOE R D AALOV T
Pro incial H gh y
S A N
v i wa
E EOOHARY
T HRRO
R T HE B C B R O NAIIOSEPRYOGDLRCONCESSI ON ROAD 4 CONCESSION ROAD 4 LMKE A N
H PEBBLESTONE ROAD NCA R
IH
I OE WSGVRTHO
R
L CONCESSION ROAD 5 T
O S
A C N O 5NND O CESSION R AD Roads
S N R A TDLOIAOSALRGEAUOREMER2TR4D E D
ANI A
O
L O
R R DND
Streams
YW L L AAEB EWETT OOAOL5 DRTONR1
E A Y
O OI R 1 ROAD E OL/E
T D C RDD5 L
D G IA L
A 3 N
#
A A D
EDEUYHA
O E A
O O IM Y RRQESDV N A O CO CESS ION ROAD 3 R R A D ONASH ROAD
#
R R L R S LW D W NKA R AOEDA MHCAAWL R V A D O L
Urban and Village Centres
CP G U O R I
I O O E GBRECONCESSION ROAD 4 RH C C CONCESSION ROAD 4
H S C Courtice T B N
D R M E
D
H G A O AI H I W O N LAYMa le V
#
R p E O 2 V 7
Conservati n ands
5 R
o L
Grove O P
T D
R D D I DEAA E
G D D
E A DOOADOA COWANVILLE R
A
D D R EDN R O AU O O
A AA E R T R
L S N R OO R R
O D E T ROAD O A D R R R A ER N R S T
R N V RO T D
R
O G NAA A
O A A M A
D D R I S H ALF O E
AAK
G W
D
A
Oak Ridges Moraine
O O ERRR BowmaYT
nv ille CP BI L F D GD R
C H R
A
G O O EARAPOT O D
M A O
O OLRO S R M A
CONCESSION STREET R R MG L O CONCESSION ROAD 3 I
G
R
RE S
E
L B N CP P I R
L CONCESSION ROAD 3
A A D
DE G DE
CP
K T M A T EOGO AL M E E S
Community Parks
S C C A O N
V I OEIERER D
L O A OT RL W I L
L L RHRU A
C N RRB L
A LUID T T EUNLLDOA O
V N S C LR R
N ETOAOU. M C L T
S O B R
H A ICSRTU T HINVTO OS F L G
D N I S H L L E U
I A O LTET
Y S O W L E O L O
R TRT E
L BR H LI A G L
P WMEG
A H A ewca tl R L W Y N s e IV
PA B S U D E
B 2 OW N
I L R VIEW T IBASNE I ROA D L cC
L NE ER OAD Vill age W SD R Newtonville M
O A
R O HIBRGH CP D HIGHWAY 2 WAY
R D 2
A A H K S IG H WA O PY O T 4 01 C RENERGY DRIVE IR CP Brownsville R K O CP D S U
A S D C
N
O A
E
O CP RHIGHWAY 401 V R
O
DD
D S RAAMDO D D
DO AAF A
O A ARRF ODOI O
OAR G R
R CONCESSION ROAD 1 R MAP K
T D
L E A
LI E N O E
M R O R D NI DTSS L
Y A DSN AN N
E OA A
L R OEDO W
TRAILS
I G RH R Y RRA O
P T
E O M O
T A R
M CLARINGTON Lake Ontario S L
L
LAK E SSHORE E E
B
N
J
A
ROAD T S T
T L S
O OI A
E R L H E
L E
LL C
OFFICIAL PLAN
I T EVS N I
N A
O C
T N
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
A WE L
N MAY, 2025
Exhibit 'E', Amendment No. 149 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map K.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
Municipality of Clarington Official Plan
April 2026
Attachment 1b to Report PDS-026-26
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
2 Vision And Principles ............................................................................................ 2
2.1 Vision .................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Principles for the Soper Springs Secondary Plan ................................................. 2
3 Community Structure ............................................................................................ 3
3.1 Local Corridor ....................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Prominent Intersection .......................................................................................... 3
3.3 Urban Residential ................................................................................................. 3
3.4 Parks and Open Space System ............................................................................ 3
3.5 Environmental Protection Areas and Associated Areas ....................................... 4
3.6 Parks .................................................................................................................... 4
3.7 Stormwater Management Ponds .......................................................................... 4
4 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 6
4.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 6
4.2 General Policies ................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Medium Density Local Corridor ............................................................................ 7
Permitted Uses ..................................................................................................... 7
Height and Density ............................................................................................... 7
4.4 Medium Density Residential ................................................................................. 8
Permitted Uses ..................................................................................................... 8
Height and Density ............................................................................................... 9
4.5 Low Density Residential ....................................................................................... 9
Permitted Uses ..................................................................................................... 9
Height and Density ............................................................................................. 10
4.6 Utility ................................................................................................................... 10
Permitted Uses ................................................................................................... 10
5 Urban Design ........................................................................................................ 11
5.1 General Policies ................................................................................................. 11
5.2 Placemaking ....................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Prominent Intersections ...................................................................................... 12
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
ii
5.4 Building Siting and Design .................................................................................. 13
5.5 Mixed Use Buildings ........................................................................................... 13
5.6 Parking, Servicing and Loading .......................................................................... 14
6 Natural Environment ............................................................................................ 16
6.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 16
6.2 General Policies ................................................................................................. 16
6.3 Environmental Protection Area ........................................................................... 17
6.4 Land Use to be Determined ................................................................................ 19
6.5 Environmental Constraints Overlays .................................................................. 20
7 Parks ..................................................................................................................... 22
7.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 22
7.2 Parks .................................................................................................................. 22
8 Community Culture and Heritage ....................................................................... 24
9 Transportation ...................................................................................................... 25
9.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 25
9.2 Transportation Network ...................................................................................... 25
9.3 Road Network ..................................................................................................... 26
9.4 Public Transit ...................................................................................................... 26
9.5 Active Transportation .......................................................................................... 27
10 Housing ................................................................................................................. 28
10.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 28
10.2 General Policies ................................................................................................. 28
11 Infrastructure, Stormwater Management And Environmental Performance ... 30
11.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................... 30
11.2 Infrastructure and Utilities ................................................................................... 30
11.3 Stormwater Management and Low Impact Development ................................... 30
11.4 Urban Forest and Native Plantings ..................................................................... 32
11.5 Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 33
12 Implementation and Interpretation ..................................................................... 33
12.1 Implementation ................................................................................................... 34
12.2 Interpretation ...................................................................................................... 36
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
iii
SCHEDULES AND APPENDICES
Schedule A – Land Use
Schedule B – Environmental Constraint and Transportation
Appendix A – Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines (not included in this draft)
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
1
1 Introduction
The Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area (“the Secondary Plan Area”) is
approximately 184 hectares in size and is located on the north side of
Bowmanville. The Secondary Plan Area is generally bound by Liberty Street
North to the west, Concession Road 3 to the south, and Lambs Road to the east.
The Secondary Plan Area’s northern boundary runs aligning with the
Bowmanville urban boundary.
Prominent features within and around the Secondary Plan Area include Soper
Creek, low density residential neighbourhoods to the south, estate residential lots
to the west and agricultural fields and natural areas to the north and east which
are located, in part, within the Greenbelt Plan Area. Two potential cultural
heritage resources are located within the Secondary Plan Area.
The area’s topography is varied, with the highest elevation at the northwest
corner and the lowest elevation towards the southeast. The main branch of the
Soper Creek flows through the eastern half of the community with several
tributaries throughout the study area flowing easterly towards the main branch,
all within the natural heritage area or system. The area contains several high
points and several ridges and valleys, contributing to a rolling landscape.
The Secondary Plan Area is anticipated to undergo significant growth and
development with an estimated population of 3,250 residents and 1,280 units.
The purpose of the Secondary Plan is to establish objectives and policies to
guide development within Secondary Plan Area, including through subdivision,
zoning and site plan control.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
2
2 Vision and Principles
2.1 Vision
The Soper Springs Secondary Plan will reflect and enrich the history and
character of both the Municipality of Clarington and the Secondary Plan Area
creating a sense of place for residents and visitors and leading to a sustainable
built form that protects the significant scale of the natural environment, promotes
alternative modes of transportation, and supports a healthy lifestyle for current
and future generations.
2.2 Principles for the Soper Springs Secondary Plan
The following principles have been developed to achieve the vision of the
secondary plan:
2.2.1 Provide for the efficient use of land with the creation of a compact, complete,
connected, age-friendly and walkable community.
2.2.2 Reduce dependence on personal vehicles and prioritize active transportation
modes of travel by creating an active transportation network that encourages
walking and cycling and improve overall health for the residents and community.
2.2.3 Protect and, where possible, enhance significant natural features within
Environmental Protection Areas (EPA) based on the recommendations from the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
2.2.4 Design open spaces and parks that are highly visible, accessible and usable
including connection to the Environmental Protection Area where possible.
2.2.5 Respect cultural heritage through conservation and appropriate incorporation into
the community.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
3 Community Structure
The Community Structure for the Soper Springs Secondary Plan establishes a
distribution of uses and intensities of development to achieve the principles
identified in Section 2 of this Secondary Plan. The components of the Soper
Springs Secondary Plan that define its Community Structure are identified below.
3.1 Local Corridor
3.1.1 Lands along Concession Road 3 are identified as a Local Corridor on Map B of
the Clarington Official Plan (the “Official Plan”). Local Corridors allow for
intensification, mixed use development and pedestrian and transit-supportive
development as set out in Section 10.6 of the Official Plan except where greater
detail is provided in this Secondary Plan.
3.1.2 Local Corridors align with the Medium Density Local Corridor designation shown
on Schedule A.
3.2 Prominent Intersection
3.2.1 A Prominent Intersection is located at Liberty Street North and Concession Road
3 and at the intersection of the Mearns Avenue extension and a second collector
road internal to the Secondary Plan Area, as shown on Schedule A.
3.2.2 Prominent Intersections serve as community focal points, both visually in terms of
building height; massing and orientation; architectural treatment and materials;
and landscaping; and functionally in terms of destination uses and public spaces
and amenities. These amenities can include street furniture, public art or similar
features in accordance with the Official Plan.
3.3 Urban Residential
3.3.1 Urban Residential areas are the residential areas outside of the Local Corridors,
which will feature a built form of lower density and height in ground-related units.
Urban Residential areas correspond with the Low Density Residential and
Medium Density Residential designation shown on Schedule A.
3.3.2 Urban Residential areas shall combine with other elements of the Community
Structure to create neighbourhoods at a walkable scale which contain a mix of
land uses and housing types, provide access to local retail uses and service
uses, and are within a short walking distance to a Neighbourhood Park and/or a
Parkette.
3.4 Parks and Open Space System
3.4.1 The parks and open space system is comprised of: Environmental Protection
Areas, parks, and stormwater management ponds. Together, they provide
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
4
spaces that support the ecological and hydrological functions of the area, serve
as venues for outdoor community and recreational life, and through trails,
contribute to pedestrian and cycling networks.
3.5 Environmental Protection Areas and Associated Areas
3.5.1 Environmental Protection Areas are the primary component of the parks and
open space system. The conservation and enhancement of Environmental
Protection Areas will bring the imprint of the area’s natural features and original
geography into the development of the Secondary Plan Area in a way that
defines Community Structure and identity.
3.5.2 The features of the Soper Creek systems contribute strongly to Community
Structure and connect to a broader natural heritage system beyond the
Secondary Plan Area boundaries.
3.5.3 Access to Environmental Protection Areas and associated areas through the
development of public trails will be undertaken in a manner which conserves their
ecological integrity.
3.6 Parks
3.6.1 Parks are vital public spaces connecting to a broader public realm network. A
quantity and quality of park space shall be provided that meets the needs of
residents and enables a variety of opportunities for passive and active recreation
to the satisfaction of the Municipality.
3.6.2 Parks shall be located to achieve a number of objectives:
a) create larger open spaces and realize co-benefits in terms of amenities by
locating adjacent to other outdoor civic uses like stormwater management
ponds where possible provided they are central to the neighbourhoods being
served by the park;
b) ensure that the entire community has good access to parks within a short
walking distance of their homes; and
c) ensure good visibility from public streets
3.7 Stormwater Management Ponds
3.7.1 Where appropriate, stormwater management ponds will be treated as public
assets and part of the parks and open space system. Their amenity and
ecological value will be realized as:
a) areas of passive recreation through the inclusion of paths and trails where
appropriate;
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
b) areas of ecological value as enhanced wildlife habitat through appropriate
planting; and
c) visual extensions of other components of the open space and parks system.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
6
4 Land Use
4.1 Objectives
4.1.1 Realize efficient and transit-supportive urban densities by achieving a minimum
density target of 60 people and jobs per gross hectare.
4.1.2 Allow for a mix of uses and a variety of locations that enable residents to meet
many of their needs within walking distance.
4.1.3 Locate the highest intensity of development and greatest potential mix of uses
along Concession Road 3 and Liberty Street North to foster access to transit.
4.2 General Policies
4.2.1 The following land use designations apply within the Secondary Plan Area as
shown on Schedule A:
a) Medium Density Local Corridor;
b) Medium Density Residential;
c) Low Density Residential;
d) Utility;
e) Environmental Protection Areas (See Section 6);
f) Land Use to be Determined (See Section 6); and
g) Parks (see Section 7).
4.2.2 Schedule B identifies four overlays that establish areas where further study is
required before development, as per the underlying designation, may be
permitted:
a) Environmental Constraint: Moderate Constraint Area Overlay;
b) Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay;
c) Environmental Constraint: Vegetation Protection Zone Overlay; and
d) Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
4.2.3 New development shall provide a range of residential unit sizes, in terms of
number of bedrooms, within multiple-unit buildings.
4.2.4 Drive-through facilities are not a permitted use in any land use designation.
4.2.5 Service stations are not a permitted use in any land use designation.
4.3 Medium Density Local Corridor
4.3.1 Lands designated as Medium Density Local Corridor are located along
Concession Road 3.
Permitted Uses
4.3.2 The predominant use of lands within the Medium Density Local Corridor
designation is residential in a mix of housing types and tenures in mid-rise
housing forms.
4.3.3 Retail uses and service uses may be provided at the intersections of collector
and arterial roads to provide access to local amenities within walking distance for
residents of the surrounding areas.
4.3.4 Permitted built forms shall include:
a) Apartment buildings;
b) All forms of townhouses;
c) Mixed use building;
d) Other built forms that provide housing at the same or higher densities as
those above.
4.3.5 Within mixed use buildings, only retail uses, service uses and office uses, as well
as residential lobbies and building services shall be permitted on the ground floor
of a mixed use building.
4.3.6 Within apartment buildings, only residential uses, as well as residential lobbies
and building services shall be permitted on the ground floor of an apartment
building.
4.3.7 The implementing Zoning By-law shall identify lands where ground floor retail
uses, service uses and office uses are permitted.
Height and Density
4.3.8 Building heights shall be a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys.
4.3.9 Notwithstanding Policy 4.3.8, an additional two storeys are permitted if affordable
housing units are provided.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
8
4.3.10 Development within the Medium Density Local Corridor designation shall have a
minimum site density of 100 units per net hectare.
4.3.11 The tallest buildings and highest densities shall be located near the Prominent
Intersection at Liberty Street North and Concession Road 3 to provide built form
and housing type variety along the Local Corridor. This area is also encouraged
to have the greatest concentration of non-residential uses.
4.3.12 Notwithstanding Policy 4.3.8, the built form fronting Concession Road 3 shall be
at least 5 storeys where feasible.
4.4 Medium Density Residential
4.4.1 Lands designated as Medium Density are generally located along Liberty Street
North and the Mearns Avenue Extension.
Permitted Uses
4.4.2 The predominant use of lands within the Medium Density designation is
residential in a mix of housing types and tenures.
4.4.3 Retail uses, service uses and office uses shall also be permitted at the
intersection of Liberty Street North and the Mearns Avenue extension and the
intersection of Mearns Avenue extension and the northern collector road in
accordance with the policies of this Section.
4.4.4 Permitted built forms shall include:
a) All forms of townhouses;
b) Apartment buildings;
c) Commercial and mixed use buildings in accordance with Policy 4.4.3; and
d) Other built forms that provide housing at the same or higher densities as
those above.
4.4.5 Where retail uses, service uses and office uses are developed in accordance
with Policy 4.4.3, such uses shall be developed in a pedestrian-oriented main
street format with active frontages along Liberty Street North and / or the Mearns
Avenue extension.
4.4.6 On-street parking on collector or local roads adjacent to the retail uses, service
uses and office uses shall be encouraged. On-street parking is not permitted
along Liberty Street North.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
4.4.7 Permitted retail uses and service uses may be developed as stand-alone
commercial development or in a mixed use format with residential uses above
the ground floor commercial uses.
Height and Density
4.4.8 Buildings within the Medium Density Residential designation shall not exceed 4
storeys in height with buildings fronting Liberty Street not to exceed 6 storeys in
height.
4.4.9 Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.8, an additional two storeys are permitted if affordable
housing units are provided.
4.4.10 Development within the Medium Density Residential designation shall have a
minimum site density of 45 units per net hectare.
4.4.11 Development shall provide a transition, locating less dense and lower scale
buildings in locations adjacent to the Low Density Residential designation.
4.5 Low Density Residential
Permitted Uses
4.5.1 The predominant use of lands within the Low Density Residential designation is
residential within a mix of housing types and tenures in low-rise building forms.
4.5.2 The following residential built form are permitted:
a) Detached dwellings;
b) Semi-detached dwellings;
c) All forms of townhouses; and
d) Low rise apartment buildings.
4.5.3 Detached and semi-detached dwelling units shall account for a minimum of 80
percent of the total number of units in the Low Density Residential designation,
with various forms of townhouses and low rise apartments accounting for the
remainder. The calculation of the minimum percentage will generally be
measured on a draft plan of subdivision basis.
4.5.4 Permitted townhouses and low rise apartments shall generally be clustered
adjacent to collector roads, and neighbourhood parks.
4.5.5 Other uses, including small scale service uses, and neighbourhood retail uses
and community amenities, which are supportive of and compatible with
residential uses, are also permitted in accordance with Sections 9 and 18 of the
Official Plan.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
10
Height and Density
4.5.6 Buildings within the Low Density Residential designation shall not exceed 3
storeys in height.
4.5.7 Development on lands designated Low Density Residential shall have a minimum
density of 13 units per net hectare.
4.6 Utility
4.6.1 Lands designated Utility shall be subject to the policies of Section 21 of the
Official Plan and the following additional policy.
Permitted Uses
4.6.2 The predominant use of lands within the Utility designation is infrastructure and
utilities including a water reservoir, pumping station and other infrastructure and
utility uses.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
5 Urban Design
5.1 General Policies
5.1.1 The Soper Springs community shall be developed in accordance with the urban
design policies of Section 5 of the Official Plan additional policies of this section,
and the Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines. The Soper
Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines provide guidance on the
implementation of the Secondary Plan but should not be construed as policies.
5.1.2 The Secondary Plan Area shall be developed based on a modified grid pattern of
streets, complemented by multi-use paths and trails, to establish a well-
connected pedestrian network throughout all parts of the Secondary Plan Area
and, where appropriate, to surrounding areas.
5.1.3 The network of streets should be supplemented by mid-block pedestrian
connections to break up long blocks (generally blocks longer than 250 metres)
and to further enhance the pedestrian permeability of the area and provide
access to transit.
5.1.4 Views to key landmarks such as parks, schools, Prominent Intersections, and
natural heritage features shall be maintained through open space and the layout
of the street network wherever feasible.
5.1.5 Development shall have appropriate regard for the Municipality’s General
Architectural Design Guidelines, where applicable.
5.1.6 The Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines, appended to this
Secondary Plan, as Appendix A, provide specific guidelines for the public and
private realms. These Guidelines clarify the Municipality’s expectations with
respect to the form, character and qualities of development in the Secondary
Plan Area. If there is conflict between a Secondary Plan policy and the Urban
Design and Sustainability Guidelines, the Secondary Plan policy prevails.
5.1.7 The Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines contain a
Demonstration Plan, which illustrates the planning principles that are inherent to
the Secondary Plan. This Demonstration Plan is one example of how the
Secondary Plan might be implemented within the Secondary Plan Area and does
not preclude other plans demonstrating how the secondary plan may be
implemented.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
12
5.2 Placemaking
5.2.1 Public art is encouraged to be incorporated into the public realm, especially at
Prominent intersections, to contribute to the neighbourhood’s sense of identity.
5.2.2 Tree canopy coverage in the road allowance should be extensive enough to
create comfortable walking environments for pedestrians and to enhance the
pedestrian experience of the community.
5.2.3 Streets and the adjacent built form should be designed to animate the street
through retail uses being located close to the front lot line and with transparent
ground floor glazing, where retail uses are proposed, and through outdoor
amenity areas and street furniture within the public right of way.
5.2.4 Buildings should animate the frontage and flankage of streets through the
location of building entrances, outdoor amenity areas and street facing windows.
5.2.5 In order to maximize the amount of tree planting and to minimize the removal of
in-situ trees, the co-location of utilities is encouraged.
5.3 Prominent Intersections
5.3.1 For Prominent Intersections, buildings should respond to their prominent location,
framing and orienting views towards adjacent streets to signify points of entry and
exit. Streetscape design elements within the public right-of-way should be
coordinated with and enhance private development sites adjacent to the
Prominent Intersections, to create a distinctive identity.
5.3.2 Built form policies in Section 5.4 of the Official Plan that address transparent
glass and location of public entrances shall apply where commercial or mixed
use buildings are proposed adjacent to the Prominent intersection.
5.3.3 Privately owned publicly accessible open spaces may be located at Prominent
Intersections to contribute to their visual prominence, reinforce their role as
community focal points, improve the relationship of built form to the public right-
of- way, and contribute to the area’s identity. Alternative locations that provide a
similar level of amenity may be considered to satisfy this requirement.
5.3.4 Land conveyances will not be required to achieve the Prominent Intersection
policies although urban squares or privately owned public accessible open
spaces are encouraged at Prominent Intersections.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
5.4 Building Siting and Design
5.4.1 Built form shall be massed and sited to frame streets and public spaces in a
consistent manner.
5.4.2 The Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines and the
implementing zoning by-law shall provide direction on building stepbacks for
buildings greater than 6 storeys.
5.4.3 Development shall provide a transition between areas of different heights and
density within the Secondary Plan Area through separation, step-backs,
intervening land uses, intervening local roads or other similar means.
5.4.4 Site buildings to avoid front-to-back and/or overlook conditions. Where this
cannot be achieved, impacts should be minimized with appropriate screening
through architectural or landscape treatment.
5.4.5 Reverse frontage development generally shall not be permitted within the
Secondary Plan Area.
5.4.6 Street townhouses shall generally not comprise more than 6 attached units.
5.4.7 Corner lots should have a high level of design with equal and prominent design
for both building elevations which face the street.
5.4.8 Porches are encouraged for all ground oriented dwellings.
5.4.9 Air conditioning units, utility metres and similar features should not be visible from
the public realm (street/sidewalk) and should be well integrated into a building
massing, recessed or screened.
5.4.10 Rooftop mechanical structures and fixtures shall be screened including, without
limitation satellite dishes and communications antenna, and where feasible
integrate within the design of the building. Parapets may be utilized to
accommodate such screening.
5.5 Mixed Use Buildings
5.5.1 Development will have a consistent street wall and active street frontages.
5.5.2 The public realm adjacent to mixed use buildings will support a high level of
pedestrian activity and may include wider sidewalks and street furniture.
5.5.3 The Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines and the
implementing zoning by-law shall provide direction on minimum ground floor
height for non-residential uses in support of larger display windows and signage
area as well as direction on awnings, lighting, and other facade enhancements.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
14
5.5.4 Direct access from at-grade retail uses and service uses to the sidewalk shall be
provided.
5.6 Parking, Servicing and Loading
5.6.1 Outdoor parking and loading facilities should be located at the side or rear of
commercial, mixed use and apartment buildings to promote an attractive public
realm and encourage pedestrian activity.
5.6.2 On-street parking should be provided along collector roads.
5.6.3 The visual impact of garages in Low Density Residential areas should be
reduced by:
a) Encouraging parking via laneways;
b) Recessing garages located at the front of the building facing a street;
c) Limiting driveway widths so that they generally do not exceed the width of the
garage;
d) Minimizing the garages’ appearance and area on a building façade so that
windows, doors, and active elements of a residential building’s façade take
visual primacy; and
e) Other similar means to reduce the visual impact of garages to the satisfaction
of the municipality.
5.6.4 The visual impact of off-street parking areas shall be reduced by:
a) Screening parking lots from view of the public realm where possible;
b) Encouraging joint access to parking lots on adjoining properties;
c) Using hard and soft landscaping within the parking area; and
d) Where appropriate, providing a visual buffer between parking areas and
adjacent residential properties.
5.6.5 Loading, servicing and other functional elements are encouraged to be integrated
within the building envelope. Where this is not possible, these elements shall not
be located adjacent to public spaces and shall be screened from view to avoid
visual impact to the public realm or surrounding residential areas.
5.6.6 Garbage and recycling facilities shall be integrated within the building envelope
where possible.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
5.6.7 The visual impact of garage doors that lead to below-grade structured parking
should be minimized by such design actions as locating them discreetly away
from main pedestrian entrances and primary frontages, where feasible, accessed
from a lane, and / or screening from view.
5.6.8 Above-grade structured parking adjacent to a public street(s) shall be lined with
residential and/ or non-residential uses.
5.6.9 The Municipality may consider in the Zoning By-law reduced parking standards
where the land use density and built form supports active transportation and
public transit.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
16
6 Natural Environment
6.1 Objectives
6.1.1 Protect, maintain and enhance the natural heritage system, including its
ecological integrity and function.
6.1.2 Protect natural heritage features and functions from incompatible development.
6.1.3 Incorporate the natural heritage system into the parks and open space system.
6.1.4 Use the landscape to contribute to a sense of place and integrate the natural
heritage system in a manner which defines community identity.
6.1.5 Where appropriate, provide access to the natural heritage system through low-
intensity recreation and pedestrian permeability through trails and linkages.
6.1.6 Maintain ecological functions while integrating the natural heritage system with
the stormwater management system.
6.1.7 Protect public health and safety and property from natural hazards.
6.2 General Policies
6.2.1 All development within and adjacent to the Environmental Protection Area shall
adhere to the policies of the Clarington Official Plan, as it pertains to the policy
areas of the Natural Heritage System in Section 3.4, the Watershed and
Subwatershed Plans policies in Section 3.5, the Hazards policies in Section 3.7
and the Environmental Protection Areas policies in Section 14.4 and the policies
of this Section and shall have appropriate regard for the recommendations of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. A more detailed study shall prevail over the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study provided the more detailed study is to the
satisfaction of the Municipality in consultation with the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (“CLOCA”).
6.2.2 In addition to these policies, the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study shall form the
basis for any study undertaken with respect to the natural heritage system and
natural hazards. Site-specific studies may refine and/or confirm development
limits and the presence and boundaries of natural heritage features, provided that
the general direction and recommendations of the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study are maintained, except for recommendations in the Subwatershed Study
related to natural feature boundaries.
6.2.3 For those properties not assessed for Headwater Drainage Features in the
Subwatershed Study or where agricultural fields have gone fallow, Headwater
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
Drainage Feature Assessments may be required prior to any development in
order to accurately assess hydrological functions of these features.
6.2.4 Revegetation of riparian corridors that are less than 30 metres wide is
encouraged using native plantings.
6.3 Environmental Protection Area
6.3.1 Lands designated Environmental Protection Area are shown on Schedule A.
6.3.2 Environmental Protection Areas include natural heritage features, significant
groundwater discharge areas in the form of baseflow springs and seeps,
hydrologically sensitive features, lands within the regulatory flood plain of a
watercourse, headwater drainage features with a “Protection” classification and
hazard lands associated with valley systems, including slope and erosion
hazards. Areas associated with Environmental Protection Areas support their
ecological integrity and include Vegetation Protection Zones and other natural
heritage areas.
6.3.3 The Vegetation Protection Zone is currently not designated as part of the
Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A. However, once the Vegetation
Protection Zone is determined through site specific study, it will be considered
part of the Environmental Protection Area and zoned accordingly.
6.3.4 Stormwater management ponds, except for the outfall, shall not be permitted to
be developed in lands designated Environmental Protection Area or within the
Vegetation Protection Zones to an Environmental Protection Area.
6.3.5 Low Impact Development features may be permitted in the outer 5 metres of the
Vegetation Protection Zone provided:
a) The Vegetation Protection Zone has not been reduced below that required in
Table 3-1 of the Official Plan;
b) Filling and/or grading to facilitate construction of the Low Impact
Development feature does not extend more than 5 metres into the Vegetation
Protection Zone; and
c) It is supported by the findings of the appropriate studies.
6.3.6 The boundary of lands designated as Environmental Protection Area on
Schedule A are approximate and shall be refined through site specific studies
prepared as part of the review of development applications in accordance with
the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan without
amendment to this Secondary Plan.
6.3.7 The Municipality may require Environmental Protection Areas to be conveyed to
a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the development approval
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
18
process at minimal or no cost to the receiving public authority. Conveyance of
lands designated Environmental Protection Area and associated Vegetation
Protection Zones shall not be considered as contributions towards the parkland
dedication requirements under the Planning Act. Conveyance may not be
appropriate in all circumstances.
6.3.8 Access to Environmental Protection Areas through the development of public
trails will be undertaken in a manner which conserves their ecological integrity as
determined through an Environmental Impact Study.
6.3.9 The Soper Creek Subwatershed Study identified and assessed a number of
Headwater Drainage Features. Those identified in the Subwatershed Study as
“Protection” are included in the Environmental Protection Area designation and
are to be protected in situ unless demonstrated otherwise by further site-specific
environmental studies.
6.3.10 For those Headwater Drainage Features identified in the Subwatershed Study as
“Conservation” and located outside of an Environmental Protection Area
designation, applications for development shall:
a) Maintain and enhance or relocate and enhance drainage features and its
riparian corridor;
b) If catchment drainage has been previously removed or will be removed due
to diversion of stormwater flows, restore lost functions through enhanced lot
level controls (i.e., restore original catchment using clean roof drainage), as
feasible;
c) Maintain or replace on‐site flows using mitigation measures and/or wetland
creation, if necessary;
d) Maintain or replace external flows;
e) Use natural channel design techniques to maintain or enhance the overall
productivity of the reach;
f) Ensure that the drainage feature is connected to downstream; and
g) Apply an appropriate vegetation protection zone to either side of the drainage
feature.
6.3.11 Headwater Drainage Features that have been relocated and the associated
riparian corridors established by permissions in Policy 6.3.10 shall be designated
Environmental Protection Area and shall be zoned appropriately to prohibit
development.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
6.3.12 Watercourse crossings shall maintain natural channel form, fish and wildlife
passage, hydrologic function, and ecological connectivity, locate and size
crossings to avoid increased erosion or flooding, be generally at right angles and
minimize impacts on natural features, with appropriate mitigation and restoration
where impacts are unavoidable. In addition, new road crossings shall be
generally at right angles to the watercourse where feasible.
6.3.13 Notwithstanding Policy 6.3.1, the area commonly referred to as “the lobe” located
at 3145 Mearns Avenue and designated Environmental Protection Area which
was previously the subject of unauthorized natural feature removal, may be
designated as Low Density Residential without amendment to this Secondary
Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of the Compensation Agreement dated
February 2020 between the applicable landowner and the Municipality of
Clarington.
6.4 Land Use to be Determined
6.4.1 Land Use to be Determined is a land use designation shown on Schedules A.
These lands require further analysis to determine if development can be
permitted and is feasible. These lands are identified as Environmental Protection
Area in the Official Plan. These lands were not identified as part of the Natural
Heritage System in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study; however, the lands
were identified as containing Vegetation Protection Zones, candidate and / or
unconfirmed significant wildlife habitat, low constraint areas and were also
identified with Status Pending further Study and noted as locations for
enhancement/restoration opportunities. These are small areas surrounded by
the Natural Heritage System.
6.4.2 To change the designation to permit development, an Official Plan Amendment
application will be required along with studies to confirm the boundary of the
Natural Heritage System, confirm the feasibility of access and serviceability and
determine the appropriate land use designation if development is feasible.
6.4.3 To confirm feasibility of development, lands within this designation shall be
subject to a number of studies and staking of abutting natural heritage features to
confirm the presence of and boundary of features and functions in the abutting
Environmental Protection Area designation and confirm the extent of the
Vegetation Protection Zone to ensure no impact on the abutting Environmental
Protection Area from urban development.
6.4.4 Studies submitted in support of an Official Plan Amendment application shall also
assess the impact of any proposed road crossing of the Environmental Protection
Area into this designation to demonstrate that roads and servicing can be
provided without a net negative impact on the natural heritage features and
functions within the abutting Environmental Protection Area designation. The
Municipality may consider enhancement, compensation and restoration to ensure
an overall net positive impact on the natural heritage features and system.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
20
6.4.5 The studies referred to in this Section shall include: a Hydraulic Analysis Study,
an Environmental Impact Study, a Geotechnical Analysis confirming the long-
term stable top of bank, a Hydrogeological Analysis, updated hydrology
modelling to evaluate downstream flooding and erosion impacts (if not already
addressed by the Subwatershed Study) and a Geomorphic Study as well as a
Planning Justification and are required as part of a development application.
Prior to undertaking the identified studies, the terms of reference shall first be
approved by the Municipality in consultation with the relevant agencies.
6.4.6 A detailed block plan will also be required in support of an Official Plan
Amendment application to demonstrate that the remaining lands outside of the
Environmental Protection Area and associated Vegetation Protection Zone can
be developed for urban uses and associated roads, trails, and stormwater
management facilities and determine the appropriate density of development
without impact on the abutting Environmental Protection Area.
6.5 Environmental Constraints Overlays
6.5.1 Environmental Constraint Overlays are shown on Schedule B. Environmental
Constraint Overlays are not land use designations, they identify lands identified in
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study as requiring additional levels of study prior
to development.
6.5.2 The four types of Environmental Constraint Overlays shown on Schedule B
include Moderate Constraint Area, Vegetation Protection Zone, Additional Area of
Further Study, and Low Constraint Area.
6.5.3 Environmental Constraint: Moderate Constraint Area Overlay represent those
lands identified in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study as ‘Moderate
Constraint’. The lands may include features such as linkage areas, Headwater
drainage features with a conservation or mitigation classification, agricultural
lands displaying evidence of hydrologic features. An Environmental Impact Study
prepared in support of a development application shall determine the presence of
or extent of the features and function to be protected from development, including
the identification of the requisite Vegetation Protection Zone.
6.5.4 Environmental Constraint: Vegetation Protection Zone Overlay represent the
lands identified as a Vegetation Protection Zone based on the findings of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. An Environmental Impact Study prepared in
support of development applications shall confirm the extent of the Vegetation
Protection Zone based on the sensitivity of the adjacent feature and in
accordance with minimum Vegetation Protection Zone requirements of the
Official Plan. Refinements to the Vegetation Protection Zone will not require an
amendment to this Plan.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
6.5.5 Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay represent
areas providing candidate and / or unconfirmed significant wildlife habitat or
potential wildlife linkages identified in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. An
Environmental Impact Study prepared in support of development applications
shall confirm the presence or absence of the habitat and /or linkage and the
extent of sensitivity of the habitat, in accordance with the policies of the Official
Plan to the satisfaction of the municipality.
6.5.6 Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay identified in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study comprise features in which removal or development
intrusion is not restricted by existing policies and regulations. It is encouraged
that these features be incorporated into site level plans where possible to avoid
net loss of natural cover. Should net loss of natural cover not be avoidable, in
certain circumstances, appropriate compensation opportunities within other areas
of the Secondary Plan Area may be considered where appropriate.
6.5.7 Until the Environmental Impact Studies required in this Section 6.5 have been
completed, land uses within the Environmental Constraint Overlays shall be
limited to existing lawful permitted uses.
6.5.8 Following the completion of the required studies to the satisfaction of the
Municipality, development may be permitted in the Environmental Constraint
Overlays as deemed appropriate by the study, without amendment to this Plan,
and the underlying land use designation in Schedule A will apply. Where
development in an Environmental Constraint Overlay is determined not to be
appropriate, or the limits of the Vegetation Protection Zone is confirmed, the
Environmental Constraint Overlay will be deemed to be part of the Environmental
Protection Area designation.
6.5.9 The Zoning By-law shall be amended as appropriate following the completion of
the required studies to implement new land use permissions for the
environmental constraint overlay area.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
22
7 Parks
7.1 Objectives
7.1.1 Provide a quantity and quality of park space that meets the needs of residents
and enables a variety of opportunities for passive and active recreation.
7.1.2 Use the design of parks and open spaces to create unique places that contribute
to the area’s sense of identity.
7.1.3 Integrate parks into a broader open space and public realm networks.
7.1.4 Locate parks and other community amenities to promote safe and convenient
access by walking and cycling.
7.2 Parks
7.2.1 Parks are symbolically illustrated in Schedule A. The final location and size of
parks shall be determined at the draft plan of subdivision stage.
7.2.2 Parks within the Soper Springs Secondary Plan shall provide a variety of
opportunities for passive and active recreation and be comprised of well-
designed spaces that contribute to the area’s sense of identity.
7.2.3 The following types of parks are included in the Parks designation:
a) Neighbourhood Parks; and
b) Parkettes.
7.2.4 The functions and sizes for the parks listed in Policy 7.2.3 are set out in Section
18.3 of the Official Plan.
7.2.5 The locations of the Neighbourhood Park and Parkettes are shown on Schedule
A. The precise size and location of Neighbourhood Parks and Parkettes shall be
determined at the time of development review and approval, based on the
parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. In the event that a park is
determined not to be required following approval of a draft plan of subdivision,
the land use surrounding the symbol will be the applicable land use designation.
7.2.6 Parks shall be designed to be accessible and shall have street frontage on not
less than 30% of the park perimeter. Backing of residential and commercial uses
onto parks shall be minimized with flankage of lots preferred. The municipality
may consider a lesser percentage, at its sole discretion, where the park is flanked
by other public lands which ensures public access and visibility.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
7.2.7 Areas conveyed for parkland purposes will be programmable lands.
7.2.8 Environmental Protection Areas, associated Vegetation Protection Zones and
stormwater management ponds shall not be conveyed to satisfy parkland
dedication requirements under the Planning Act.
7.2.9 Privately owned and publicly accessible open spaces shall be encouraged within
the Secondary Plan Area but shall not contribute to required parkland dedication.
7.2.10 Placement of park benches in parks should maximize accessibility and rest
points.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
24
8 Community Culture and Heritage
8.1.1 The conservation and enhancement of significant cultural heritage resources
shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 8 of the Clarington Official Plan
and all relevant Provincial legislation and policy directives.
8.1.2 The following properties of cultural heritage value or interest have been identified
within the Secondary Plan Area and are shown on Schedule A:
a) 3347 Liberty Street North; and
b) 3136 Mearns Avenue.
8.1.3 A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report will be required for each property listed in
Policy 8.1.2 as part of a development application.
8.1.4 A Heritage Impact Assessment, that includes measures to avoid direct impacts,
and actions to avoid or reduce indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of a
cultural heritage resource shall be conducted prior to development on or adjacent
to properties for which a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report has been conducted
and determined that the properties meet the criteria for cultural heritage value or
interest as prescribed under O. Reg. 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act.
8.1.5 The naming and design of parks and public spaces and the naming of public
streets shall have regard for local heritage or natural influences including historic
names, interpretive features, vernacular building elements, and plantings.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
9 Transportation
9.1 Objectives
9.1.1 Foster a community where walking, cycling and transit are viable and attractive
alternatives to travel by automobile.
9.1.2 Establish a street and block pattern that creates fine-grained connectivity
throughout the community.
9.1.3 Create routes for active transportation that are direct and efficient and offer high
levels of connectivity with multiple choice of routes.
9.1.4 Establish a network that connects the interior lower density neighbourhoods and
the higher density along the Local Corridor along Concession Road 3 and along
Liberty Street North where transit will be most frequent and direct.
9.1.5 Mid-block connections and trails should be used to augment the network
established by streets to improve permeability for users of active transportation
where appropriate.
9.1.6 Design streets as complete streets to ensure that all kinds of traffic can use them
in a safe and comfortable manner: motorists, transit users, cyclists, pedestrians
and people with accessibility challenges. Prioritize active modes of transportation
and the needs of the most vulnerable users.
9.1.7 Design streets as important public places. Create environments which are safe,
inviting, comfortable and visually pleasing for pedestrians and other forms of
active transportation.
9.2 Transportation Network
9.2.1 The transportation network in Soper Springs facilitates the movement of people
and goods through an integrated, efficient, comfortable, safe, and accessible
transportation system.
9.2.2 The transportation network in the Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area should be
developed in accordance with Schedule B Environmental Constraint and
Transportation and the policies of this Secondary Plan, with further guidance
provided in the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines and the Soper
Springs Transportation Assessment Report.
9.2.3 New roads shall be designed to create a rectilinear grid pattern of roads that
defines development blocks and establishes a highly interconnected and
permeable network that supports active transportation and maximizes
accessibility and support for transit. The rectilinear grid pattern may be modified
to accommodate natural heritage areas and other constraints. Connectivity by
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
26
active transportation throughout the Secondary Plan Area and to surrounding
areas may be further enhanced by mid-block connections and trails through and
across Environmental Protection Areas where appropriate and feasible.
9.3 Road Network
9.3.1 The road network set out on Schedule B serves as the primary framework for all
forms of mobility and connectivity in Soper Springs. The road network includes a
hierarchy of road types which is consistent with the hierarchy and road
classifications in the Official Plan and the road classification criteria in Appendix
C, Table C-2 of the Official Plan.
9.3.2 The collector road network shown in Schedule B is conceptual and will be
confirmed through the Class C Environmental Assessment Process. Further
refinements will be considered through Phases 3 and 4 conducted during the
draft plan of subdivision process without amendment to the Secondary Plan.
9.3.3 Notwithstanding Policy 9.3.2, the northern collector road crossing of the Soper
Creek tributary can be altered or relocated or an additional local road crossing
provided without amendment to the Secondary Plan subject to completion of
technical studies, determination of mitigation measures and obtaining permits
and approvals from the Municipality of Clarington, Region of Durham, CLOCA
and other agencies having jurisdiction; and the fulfilment of the requirements of
the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for any Schedule C project.
9.3.4 The Municipality may consider development on private roads outside of the Low
Density Residential designation.
9.3.5 On-street parking shall be permitted on all local roads and collector roads.
9.3.6 Cul-de-sacs are generally discouraged but may be permitted when demonstrated
that an alternative alignment is not available.
9.4 Public Transit
9.4.1 The Municipality shall ensure that transit facilities are integrated early and
appropriately within and adjacent to Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area and
ensuring that transit requirements are addressed through municipal capital works
and private development applications.
9.4.2 The design of transit stops shall incorporate appropriate amenities and shall
consider transit shelters, seating, bike racks and appropriate lighting.
9.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a transit-supportive urban structure, in addition to
Section 19.4 of the Official Plan, the following measures shall be reflected in
development proposals, including the subdivision of land:
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
a) Transit-supportive densities provided on lands within the Local Corridor in
keeping with municipal density targets;
b) An active transportation network that promotes direct pedestrian access to
transit routes and stops;
c) Transit stops located in close proximity to activity nodes and building
entrances; and
d) Provision for transit stops and incorporation of bus-bays where appropriate
into road design requirements.
9.5 Active Transportation
9.5.1 The policies of the Soper Springs Secondary Plan are an extension of the Active
Transportation policies of Section 19.5 of the Official Plan and are intended to
ensure the local provision and ongoing development of an active transportation
network within the Secondary Plan Area.
9.5.2 The active transportation network within the Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area
includes off-street facilities including trails and multi-use paths for pedestrians
and cyclists. Some elements of the Active Transportation System are shown on
Schedule B of this plan.
9.5.3 Collector roads shall incorporate a multi-use path on one side and a sidewalk on
the other. Local roads shall incorporate a sidewalk on one side.
9.5.4 Active transportation connections across barriers (natural and related to
infrastructure) shall be planned to occur at signalized intersections, roundabouts,
or controlled mid-block locations wherever feasible and at appropriate
walking/cycling intervals to reduce barriers between areas and increase
accessibility for all ages and abilities.
9.5.5 To support increased network connectivity, mid-block connections may be
established throughout the Secondary Plan Area and in particular through the
Medium Density Local Corridor – designation to Concession Road 3.
9.5.6 Destinations such as the Environmental Protection Area, parks, and stores and
connections to surrounding neighbourhoods will be integrated through off-street
active transportation network including off-street bike lanes and multi-use paths.
9.5.7 All collector and local roads shall also be planned to include a vibrant and healthy
tree canopy, consisting of primarily native plantings. The tree canopy will provide
shade and enhance and establish a vibrant urban environment. A tree canopy
plan shall be prepared for each plan of subdivision as part of the required
landscape architectural plans.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
28
10 Housing
10.1 Objectives
10.1.1 Encourage a variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures, that allow households
of various sizes and incomes to find a home within Soper Springs.
10.1.2 Encourage the provision of affordable housing and rental housing.
10.1.3 Foster aging in place by encouraging a range of housing that can meet the needs
of Bowmanville residents during all phases of life.
10.2 General Policies
10.2.1 A variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures shall be provided in Soper Springs
to meet the needs of a diverse population and households of various sizes,
incomes and age compositions. This housing mix is encouraged to include
purpose built rental and seniors housing.
10.2.2 Additional dwelling units are encouraged in all new single, semi-detached and
townhouse dwellings.
10.2.3 Affordable housing, including community housing, supportive housing and other
types of subsidized non-market housing units, are encouraged to be integrated
within neighbourhoods and combined in developments that also provide market
housing to provide opportunities for a range of housing tenures and prices that
support diversity.
10.2.4 Affordable housing is encouraged, and in particular, to locate within the Local
Corridor to provide residents with excellent access to public transit.
10.2.5 Collaboration with the Region of Durham and public and nonprofit community
housing providers is encouraged to support a supply of subsidized non-market
housing units to be included within the housing mix in the Secondary Plan Area.
10.2.6 To support the provision of affordable housing units, the Municipality will explore
other potential incentives such as reduced or deferred development charges,
reduced application fees, grants and loans, to encourage the development of
affordable housing units. The Municipality will also encourage Durham Region,
the Provincial government and Federal government (as applicable) to consider
further increasing financial incentives for affordable housing.
10.2.7 As an incentive for the provision of affordable housing, reductions in the minimum
parking requirement under the Zoning By-law may be considered by the
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
Municipality on a site-by-site basis where affordable housing or purpose-built
rental housing is provided as part of a development proposal.
10.2.8 The Municipality will give priority to development applications that include
affordable housing units and purpose-built rental units that are being funded by
federal and provincial government programs, community housing providers other
non-profit groups, the Region of Durham and the private sector.
10.2.9 A range of unit sizes are encouraged within apartment and multi-unit buildings,
including those suitable for single people, and larger households and families.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
30
11 Infrastructure, Stormwater Management and
Environmental Performance
11.1 Objectives
11.1.1 Reduce the impact of development on hydrologic and ecological systems through
the use of the principles of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure.
11.1.2 Encourage native plantings, which include a diversity of tree species that
contribute to the urban forest and a vibrant and healthy tree canopy.
11.1.3 Promote the use of technologies and methods which improve the environmental
performance of development.
11.2 Infrastructure and Utilities
11.2.1 Infrastructure and utilities should be developed in accordance with the policies of
Section 21 of the Official Plan.
11.2.2 In addition, super mailboxes shall not be located in a municipally owned park but
may be located adjacent to the park.
11.2.3 Applications for development shall demonstrate that all water mains can be
appropriately looped and dead ends minimized without the need for additional
crossings of the Environmental Protection Area outside of planned road right of
way and trail crossings. If additional crossings of the Environmental Protection
Area are proposed, an assessment of alternatives and potential impacts shall be
provided to demonstrate impacts to the Environmental Protection Area are
minimized and mitigated to the extent feasible.
11.2.4 Applications for development shall assess whether an upstream sanitary creek
crossing as part of a road or trail crossing is feasible with minimal impact to the
Environmental Protection Area. If a sanitary crossing outside of the proposed
road or trail network is determined to be not feasible, an updated servicing
strategy shall be provided to determine the need for and preferred location for a
sanitary pumping station.
11.3 Stormwater Management and Low Impact Development
11.3.1 Stormwater management facilities, such as ponds and Low Impact Development
features, shall be incorporated in the Secondary Plan Area to mitigate the
impacts of development on water quality and quantity, consistent with the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study, the policies of Section 20 of the Clarington Official
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
Plan and the policies of this Section consistent with Policy 6.3.4 of this
Secondary Plan and Sections 3.4, 144 and 20 of the Official Plan.
11.3.2 Wherever feasible stormwater management ponds should be located in Low
Density Residential designations. Stormwater management facilities shown on
Schedule A are illustrative and final location and sizing shall be confirmed by a
Master Drainage Plan and Stormwater Management Reports submitted with
development applications. An amendment to the Secondary Plan is not required
for changes to the location of stormwater management facilities.
11.3.3 Proposed stormwater management quality, quantity, erosion control and water
balance for ground water and natural systems shall be assessed during the
development approval process to determine the impact on the natural heritage
system and environmental features.
11.3.4 A Master Drainage Plan shall be completed for the Secondary Plan Area to the
satisfaction of the Municipality prior to approval of the first development
application within the Secondary Plan Area.
11.3.5 Stormwater Management Reports shall be prepared for each draft plan of
subdivision application building on the recommendations of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study and the Master Drainage Plan. As recommended by the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, the required Stormwater Management Report
shall incorporate:
a) Infiltration-based Low Impact Development (“LID”) practices located on
private property and municipal property;
b) Evaluation of erosion risks to receiving watercourses; and
c) A site-specific water budget.
11.3.6 The submission of the additional plans and reports shall be required to determine
the impact of stormwater quality/quantity, erosion and water balance of the
proposed development. A Master Drainage Plan shall first be prepared in
accordance with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and further studies shall
be required where not addressed in the Master Drainage Plan at the draft plan of
subdivision stage including:
d) Stormwater Management Report;
e) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;
f) Servicing Plans;
g) Grading Plans;
h) Geotechnical reports;
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
32
i) Hydrogeologic reports; and
j) Other technical reports as deemed necessary.
11.3.7 The Stormwater Management Report identified in Policy 11.3.5 shall apply a
range of stormwater management practices including LID techniques to ensure
water quality control, baseflow management, water temperature control and the
protection of aquatic habitat consistent with municipal guidance and CLOCA
guidelines.
11.3.8 The Stormwater Management Report shall demonstrate how the water balance
target set in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study is achieved.
11.3.9 The establishment of new flood control facilities to accommodate development
within this Secondary Plan are not encouraged and will only be considered once
all other reasonable alternatives have been fully exhausted in accordance with
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study or an update or addenda to that study to
the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington in consultation with CLOCA.
Other alternatives to flood control facilities could include infrastructure
improvements such as relief culverts, road crossings or land acquisition
11.3.10 Stormwater management for all development shall be undertaken on a volume
control basis and shall demonstrate the maintenance of recharge rates, flow
paths and water quality to the greatest extent possible under varying subsurface
conditions. Peak flow control and the maintenance of pre-development water
balance and prevention of erosion shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Municipality of Clarington in consultation with CLOCA.
11.3.11 High Volume Recharge Areas and Ecologically Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas shall maintain a pre-development water balance in accordance
with the Credit Valley-Toronto and Region Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source
Water Protection Plan policies and the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
11.3.12 Development of all detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings shall
demonstrate the use of an adequate volume of amended topsoil or equivalent
system to improve surface porosity and permeability over all turf and landscaped
areas beyond 3 metres of a building foundation and beyond tree protection
areas.
11.4 Urban Forest and Native Plantings
11.4.1 Together, new development and public realm improvements shall establish an
urban tree canopy throughout the Secondary Plan Area to minimize the heat
island effect, provide for shade and wind cover and contribute to a green and
attractive environment.
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
11.4.2 New development and public realm improvements are required to use native
plant species wherever feasible, particularly along rights-of-way and pedestrian
trails.
11.4.3 New development and public realm improvements shall only use native plantings
within 30 metres of Environmental Protection Areas.
11.4.4 Draft plans of subdivision and site plan applications shall as a condition of
approval be supported by landscape plans which demonstrate how the
development will contribute to the urban forest.
11.4.5 A diversity of tree species shall be planted in parks and along rights-of-way to
provide a healthy and more robust tree inventory that is less prone to insects and
diseases.
11.4.6 Selection of tree species within the Secondary Plan Area will contribute to the
Municipality’s species diversity objectives.
11.4.7 Where trees, shrubs and other natural heritage features are destroyed or
harvested pre-maturely prior to proper study and approval, compensation should
occur on site and shall be calculated at a 3:1 ratio and be subject to a restoration
/ compensation plan to create an overall net benefit to the natural heritage
system.
11.5 Sustainability
11.5.1 Development is encouraged to consider the use of renewable energy sources.
11.5.2 Development is encouraged to consider the use of technologies such as green
roofs and reflective roof surface materials with high thermal reflectivity.
11.5.3 Development is encouraged to meet high standards for energy efficiency and
sustainability in building design and construction.
11.5.4 Development is encouraged to meet high standards for the use of LID strategies
and minimize impermeable surfaces, to aid in stormwater infiltration.
11.5.5 Water-efficient building design and practices are encouraged to be utilized in all
new buildings, including measures such as ultra-low flow fixtures, dual flush
toilets and rainwater harvesting.
11.5.6 Development is encouraged to apply designs, methods and materials that reduce
embodied carbon emissions, such as using lower-carbon methods and materials
such as mass timber, low-carbon concrete and biogenic insulation and
repurposing on-site materials.
12 Implementation and Interpretation
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
34
12.1 Implementation
12.1.1 Detailed studies prepared, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, in support of a
development application may refine and confirm the natural heritage features
identified in the recommendations of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study on a
site-by-site basis however the study must address the issues raised by the
Subwatershed Study.
12.1.2 As part of a development application for residential developments the following
information is required for the subject application:
a) Net residential density by land use designation;
b) Identification of total square metres of non-residential land uses;
c) Number and type of units by land use designation;
d) Total residential unit count;
e) Estimated population;
f) Amount/type of non-residential space and number of jobs; and
g) The number of purpose-built additional dwelling units and affordable housing
units by land use designation.
12.1.3 All new development within the Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area shall
proceed based on the sequential extension of full municipal services. This can be
achieved either by servicing through adjacent plans of subdivision, including
servicing through provisions or through the Regional and Municipal capital works
programs and plans of subdivision. This may also be advanced by
landowners/proponents with appropriate agreements with the Region and/or
Municipality.
12.1.4 Notwithstanding that the upgrading of existing roads, culverts, bridges and similar
infrastructure by the landowners/proponents required to facilitate development
will be considered through appropriate agreements with the Region and/or
Municipality, the Development Charge eligibility of such works shall not be
adversely affected.
12.1.5 The Municipality encourages utility providers such as hydroelectric power,
communications/telecommunications facilities and utilities, broadband fibre
optics, and natural gas to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is or will be in place
to serve growth in the Plan area
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
12.1.6 Development applications for lands abutting the arterial road and collector roads
shown in Schedule B shall dedicate lands for road widenings as determined by
the Municipality or Region of Durham.
12.1.7 Approval of development applications shall be subject to conditions of draft plan
approval, where applicable, requiring commitments from the appropriate
authorities and the proponents of development to the timing and funding of the
required road and transportation facilities, parks and community facilities which
may include interim transportation facilities. These works shall be provided for in
the subdivision and / or site plan agreements.
12.1.8 Approval of development applications shall also be conditional upon
commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of
development to the timing and funding of required stormwater management,
sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which may include temporary and/or
interim works. These works shall be provided for in subdivision and / or site plan
agreements.
12.1.9 Phasing of the development, due to partial construction of internal collector roads
or the partial completion of internal and external sewer, water and stormwater
works as a result of non-participating landowners, participating landowners with
different timelines or the timelines for completion of external road works, may be
required by the Municipality of Clarington. Phasing may include temporary and /
or interim road and infrastructure solutions prior to full build-out.
12.1.10 The Secondary Plan recognizes that comprehensive planning requires the
equitable sharing amongst landowners of the costs associated with the
development of land. It is a policy of this Secondary Plan that prior to the
approval of any draft plan of subdivision, the applicant/landowner shall have
entered into appropriate cost sharing agreement(s) that establish the means by
which the costs (including Region of Durham costs) of developing the property
are to be shared including, but not limited to the provision of community and
infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external
services, stormwater management facilities and public/private utilities. The
Municipality will require, as a condition of draft approval, that proof be provided to
the Municipality through obtaining a clearance letter from the Trustee of the
Landowner Group that the landowner has met its obligations under the relevant
cost sharing agreement(s) among signatories of the agreement prior to
registration of a plan of subdivision.
12.1.11 Landowners are encouraged to enter into a Master Parkland Agreement with the
Municipality prior to the approval of any draft plan of subdivision. The Master
Parkland Agreement shall identify the minimum size and general location of
parks that shall be provided and dedicated in accordance with Schedule A.
12.1.12 If the landowners, have entered into a Master Parkland Agreement as set out in
Policy 12.1.10, the Municipality will require, as a condition of draft approval, that
Soper Springs Secondary Plan
36
proof be provided to the Municipality that the landowner has satisfied all their
parkland obligations with respect to the Master Parkland Agreement prior to
registration of a plan of subdivision.
12.2 Interpretation
12.2.1 The Soper Springs Secondary Plan has been prepared to align with the policies
of the Official Plan. The policies, maps and appendices of this Secondary Plan,
shall be read and interpreted in conjunction with the applicable policies of the
Official Plan.
12.2.2 In the event of a conflict between the Official Plan and this Secondary Plan, the
policies of the Secondary Plan shall prevail inclusive of density and intensification
policies of the Official Plan.
12.2.3 The pattern of land use is identified in Schedule A of the Secondary Plan. Minor
alterations to the boundaries of land use designations and location of symbols,
which maintain the general intent of the policies of this Secondary Plan, may
occur without amendment to this Secondary Plan through the development
approval process in accordance with Section 24.1 of the Official Plan.
12.2.4 Where examples of permitted uses are listed under any specific land use
designation, they are intended to provide examples of possible uses. Other
similar uses may be permitted provided they conform to the intent and all
applicable provisions of this Secondary Plan.
Trans
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
P
NP SoperCreek
La
m
b
s
R
o
a
d
Li
b
e
r
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o
r
t
h
P
Concession Road 3
Legend
Stormwater Management SSSP Boundary Collector RoadsUtility Facility (SWF)
NP Environmental Protection Areas Schedule A - Land Use Neighborhood Park Medium Density Local Corridor Arterial Roads
P ParketteMedium Density Residential Land Use to be Determined
Potential Cultural Heritage Resources
- Soper Springs Secondary Plan -
Prominent Intersection
Low Density Residential Watercourse
Trans
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
P
i
p
eline
La
m
b
s
R
o
a
d
Soper Creek
Me
a
r
n
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Li
b
e
r
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o
r
t
h
Concession Road 3
Legend
SSSP Boundary
Environmental Protection Areas (EPA)
Environmental Constraint:
Environmental Constraint:
Moderate Constraint Area
Environmental Constraint:
Additional Area of Further Study Overlay
Multi-Use Path
Multi-Use Path - Municipal Trail
Headwater Drainage Features
Arterial B
Collector Roads
Potential Local Road Connection
Schedule B - Environmental
Constraint and Transportation
Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ) Overlay
Environmental Constraint:
Protection
Conservation - Soper Springs Secondary Plan -
Low Constraint Areas Overlay Watercourse
Trans Northern Pipeline
SoperCreek
NP
Schedule A -Land Use
-Soper Springs Secondary Plan -
P
P
Legend
Parkette
Stormwater Management
Facility (SWF)
Environmental Protection Areas
Collector RoadsUtility
Potential Cultural Heritage Resources
Medium Density Local Corridor Neighborhood Park
Medium Density Residential
Prominent Intersection
Land Use to be Determined
SSSP Boundary
NP
P
Watercourse
Arterial Roads
Low Density Residential
Concession Road 3
Lambs Road
Liberty Street North
Municipality of Clarington | Soper Springs Secondary Plan
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
April 2026
Attachment 1c to Report PDS-026-26
1547 BLOOR STREET WESTTORONTO, ONM6P 1A5
*info@sglplanning.ca
T (416) 923-6630
Planning& Design Inc.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINES ................................................................................. 5
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE GUIDELINES ........................................................................... 6
1.3 INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................... 6
1.4 PLACEMAKING AND DESIGN EXCELLENCE ........................................................ 6
1.5 VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................................... 8
1.6 THE LAND USE SCHEDULE ...................................................................................... 10
1.7 THE DEMONSTRATION PLAN .................................................................................. 11
2 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE ................................................................................................. 12
2.1 LOCAL CORRIDOR / MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ................................ 12
2.2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS .................................................................................. 13
2.3 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................. 14
2.4 PARKS AND EPA ........................................................................................................... 15
2.5 TRAILS ................................................................................................................................ 16
3 STREETS AND BLOCKS ....................................................................................................... 17
4 BUILT ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 19
4.1 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL ............................................................................................. 19
4.1.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................... 19
4.1.2 SINGLE AND SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS ................................................... 20
4.1.3 TOWNHOUSES ............................................................................................................... 22
4.1.4 GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS .................................................................................... 23
4.2 RESIDENTIAL MID-RISE .............................................................................................. 23
4.3 MID-RISE MIXED USE ................................................................................................... 25
4.4 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................. 27
5 MOBILITY .................................................................................................................................. 28
5.1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................... 28
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
2
5.1.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES .............................................................................................. 28
5.1.2 TRAILS ................................................................................................................................ 29
5.1.3 CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................. 30
5.2 TRANSIT ............................................................................................................................ 30
5.3 ROAD TYPOLOGIES AND CROSS SECTIONS ................................................... 31
5.3.1 STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS ....................................................................................... 32
5.3.2 SIDEWALKS ...................................................................................................................... 32
5.3.3 STREET TREES AND PLANTING ............................................................................ 33
5.3.4 STREET LIGHTING ......................................................................................................... 34
5.3.5 UTILITY PLACEMENT ................................................................................................... 34
6 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................. 35
6.1 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES ........................................................................... 35
6.1.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES ................................................................................................ 35
6.1.2 WOODLANDS ................................................................................................................. 36
6.1.3 URBAN FOREST ............................................................................................................. 36
6.2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ........................................................................................ 38
6.2.1 NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS ........................................................................................ 38
6.2.2 PARKETTES ...................................................................................................................... 39
6.2.3 PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACES ................... 39
7 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUILDINGS ............................................................... 40
7.1 ENERGY CONSERVATION ......................................................................................... 40
7.2 WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... 41
7.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT .............................................................................. 42
7.4 MATERIAL RESOURCES AND SOLID WASTE ................................................... 42
7.5 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................... 43
7.6 LIGHTING ........................................................................................................................... 43
7.7 GREEN BUILDINGS ........................................................................................................ 44
7.8 STEWARDSHIP ............................................................................................................... 44
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
GUIDELINE STRUCTURE
The document is organized as a series of guidelines along with detailed guidance
to assist designers in achieving the community’s vision. It is intended that
creativity and sensitivity to context should be encouraged to achieve the intent of
each guideline with consideration of alternative approaches on a case-by-case
basis where it can be demonstrated that the overall vision is being met.
SECTION 1 ‒ Introduction
SECTION 2 ‒ Community Structure
SECTION 3 ‒ Streets and Blocks
SECTION 4 ‒ Built Environment
SECTION 5 ‒ Mobility
SECTION 6 ‒ Natural Environment
SECTION 7 ‒ Green Infrastructure and Buildings
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
4
1 INTRODUCTION
The Soper Springs Secondary
Plan Area is 184 hectares in
size, located in the Municipality
of Clarington (MOC), at the
north end of Bowmanville. The
area is generally bound by
Liberty Street North to the
west, Concession Road 3 to
the south, and Lambs Road to
the east. The Secondary Plan’s
northern boundary runs 1
kilometre north and parallel to
Concession Road 3 and aligns
with the Bowmanville urban
boundary. A mixture of
agricultural uses, natural areas,
and private residential
properties exist around the
area.
A large portion of lands within
the Soper Springs Secondary
Plan boundary are designated as
Environmental Protection Area
(EPA) as noted on Map “A3” of
the Clarington Official Plan.
Figure 2: Map A3 Clarington Official Plan
Figure 1: Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
5
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINES
The Urban Design & Sustainably Guidelines (Guidelines) build on the Sustainability
+ Green Principles Report prepared by SGL Planning and Design Inc. which were
informed by the Municipality of Clarington’s sustainability journey. These
Guidelines also build on the Council endorsed Priority Green Clarington (2015),
which provided a plan to promote and encourage greener, more sustainable
neighbourhoods in the Municipality.
The Guidelines provide guidance for the design of streets and blocks, built form,
streetscape design, community focal points, Environmental Protection Area (EPA)
interface, parks and open space as well as sustainability. They will provide a level
of expectation for the design and assist with the review and evaluation of future
development applications.
The Guidelines are to be used by:
Council and Committee to confirm whether an application
meets the vision for Soper Springs.
Municipal Staff and Agencies as a reference for review and
approval.
Developers and consultants to understand how to make their
proposals align with the vision.
The public to understand how their community is to be
designed.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
6
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE GUIDELINES
The Guidelines have been prepared to accomplish the following objectives:
• Achieve high quality urban design throughout the community in both the
public and private realm;
• Encourage the design and building of an attractive and sustainable
environment consistent with the vision for the Soper Springs Secondary
Plan area;
• Ensure new development is unique;
• Incorporate an active transportation network;
• Maintain compatibility with the surrounding natural heritage; and
• Provide consistent direction of the design of the community for the public,
development community and Municipal Staff.
1.3 INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
The Guidelines are intended to implement the Secondary Plan direction for the
Soper Springs Community and provide direction on urban design, streetscapes,
built form, and sustainability initiatives.
The Guidelines are to be read in conjunction with, and complement the policies of
the Soper Springs Secondary Plan, objectives and policies of the Municipality of
Clarington Official Plan (COP), the provisions of the Municipality of Clarington
Zoning By-law, the Priority Green Development Framework and Implementation
Plan, and other guidelines.
In the event of a conflict between the Guidelines and the Secondary Plan, the
provisions of the Secondary Plan shall prevail over the provisions of these
Guidelines.
1.4 PLACEMAKING AND DESIGN EXCELLENCE
Placemaking is both a philosophy and a multi-faceted approach to planning and
urban design. While not a new concept, placemaking has recently come to the
forefront of planning for successful, sustainable and complete communities.
Through a collaborative process, the intent of placemaking is to capitalize on a
community’s vision, assets and potential and define the physical, cultural and
social identities that will help support its ongoing evolution. Placemaking through
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
7
the cohesive design of the public and private realm helps provide residents,
workers and visitors with a strong sense of place.
Appropriate, place-specific urban design principles and practices are a key
element that shape how we experience and interact with the public realm, which
includes destinations such as places to shop, eat, gather, interact, learn, enjoy
and work. Great places can be defined by a combination of their natural
landscapes and access to the environment, walkability and mix of uses, safe and
attractive streetscapes, high quality architecture and human-scaled built form,
parks and urban squares, public art and neighbourhood composition.
Placemaking through good urban design will play a key role for the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan to promote physical and mental health, community well-being and
sustainability.
Good urban design will promote excellence in the design of the Soper Springs
community. While the specifics of each development proposal may vary, the
overall objectives for the highest quality designs will remain the same throughout
the Secondary Plan area.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
8
1.5 VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Soper Springs Secondary Plan will promote a positive image and foster a
strong sense of place. The goal for creating vibrant and sustainable urban places
as stated in Section 5 of the Clarington Official Plan is:
"To create a built environment that celebrates and enhances the
history and character of Clarington, fosters a sense of place for
neighbourhoods and communities, promotes a positive image of
the Municipality, demonstrates a high quality of sustainable
architectural design, and enhances the well -being of residents, both
present and future.”
The urban design and sustainability principles reflect the vision and framework
set out by the Clarington Official Plan and the Municipality’s Priority Green Plan,
and more specifically the Priority Green checklist for secondary plans. These
principles were used to inform the preparation of the Secondary Plan policies and
will be used to inform the Guidelines. In Phase 1 of the Secondary Plan Study,
SGL prepared the Sustainability and Green Principles Report. The Report
identified four main themes and principles for each of the themes that will also
inform the Guidelines. Figure 3 summarizes four key themes: built environment,
mobility, natural environment and open space, and infrastructure and buildings.
The themes are further broken down into key principles for each theme.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
9
Figure 3: Key themes for design principles in Soper Springs
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
10
1.6 THE LAND USE SCHEDULE
Figure 4: Schedule A - Land Use
Trans Northern Pipeline
SoperCreek
NP
Schedule A - Land Use
- Soper Springs Secondary Plan -
P
P
Legend
Parkette
Stormwater Management
Facility (SWF)
Environmental Protection Areas
Collector Roads
Utility
Potential Cultural Heritage Resources
Medium Density Local Corridor
Neighborhood Park
Medium Density Residential
Prominent Intersection
Land Use to be Determined
SSSP Boundary
NP P
Watercourse
Arterial Roads
Low Density Residential
Concession Road 3
Lambs Road
Liberty Street North
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
11
1.7 THE DEMONSTRATION PLAN
Schedule A of the Secondary Plan is further refined
into a Demonstration Plan. This plan illustrates
conceptually how a local road layout, streets and
blocks, a mix of land uses, parks and open spaces and
trails could be laid out. Each land use and community
element is described in Section 2 of these Guidelines.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
12
2 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
The Soper Springs Secondary Plan provides a framework for the development of
a compact, walkable, and accessible community. This Section is meant to provide
a description of what the Secondary Plan envisions for the different structure
components. The Guidelines provide design guidance for the different
components of the community.
2.1 LOCAL CORRIDOR / MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The Local Corridor located along Concession Road 3 is intended to provide for
transit supportive pedestrian friendly intensification, that includes a mix of higher
density residential uses and may accommodate retail and commercial uses to
support future transit along the Local Corridor. Medium Density Residential land
uses, located along the Mearns Avenue extension and a portion of Liberty Street
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
13
North of the Mearns Avenue extension is intended to provide residential
development that also achieves higher densities and transit-oriented
development. The intersection of Liberty Street North and the Mearns Avenue
extension may also incorporate retail or commercial uses.
Permitted housing types include mixed use buildings, apartments and
townhouses.
2.2 URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Most lands in Soper Springs are planned for Low Density Residential uses. Low
Density Residential designation will include semi-detached and detached houses.
All forms of townhouses and low-rise apartments are also permitted but can only
make up 20% of the total number of units in the Low Density Residential
designation.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
14
2.3 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS
A Prominent Intersection is located at Liberty Street North and Concession Road
3, and at the central intersection of the Mearns Avenue extension and the new
northern collector road. Prominent Intersections apply to all four corners of the
intersection and will form the primary gateway into the community. These areas
shall also have the greatest concentration of intensification.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
15
2.4 PARKS AND EPA
Neighbourhood Parks are to serve the basic active and low intensity recreational
needs of the surrounding residents. Neighbourhood parks are a minimum of 1.5
hectares in size depending on the area served and the activities to be provided.
Parkettes are intended to augment the recreation, leisure and amenity needs of a
neighbourhood. They will not contain sports fields. They are to be between 0.5 ha
and 1 ha in size. They are required wherever the Municipality deems it necessary
to augment or adjust the park requirements of any neighbourhood according to
the Municipality’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Plan and COP policy 18.3.7.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
16
2.5 TRAILS
Multi -use paths (MUPs), park trails, and a Municipal MUP are proposed for
Soper Springs. MUPs are pathways separated from vehicular traffic that
accommodate pedestrian and cycling routes. They are wider than typical
sidewalks and usually indicate separate lanes for walking and cycling. Park trails
are specific connections from parks to the MUP or public sidewalk, and are
typically paved trails. The Municipal MUP is either paved or unpaved and
provides access to environmental areas such as the EPA. They are intended to
keep users on a designated path to minimize disruption to the surrounding
landscape. These trails are narrower than MUPs and usually have a surface of
crushed aggregate or woodchip. A MUP is proposed within the EPA connecting
to the Municipal MUP Trail that runs along Soper Creek. The municipal MUPs
generally follow the trails identified in Schedule K of the Official Plan connecting
the community to the larger natural heritage system.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
17
3 STREETS AND BLOCKS
Human scale streets and small blocks are
important elements of a walkable
neighbourhood. Creating a tight network of
pedestrian- friendly streets and blocks helps
people choose to walk rather than take their
car, especially for short trips.
1. Streets and blocks should be designed
to have a rectilinear or modified grid.
2. Irregular shaped blocks are appropriate
when responding to topographic or
unique conditions or to achieve distinct
neighbourhood character.
3. Block lengths should not exceed 250m
for collector or local roads to support
active transportation where
appropriate.
4. Block depths should be designed to
maximize density, allow for appropriate
built form typologies, and
accommodate adequate setbacks,
outdoor amenity spaces, service,
parking and vehicle access
arrangements, and transitions in scale.
5. Where possible, streets and blocks
should be designed to protect existing
mature trees and vegetation outside
the EPA lands.
6. Streets and blocks should retain,
protect and enhance significant cultural
heritage resources.
Figure 5: An example of a modified grid
layout of streets
Figure 6: Example of a grid layout of
streets
Figure 7: Blocks should be generally
250m wide
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
18
Figure 8: Parks and road terminus are arranged to offer views to the surrounding EPA
7. Design of streets should create views to landmarks or natural features
through careful placement of intersections and terminus wherever
possible.
8. Where feasible streets and blocks should run parallel to contours and
minimize grade alteration and maximize views.
9. Cul-de-sac and dead-end streets are discouraged. If necessary, pedestrian
connection from cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets to other parts of the
community should be a priority.
10. Back-lotting or reverse lot frontages shall be avoided where feasible and
not considered unless demonstrated to be the only option.
11. For blocks with grade-related residential units, encourage street and block
alignments within 25-degrees of geographic east-west to maximize passive
solar orientation of buildings.
12. Streets should terminate at public facilities such as parks, NHS or
landmark buildings.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
19
4 BUILT ENVIRONMENT
4.1 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL
As identified in Section 2.3, Low Rise Residential accounts for most of the Urban
Residential Areas of Soper Springs. Low-rise built form includes singles, semi-
detached, all forms of townhouses, and low-rise apartments up to 3 storeys in
height. Some higher density low-rise uses, identified in Section 2.3, permit mixed
use buildings, apartments, and all forms of townhouse dwellings up to 3 storeys
in height.
4.1.1 GENERAL
1. Demonstrate design excellence with
architectural detailing of the highest
quality possible for all buildings.
2. Variations in elevations and a mix of
unit types are encouraged within a
block and throughout a draft plan of
subdivision.
3. The difference between adjacent
building heights should generally not
vary more than 1 storey, however
greater variation may be permitted if
compatibility between adjacent building forms can be demonstrated.
4. Generally, lots should be rectilinear in shape, where there are variations in
topography and other limiting factors variations in shape are permitted.
5. Diversity in housing size and design should be facilitated by a variety of lot
sizes.
Figure 9: Example of townhouses with high -
quality architectural detail
Figure 10: Difference between adjacent buildings should generally not vary more than 1 storey
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
20
6. Orient buildings to the street, park or open space to establish a streetwall
that contributes to an active public realm encouraging walking and cycling.
7. The siting and massing of dwellings should be compatible and harmonious
with adjacent dwellings.
8. Site buildings close to the street edge to help define the street edge.
9. Due to their prominence at intersections, corner lots should have a high
level of design detail.
10. Provide equal and prominent design consideration for both building
elevations on corner lots.
11. Prominent architectural elements such as balconies, wraparound porches
are encouraged.
12. Exposed elevations should include well-articulated fenestration.
4.1.2 SINGLE AND SEMI -DETACHED DWELLINGS
1. Create a consistent street wall by
designing dwellings to frame the
street edge with a consistent
setback, with front doors, windows,
and entry features facing the road.
2. Reduce the visual dominance of the
garage and front driveway through
the design of the front entrance
and architectural elements.
3. Porches, stairs, canopies, and other
entrance features are encouraged
to give prominence to the front
entrance.
4. Garages should not protrude beyond the main front wall of the dwelling
unit or front porch. Garages should generally be set behind or flush with
the main front wall or accessed from a rear lane. Where a garage
protrudes beyond the main front wall it should be flush with the porch.
Figure 11: Porches are encouraged to give
prominence to the front entrance
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
21
5. Both halves of a semi-detached
dwelling should be compatible in
terms of design expression.
Symmetrical building elevations are
encouraged. Asymmetrical
elevations may be permitted
provided it is complementary and
harmonious to the overall dwelling.
6. Both semi-detached units should be
fully attached above grade.
7. Maximize continuous green planting
areas along the street by pairing
driveways and garages to maximize
the extent of continuous green
planting area.
Figure 13: Set garages flush or behind the
main front wall to reduce visual dominance of
garages
Figure 12: Example of a dwelling with a
portico and recessed garage
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
22
4.1.3 TOWNHOUSES
1. Coordinate the siting, massing,
and façade design of townhouse
on a block-by-block basis.
2. Visually unite and articulate each
townhouse block to provide
variation between units.
3. Provide a variety in roof designs to
break up the massing of the units.
4. Use traditional gables and
dormers, or more contemporary
designs that include cantilevers
and parapet details to break up
the roof massing.
5. Where possible, the main roof
should appear as one roof and
reflect the architectural style of
the block units.
6. Blocks of attached townhouse
units shall be oriented to the
street with integrated front
garages accessed from the street.
For rear lane townhouses an
attached or detached garage will
be located at the rear of the block
and accessed from a lane.
7. Orient the main front entry to the
front lot line for interior units,
while the entry of the corner unit
is encouraged to be oriented to
the exterior lot line.
8. The massing and built form of townhouse units adjacent to single and
semi-detached dwellings shall be broken down with architectural elements
to promote visual integration.
Figure 16: Example of a rear-lane townhouse
Figure 14: Example of a rear-lane townhouse
Figure 15: Example of a back-to-back
townhouse
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
23
9. Garages should not protrude beyond the main front wall of the dwelling
unit and front garages should not exceed 50% of the width of the unit and
should be paired to allow for more substantial front yard green space.
10. Rows of street townhouses should generally be limited to a maximum of 6
units.
11. Utility meters shall be screened from public view and integrated into the
design of the units using wall recesses, enclosures, or insetting within the
building walls. Rear lane units should locate utility meters at the rear lot
line where allowed by the utility provider.
4.1.4 GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS
1. Design driveways to be
as far away from parks,
schools and open space
features, where possible.
2. The width of the
driveway should be no
larger than the interior
width of the garage.
3. Garages should not
dominate the
streetscape.
4.2 RESIDENTIAL MID -RISE
For the purposes of these guidelines a mid-rise building is defined as a building
between 4 and 6 storeys in height.
1. The Local Corridor should include the greatest heights and massing,
typically with the greatest heights at the corner of the Prominent
Intersection.
Figure 17: Reduce visual prominence of garages
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
24
2. A sun/shadow and/or wind study
may be required to demonstrate
there is no adverse impacts on
public parks, sidewalks, private
amenity spaces and adjacent
development.
3. Transition may be required such as
a local road to separate different
built form, lower heights adjacent
low rise.
4. Minimize the design of a slab
building and reduce the overall
massing with a maximum building
length of generally 60m.
5. To help mitigate overlook and
maximize sunlight to the lower levels
of the buildings, a minimum
separation distance of generally
15m is required. This space should
be void of any building projections.
6. Break up the building mass with changes in material, balconies, stepbacks
and building articulation.
7. Mid-rise apartment buildings should include a minimum 1.5m building
stepback above the 6th storey to aid with transition and prevent slab
buildings. Where a mid-rise apartment building abuts a low-rise designation
provide additional transition through increased building setbacks and
stepbacks to prevent overlook to low-rise dwellings.
8. Pair corner buildings at either side of a Prominent Intersection to create a
gateway to the community.
9. Orient visual and accessible primary building entrances to the public roads.
10. Provide a 2m to 5m private setback at grade for residential units for
pedestrian access, privacy and private amenity areas, by using screening,
hard and soft landscape treatments and grade changes within the
setbacks
Figure 18: Examples of mid-rise built form
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
25
4.3 MID -RISE MIXED USE
Figure 19: Example of built form transition for a mixed use building
1. Distinguish residential entrances
from commercial entrances,
through building design and
location.
2. At-grade retail shall be broken
down in scale and designed with a
finer grain frontage.
3. Permitted retail uses may be
developed as stand-alone
commercial development or in a
mixed use format with residential
uses above the ground floor of
commercial uses.
4. Active at-grade uses such as cafes, patios, should be provided to animate
the street and encourage pedestrian activity where appropriate.
Figure 20: Example of a live-work townhouse
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
26
5. The 1st floor of a mixed use
building should have a minimum
height of 4.5m.
6. Balconies above the 1st floor are
encouraged.
7. Temporary parking and bicycle
storage should be incorporated
into all buildings wherever
possible.
8. Parking within the Local Corridor
is encouraged to be
underground. Where
underground is not feasible
structured parking could be
acceptable. Surface parking is
the least preferred.
9. Where surface parking is
required, it shall be located at the
rear or side of the building.
10. Utility meters, air conditioning
units, and similar infrastructure
should be incorporated as part of
the building design, and be
screened and not visible from the
public realm.
11. Screen all rooftop mechanicals
and telecom infrastructure from
view with the design of the
building or parapet walls.
12. Servicing, loading and parking
access shall be accessed from
the rear or side of the building.
Figure 21: Examples of mid-rise buildings with
built from transition to the rear of the building
Figure 22: Screen rooftop equipment and utilities
from the public view
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
27
4.4 PROMINENT INTERSECTION S
1. Design Prominent
Intersections as a community
focal points.
2. Prominent Intersections will be
emphasized through building
massing, architectural
treatment and materials, street
furniture, landscaping, and
public art.
3. The intersection will be the
primary gateway to the Soper
Springs Community. Any
commercial use buildings
surrounding the Prominent
Intersections shall provide special architectural elements such as corner
design, massing and height, awnings, and entrance door features.
4. Privately-owned publicly-accessible open spaces, where provided, should
be located at the Prominent Intersection to contribute to its visual
prominence, improve the relationship of built form to the public right-of-
way, and contribute to the area’s identity.
Figure 24: Example of corner design for a Prominent Intersection
Figure 23: Prominent Intersections should include
street furniture such as bike racks, landscaping, and
high-quality streetscape materials
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
28
5 MOBILITY
5.1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
The active transportation network
consists of pedestrian, cycling and trail
networks. The Soper Springs active
transportation network provides
opportunities for the community to
access different mobility options.
Sidewalks, Trails and MUPs provide
facilities for walking, cycling and other
human powered forms of transportation.
The network will be designed to be
accessible for all ages and abilities.
5.1.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. Complimenting the road network,
the active transportation facilities
will be well connected and facilitate
permeability and connectivity both
internally and externally.
2. Ensure the network is safe and
comfortable for all users.
3. Implement wayfinding that directs
users to intersections, landmarks
and both on and off-street facilities.
4. Year-round use is encouraged
through well maintained connections for sidewalks and trails to
destinations such as parks, transit stops and commercial uses.
5. Ensure off-road trails or MUPs provide a continuous and connected
network that lead to destinations such as a transit stops or Local Corridor.
6. Mid-block pedestrian connections are encouraged for blocks longer than
250 metres.
Figure 25: Design multi-use paths in
accordance with Municipal standards
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
29
5.1.2 TRAILS
1. Trails are an important part of the active transportation network and
should be connected to sidewalks and MUPs.
2. Trails should be designed to serve all ages and abilities by minimizing
grading and sloping between development areas.
3. Trail design shall comply with AODA and Municipality of Clarington
standards.
4. Clear signage should identify shared or dedicated use and network layout
for pedestrians and/or cyclists.
5. Generally permitted adjacent to the EPA, trails should connect to parks and
the trail system to provide opportunity for passive recreation.
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
30
5.1.3 CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Offer dedicated or shared
cycling infrastructure off-road
throughout the community.
2. Cycling infrastructure shall be
designed to meet MOC design
standards.
3. Grading and sloping should be
minimized to meet accessibility
requirements and serve all
users.
4. Provide clear signage shall be
provided for all cycling routes
where applicable.
5.2 TRANSIT
1. Street design should consider
locations of transit stops and
shelters.
2. Incorporate appropriate
amenities for all transit stops,
including but not limited to
transit shelters, seating, tactile
paving, bicycle racks, and
appropriate lighting.
3. Locate transit stops near
active transportation nodes
and other focal points of the
community, including but not limited to parks and open spaces, and
building entrances of mixed use, retail and commercial developments.
4. Transit signage shall be legible and prominent. Streetscape elements such
as lighting and bike racks, should be placed near transit stops.
5. Plant shade trees near transit stops to provide relief from the sun.
6. Wayfinding and appropriate signage throughout the community will
indicate transit stops and facilities.
Figure 26: Example of a multi-use path which
includes separated lanes for pedestrians and
cyclists
Figure 27: Example of a transit shelter
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
31
5.3 ROAD TYPOLOGIES AND CROSS SECTIONS
The design of roads within the Soper Springs community shall facilitate the
movement of all users in a safe, comfortable and accessible environment. The
network of roads consists of Collector Roads and Local Roads and is bound by
Arterial Roads.
Detailed road designs are to be finalized as part of the review process in
accordance with MOC’s engineering standards. Soper Springs is surrounded by 3
Type B Arterial Roads. Cross Sections for Liberty Street and Concession Road 3,
as well as typical sections for collector and local roads are provided below.
Figure 28: Recommended 30m wide cross-section for Liberty Street North and Concession Road 3
(Cross section conceptual and NTS)
Figure 29: Recommended 23m wide collector road cross -section, prepared by TYLin (Cross section
conceptual and NTS)
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
32
Figure 30: Recommended 20m wide local road cross -section, prepared by TYLin, conceptual and
NTS
5.3.1 STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS
Primarily located on the boulevard, streetscape elements form an important part
of the open space system and refers to components of the public realm such as
street trees, landscaping, furniture, lighting, public art, and utilities. Where
possible, green infrastructure should be considered in the boulevard.
Streetscape elements help to create an attractive, cohesive and safe streetscape
within Soper Springs.
5.3.2 SIDEWALKS
1. Sidewalks must be direct and
continuous and be provided on at
least one side of the street.
2. Sidewalks shall be constructed to
municipal standards, with their width
responding to the land use context
and accessibility requirements.
3. The sidewalk network should be
designed to connect to adjoining
trails and MUPs and transit stops.
4. Connect sidewalks with other public
realm components such as parks and open spaces and tie directly with
trails.
Figure 31: Example of an urbanized
streetscape
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
33
5.3.3 STREET TREES AND PLANTING
1. Plant street trees with
sufficient soil volumes
between the curb and the
sidewalk.
2. A variety of native species
should be planted to
enhance biodiversity.
3. Generally, shade tree
varieties shall be selected
over smaller ornamental
varieties.
4. Tree species should be
selected to support the
character of distinct
neighbourhoods.
5. For mixed use developments, enhanced landscaping should be considered.
Figure 33: Example of enhanced landscaping with seating areas, planters, distinctive paving
patterns, and street trees
Figure 32: Example of boulevard planting
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
34
5.3.4 STREET LIGHTING
1. Light fixture design should support and enhance the identity of corridors
and neighbourhoods and address functional requirements.
2. Pedestrian lighting should be provided in areas with greater pedestrian
activity.
3. Pedestrian lighting may be integrated with street lighting poles or located
as stand-alone fixtures within the boulevard.
5.3.5 UTILITY PLACEMENT
1. Utilities such as gas, hydro, cable
and telecommunications should be
located underground wherever
feasible. If utilities are located
above ground, they should be
consolidated and screened from
view.
2. The location of street trees,
landscaping and furniture should
be coordinated with underground
and above-ground utilities and planned concurrently.
3. The placement of above-ground utilities shall not obstruct pedestrian
movement in the sidewalk, at intersections, view corridors, intersections, or
daylighting triangles. Where this is unavoidable, utilities should be
consolidated and screened, and public art opportunities should be
considered in discussions with appropriate utility agencies.
4. Site above-ground utilities, such as Bell DMS Units, Micro Hubs,
transformers and pedestals, to minimize their negative visual impact on the
public realm. Avoid locating them at the end of “T” intersections, view
corridors or day light triangles.
Figure 34: Utilities should be consolidated and
screened from view
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
35
6 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
6.1 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES
The Environmental Protection Area (EPA) is a key structural element of the Soper
Springs Community. The EPA will contribute to Soper Springs character.
Protection and integration are important components of the design of the
community.
6.1.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. Provide views, vistas and
connections to the EPA by orienting
streets and utilizing terminal views
at the end of prominent streets.
2. Ensure connectivity between natural
heritage features, maintaining, and
where possible improving or
restoring corridor function.
3. Consider connections, provided
through such elements as parks
and/or trails, to provide linkages
t o t h e EPA and municipal trail.
4. The preservation of existing
vegetation, particularly mature
trees, is strongly encouraged.
Figure 35: Place parks in proximity or
adjacent to EPAs
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
36
6.1.2 WOODLANDS
1. To help mitigate heat island
impacts preserve and expand
existing tree cover.
2. Help to establish local ecological
features through opportunities for
naturalized plantings and
landscape restoration.
3. Where back-lotting is required
onto woodlands, discourage direct
access from private properties.
4. Encourage access through trails to
minimize long term impact.
5. Discourage lighting near
woodlands to protect ecological
features and functions.
6.1.3 URBAN FOREST
1. Contribute to the success of the
urban forest by planting native
shade trees to help heat island
effect, sequestering greenhouse
gases, providing shade in the
summer, separating pedestrians
from vehicular traffic, and
contributing to more appealing
sidewalks and streets.
2. For singles, semis and townhouses,
provide a minimum of 1 tree per
lot; for multi-unit sites or
commercial sites, provide as many
trees as feasible, ensuring a
minimum soil volume.
Figure 36: Consider the inclusion of
boardwalks in EPAs
Figure 37: Encourage access to trails
Figure 38: Contribute to the success of the
urban forest by planting large native shade
tree to help heat island effect
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
37
3. Provide street trees on both sides
of the road in the public right-of-
way wherever possible.
4. Encourage a variety of tree
species along each road that are
non-invasive, drought and salt
tolerant, and low maintenance.
5. A double row of trees may be
used in key areas, such as
adjacent to parks and where a
wider boulevard exists.
6. For more urban and mixed use
areas, provide a minimum 30m3 of
soil volume using soil cells such
as Silva-cells, continuous planting
trenches, structural soil.
Figure 40: A double row of trees may be used in key areas, such as adjacent to parks and where a
wider boulevard exists
Figure 39: Soil cells can provide the required
soil volume for street trees in urbanized areas
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
38
6.2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
A vibrant community includes parks and open spaces that facilitate gathering
and recreation and support ecological function. The parks and open space
system includes parks, trails, stormwater management ponds and EPAs. Soper
Springs parks and open space system will be functional and safe.
6.2.1 NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS
1. Neighbourhood Parks should be
located on collector roads and
where possible adjacent to the
NHS.
2. Locate Neighbourhood Parks
within a short (400m to 800m)
walking distance of all residents
creating the opportunity for
physical activity and gathering.
3. Neighbourhood Parks between
1.5 to 3 hectares in size and
configured to accommodate
both passive and active
programming.
4. Connect parks to the trail
system.
5. Provide on-street parking
adjacent to the park.
6. Minimize back lotting and
maximize exposure to a public
street(s) through single loaded roads. Neighbourhood Parks should be
designed with a minimum 50% public road frontage.
7. Signage and tree planting should clearly define access to the park.
8. Accessible and visible bicycle parking should be located on hard surfaces
adjacent to play areas and entrances.
Figure 41: Neighbourhood Parks should
accommodate both passive and active
programming
Figure 42: Include wayfinding signage in parks
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
39
6.2.2 PARKETTES
1. Parkettes vary in size from 0.5 to 1 ha
and can be accessed by walking within
a short walking distance (400 m).
2. Parkettes should be designed with a
minimum 30% public road frontage.
The remainder is encouraged to front a
natural heritage feature.
3. Encourage safe and efficient
pedestrian circulation with pathways
within the Parkette.
4. Provide areas of seating and shade as
part of the design of the Parkette.
6.2.3 PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN
SPACES
1. Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Open
Spaces (POPS) can include highly visible
urban squares and plazas.
2. Reinforce their role in the community
open space network by locating adjacent
to key destinations and pedestrian
connections.
3. POPS should contribute to the public
realm through high quality design and
integration with the adjacent built form.
4. They should be highly visible and located
within Local Corridors at Prominent
Intersections.
Figure 43: Examples of Parkettes
Figure 44: Example of unique design
features that may be accommodated in
parks and POPS
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
40
7 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUILDINGS
7.1 ENERGY CONSERVATION
1. Consider renewable energy sources
that could be employed for the use of
solar thermal and photovoltaic
equipment, and/or wind power.
2. Enhance the use of passive buildings
systems through consideration of
building orientation to maximize the
potential for sunlight and natural
ventilation.
3. Encourage new low and medium
density residential buildings to be
Solar Ready, which includes all the
necessary piping and equipment
needed to install a rooftop solar
power system.
4. Consider designing mid-rise buildings
to reflect sunlight and absorb less
heat using cool roofs that can be
made of a highly reflective type of
paint, a sheet covering, or highly
reflective tiles or shingles. Consider
cool roofing material with a minimum
initial solar reflectance of 0.65 and
minimum thermal emittance of 0.90.
5. Mitigate heat island impacts with
consideration of paving material with
high solar reflectance, strategic use
of deciduous trees or preserve
existing trees as part of a free
cooling strategy to help with
evapotranspiration and shading of sidewalks and hard surface areas in
summer and solar access in winter.
Figure 45: Solar panels
Figure 46: White roofs help reduce the
urban heat island effect by reflecting
sunlight
Figure 47: Charging stations
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
41
6. Consider the provision of charging stations in parking areas of mixed uses,
institutional uses, or within underground garages for multi-storey
residential buildings.
7. Grade related residential unit driveways are encouraged to be paved with
light-coloured material to reduce the heat island effect.
7.2 WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT
1. Where possible implement green
infrastructure, such as bioswales,
within public parks and the public
right-of-way to enhance ground water
infiltration and improve water quality
as part of a comprehensive water
management plan.
2. Encourage the inclusion of LID
features such as bio-swales,
innovative stormwater practices,
constructed wetlands, at-source
infiltration, greywater re-use system,
and alternative filtration systems such
as treatment trains.
3. Consider the use of porous or
permeable pavement in key locations
such as on street parking and private
parking lots as part of a stormwater
run-off management strategy for
promoting groundwater infiltration
and water quality treatment.
4. Where possible, implement a rainwater
harvesting program to provide the
passive irrigation of public and/ or
private greenspace, including
absorbent landscaping, cisterns, rain
barrels, underground storage tanks,
infiltration trenches, etc.
5. Plant native, drought-tolerant plants to
conserve water and other resources
Figure 48: Bioswales help to collect runoff
after storm events
Figure 49: Example of a porous pavement
that contributes to runoff management
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
42
on a residential and community-wide level.
7.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
1. Consider implementing a
comprehensive rainwater and water
recharge strategy in conjunction with
required stormwater management
ponds.
2. Use rainwater harvesting, on-site
infiltration, and evapotranspiration to
retain stormwater on-site where possible.
3. Consider the use of a greywater
systems and rainwater harvesting for
watering lawns, gardening, to reduce
demand on potable water use.
4. Encourage minimizing the use of
hard surfaces by directing flow to
landscaped areas and to reduce the
volume of run-off into the storm
drainage system.
5. Consider the use of infiltration
trenches, dry swales and naturalized bioswales adjacent to parking areas to
improve on-site infiltration.
6. Encourage minimizing the risk of flooding by incorporating the natural
drainage pattern.
7.4 MATERIAL RESOURCES AND SOLID WASTE
1. Incorporate strategies that
emphasize targets for a higher
diversion rate in recycling for the
plan area.
2. Consider the use of
recycled/reclaimed materials for new
infrastructure including roadways,
parking lots, sidewalks, unit paving,
curbs, water retention tanks and
Figure 51: Example of a stormwater pond
with tree and shrub planting in Barrie
Figure 50: Example of a Bioswale
Figure 52: Reclaimed materials can be used
for new infrastructure such as gabion walls
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
43
vaults, stormwater management ponds, sanitary sewers, and/or water
pipes.
7.5 AIR QUALITY
1. Consider developer sponsored transit
passes to promote transit ridership.
2. Ensure the active transportation
network provides for increased
mobility choices to promote walking,
cycling and transit to aid in the
reduction of short trips by cars.
3. Consider providing Electric Vehicle
(EV) charging station rough-ins for
20% of parking spaces in multi-unit
residential buildings.
4. Consider providing EV charging
station rough-ins for 15% of parking
spaces in non-residential buildings.
5. Consider providing EV charging
stations for 5% of parking spaces in
non-residential buildings.
6. Consider providing priority parking
for carpool, ride share, low emissions
and EVs at 5% for the total parking.
7. Minimize the number of parking spaces provided, particularly in areas
served by efficient transit.
8. Consider buying local building materials and minimize the distance travelled
to reach a construction site.
7.6 LIGHTING
1. Work to eliminate light pollution on
natural areas with the installation of
Dark Sky/Nighttime Friendly
compliant light fixtures.
Figure 53: Accommodate electric vehicle
charging spots in parking lots
Figure 54: Consider including carpool
parking spots in parking lots
Figure 55: Choose light fixture that are Dark
Sky Compliant that direct light down to
minimize light spillage onto other properties
Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
44
2. Choose light fixture that direct light down to minimize light spillage onto
other properties.
3. Reduce energy use by installing high efficiency street lighting.
4. Consider opportunities for renewable energy use to reduce electric energy
supply in the public realm, such as solar powered lighting for natural trails
and park pathways.
7.7 GREEN BUILDINGS
The construction of buildings is a large contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
Any changes or improvements to where materials are sourced, the type of
materials, and construction practices will help reduce the number of emissions.
1. Encourage the construction of energy efficient buildings through third-
party accreditation such as LEED.
2. Orient buildings for opportunities for south facing windows to maximize the
potential for passive and active solar energy.
3. Minimize surface runoff and reduce urban heat island effect through the
installation of green roofs or white roofs, where possible.
7.8 STEWARDSHIP
1. Consider displaying in the sales
centre, promotional information
on the sustainable features of
both the community and builders
house designs.
2. Consider including education
packages to residents regarding
waste reduction, energy and
water efficiency, and access to
transit.
3. Design subdivision and site plans
to promote current suitability
aspects of development.
Figure 56: signage in restoration areas to
facilitate education opportunities
Amendment No. 3
to the Durham Region Official Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to remove two ‘Future Type C
Arterial’ roads from Map 3B of the Region of Durham Official Plan.
Location: The roads being amended are located within the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan, a 184-hectare area located on the north side of
Bowmanville. The Secondary Plan Area is generally bound by the
Bowmanville urban boundary to the north, Concession Road 3 to the
south, Liberty Street North to the west, and Lambs Road to the east.
Basis: Section 8.4.5 of the Durham Region Official Plan outlines the
requirements for removing an arterial road from Map 3B. To remove
an arterial road from Map 3B, construction of the road must have
been deemed unfeasible, no adverse impacts on connectivity for
transit, active transportation, or vehicular capacity due to removal,
and alternatives to the road deletion must be presented and
supported by rationale to ensure sufficient long-term connectivity.
These requirements have been addressed through the preparation of:
•A transportation memorandum by Clarington transportation
staff in support of the removal of the northern ‘Future Type C
Arterial’ road from Durham Region’s Official Plan; and
•A Transportation Assessment Report by TYLin that supports
the reclassification of the Mearns Avenue extension from a
‘Future Type C Arterial’ road to a collector road.
Actual
Amendment: Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is
shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a strike-
through.
1.Existing Region of Durham Official Plan, Map 3B Regional
Structure – Urban & Rural Systems, is amended by deleting the
two ‘Future Type C Arterial’ roads, as shown on Exhibit A attached
hereto and forming part of this Amendment.
Attachment 2 to Report PDS-026-26
Exhibit 'A', Amendment No. 3 To the Region of Durham Official Plan, Map 3b.
Remove Arterial Road
Remove Arterial Road
Attachment 3 to Report PDS-026-26
Sequence of Events
Date Events
April 23, 2018 Public Meeting Report and Council authorization to initiate
June 4, 2019 Public Information Centre #1
June 4, 2019 Steering Committee Meeting #1
March 13, 2020 Contract awarded to SGL
July 15, 2020 Steering Committee Meeting #2
December 15,
2021
Public Information Centre #2
December 15,
2021
Steering Committee Meeting #3
June 9, 2022 Steering Committee Meeting #4
June 29, 2022 Public Information Centre #3
December 6, 2023 Public Information Centre (Joint) #4
November 18,
2024
Steering Committee Meeting #5
April 24, 2025 Notice of Statutory Public Meeting sent to Interested Parties
April 24, 2025 Draft OPA and Secondary Plan materials available to the public
May 12, 2025 Statutory Public Meeting
September 26,
2025
Ongoing meetings with landowners commence
February 26, 2026 Servicing meeting with Durham Region, CLOCA, landowners,
and consultants
March 4, 2026 Transportation meeting with Durham Region, CLOCA,
landowners and consultants
April 20, 2026 Planning and Development Committee meeting and
Recommendation Report to Council
Attachment 4 to Report PDS-026-26
Summary of Technical Reports - Soper Springs Secondary Plan
Report Key Findings and Next Steps
Phase 1 Background
and Analysis
Summary Report
November 2021
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
This report provides an overview of the Phase 1
background work completed to date, including analysis of
the planning policy framework, existing landscape and
environmental conditions, agricultural context, land budget
and servicing considerations, identification of key
opportunities and constraints, and the establishment of
preliminary guiding principles to inform the Secondary
Plan.
Draft Sustainability
and Green Principles
Report
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
November 2021
This report establishes the sustainability and green
principles framework to inform the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan. It reviews applicable provincial, regional,
and municipal policy directions and aligns them with
Clarington’s sustainability objectives. Four key themes:
built environment, mobility, natural environment and open
space, and infrastructure and sustainability. These
principles are intended to support the development of a
compact, complete, and environmentally responsible
community and to guide land use planning, urban design,
and infrastructure throughout the Secondary Plan.
Draft Landscape
Analysis Report
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
November 2021
The report evaluates, describes, and interprets the existing
context, topography, natural features, and built form to help
to identify the opportunities and constraints for the
development of the Secondary Plan. The area includes
agricultural uses, natural areas, and private residential
properties. A large portion of lands are designated as EPA.
Opportunities to capitalize on the unique natural heritage of
the area as identified in the report are as follows:
1. Preserving views from high points;
2. Integrating and protecting natural features;
3. Providing public access to nature; and
4. Establishing cluster developments.
Constraints are identified as limits to developable area due
to the extensive EPA, as well as limits to road access. The
number and location of roads will need to be evaluated to
ensure minimal impact to sensitive natural heritage
features.
Draft Cultural Heritage
Resource Assessment
Study
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
May 2020
The study provides an overview of the legislative and
policy framework for cultural heritage conservation in
Ontario, outlines the methodology used to identify and
evaluate cultural heritage resources, and summarizes the
historical development and existing conditions of the study
area. Background research and field review were used to
document properties and assess potential cultural heritage
value or interest in accordance with the criteria set out in
Ontario Regulation 9/06.
The assessment identified eight existing and potential
cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to the study
area, including four potential resources within the study
area, three potential resources on adjacent lands, and one
property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act.
Recommendations to incorporate conservation policies into
the Secondary Plan and to require Heritage Impact
Assessments to avoid or mitigate potential adverse
impacts to identified cultural heritage resources are
provided in the report.
Draft Stage 1
Archaeological
Assessment
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
October 2020
The objective of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment
was to compile available information about known and
potential archaeological resources within the study area
and to determine the need for Stage 2 archaeological
assessment.
A review of registered archaeological sites identified twelve
sites within a 1 km radius of the study area, seven of which
are located within the study area. Approximately 59% of
the study area has been subject to previous Stage 1 and 2
archaeological assessments and is considered cleared of
archaeological potential, with no further assessment
recommended for these lands. The remaining lands,
comprising approximately 41% of the study area, retain
archaeological potential and are recommended for Stage 2
archaeological assessment prior to ground disturbance.
One Euro-Canadian archaeological site within the study
area has been identified as requiring Stage 3
archaeological assessment, while previously identified
sites that have since undergone Stage 3 investigation have
been cleared of further archaeological concern.
Alternative Land Use
Plan Report
Prepared by Prepared
by SGL Planning &
Design Inc.
October 2022
Phase 1 studies to achieve a compact, walkable, and
sustainable community that integrates housing, parks,
trails, and mixed-use development while protecting
Environmental Protection Areas and cultural heritage
resources.
Phase 2 Summary
Report
Prepared by Prepared
by SGL Planning &
Design Inc.
December 2022
supports a compact, walkable, and sustainable community
that integrates residential development with parks, trails,
neighbourhood-scale commercial uses, and strong
connections to surrounding Environmental Protection
Areas, while accommodating infrastructure, servicing, and
transportation requirements. The assessment concludes
that a preferred plan should draw from the best elements of
all three alternatives to balance density, access to
amenities, environmental protection, and mobility.
Summary of key policy directions:
•Concentrate higher-density and mixed-use
development along the Local Corridor on
Concession Road 3 to support transit use and active
transportation.
•Provide a diverse mix of housing types and
densities to accommodate a range of ages,
household types, and affordability needs.
•Protect, enhance, and integrate Environmental
Protection Areas by limiting development, providing
appropriate buffers, and establishing connected trail
systems.
•Design a connected, walkable street and trail
network that prioritizes pedestrians and cyclists
while maintaining efficient vehicle and transit
movement.
•Locate parks, open spaces, and neighbourhood
amenities so they are centrally accessible and within
walkable distances for residents.
•Minimize impacts of roads, servicing, and utilities on
natural heritage features through careful alignment,
phasing, and design.
•Implement sustainable servicing, stormwater
management, and low-impact development
measures in line with subwatershed study
•Conserve and appropriately integrate identified
cultural heritage and archaeological resources
through Secondary Plan policies.
Draft Preliminary
Municipal Engineering
Report
Prepared by T.Y. Lin
International Canada
Inc.
April 2026
An analysis of servicing needs has been completed
through a Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report
(PMER). The PMER is informed by earlier findings from a
draft Functional Servicing Report prepared in October
2024.
The PMER provides flexibility in servicing strategies that
may be identified during the site plan process. This
approach supports the development of servicing policies
for the Secondary Plan while offering a more streamlined
alternative to a full Functional Servicing Report.
The findings and recommendations of the PMER are
expected to be refined through additional, more detailed
site-specific studies, including a future Master Drainage
Plan for the entire Secondary Plan area.
Draft Transportation
Assessment Report
Prepared by T.Y. Lin
International Canada
Inc.
April 2026
A Transportation Assessment Report has been completed
to support the development of a preferred road network for
the Secondary Plan. The report informs the understanding
of how build-out of the Secondary Plan area affects future
traffic trends.
Road network improvements are recommended within the
study area. To maintain acceptable traffic operations, the
intersection of Concession Road 3 and Mearns Avenue is
recommended to be upgraded to an all-way stop.
Additional left-turn lanes are also recommended in both the
northbound and southbound directions at this intersection.
Increased turning movements associated with access to
the Secondary Plan area are expected to result in delays,
requiring sufficient turn-lane storage capacity.
The remaining internal road network is recommended to be
designed with a two-lane cross-section, consisting of one
lane in each direction, with the exception of the Liberty
Street North and Road B intersection, where an additional
left-turn lane is recommended to provide adequate
turn-lane storage.
The community is expected to be designed with
accessible, separated, and connected pedestrian and
cycling facilities to support and promote active
transportation.
Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study
Phase 1 Report
Prepared by Aquafor
Beech
May 2023
establishes the environmental baseline for areas affected
by future development, including the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan. It identifies and maps natural heritage
features, hydrologic systems, ecological linkages, and
environmental constraints, and confirms that these features
will play a significant role in shaping land use planning and
infrastructure design. The findings provide the foundational
environmental information needed to guide Secondary
Plan policies, land use concepts, and future mitigation and
management strategies.
The results of Phase 1 will inform the preparation and
evaluation of land use concepts for the Soper Springs
Draft Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study
Phase 2/3 Report
Prepared by Aquafor
Beech
October 2024
build on the environmental baseline established in Phase 1
by evaluating development impacts and identifying
strategies to protect, enhance, and restore watershed
functions as growth occurs.
Phase 2 assesses alternative stormwater management
and subwatershed management approaches, including low
impact development measures, natural channel design,
and restoration opportunities, to mitigate impacts
associated with future land use changes.
Phase 3 establishes an implementation and monitoring
framework, including performance targets and adaptive
management measures, to ensure long-term watershed
health.
The report informs the development of Secondary Plan
policies by identifying stormwater management
approaches, environmental protection measures, and
implementation considerations to be addressed through
future site-specific studies.
Page 1 of 75
Public Comment Summary Table
S-1 Gary
Zubatiuk
of my driveway as it is with the traffic so heavy from 2:30pm to 6pm
adding more homes on Liberty N. is going to compound this problem
Secondary plan will be studied in the
Traffic Assessment Report.
Ryan Guetter (Weston Consulting) on behalf of the Soper
Springs Landowner Group
Submission: May 30th th
On street parking on collector or local roads adjacent to the retail and
service commercial uses shall be encouraged.
We support the Municipality’s response that on street parking is
permitted on all local and collector roads, as outlined in new Policy
9.4.3. Municipality to confirm this new policy mentioned is added into
the latest text, and there is no requirement for retail and service uses
parking on collector or local roads
adjacent to the retail uses, service
uses and office uses shall be
encouraged. On-street parking is not
permitted along Liberty Street North.”
The Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
contain a Demonstration Plan which illustrates the planning
principles that are inherent to the Secondary Plan. It is one example
of how the Secondary Plan might be implemented within the
Secondary Plan area.
We support policy 5.1.8 as revised. In addition, we request that the
below policy be included for further clarity on the Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines:
“The Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines,
including the Demonstration Plan, are contained as Appendix 1 to
this Secondary Plan but are not considered policy. The Urban
Design and Sustainability Guidelines are to be used as guidance in
Policy 5.1.7 added “The Soper Springs
Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines contain a Demonstration
Plan, which illustrates the planning
principles that are inherent to the
Secondary Plan. This Demonstration
Plan is one example of how the
Secondary Plan might be implemented
within the Secondary Plan Area and
does not preclude other plans
demonstrating how the secondary plan
may be implemented.”
Attachment 5 to Report PDS-026-26
Page 2 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-2 Section
5.4.10
Air conditioning units, utility metres and similar features should not
be visible from the public realm (street/sidewalk) and should be well
integrated into a building massing, recessed or screened.
We support policy 5.4.10 as revised with the addition of “or” as noted
above.
Revised as requested.
S-2 Section 5.6.6
envelope, where appropriate.
recycling facilities shall be integrated
within the building envelope where
Section 6.2.2 shall form the basis for any study undertaken regarding the natural
heritage system and natural hazards. More detailed studies and
staking of natural features and natural hazards including flooding and
erosion may refine and/or confirm development limits as well as the
presence of features on a site by site basis based on the
recommendations from the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study;
however, the more detailed studies must address the matters raised
by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
We support policy 6.2.2 as it has been revised to include language
that speaks to further assessment for refining and confirming
development limits and features. However, we request that in the
event that site-specific assessment addresses the concerns of the
Subwatershed Study, the site-specific assessment should prevail
and not require amendment to the plan. Additionally, staking of
features shall only be required as outlined or set out as required in
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
addition to these policies, the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study shall form
the basis for any study undertaken
with respect to the natural heritage
system and natural hazards. Site-
specific studies may refine and/or
confirm development limits and the
presence and boundaries of natural
heritage features, provided that the
general direction and
recommendations of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study are maintained,
except for recommendations in the
Subwatershed Study related to natural
feature boundaries.”
6.3.6 states “The boundary of lands
designated as Environmental
Protection Area on Schedule A are
approximate and shall be refined
Page 3 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
as part of the review of development
applications in accordance with the
policies of this Secondary Plan and the
Clarington Official Plan without
amendment to this Secondary Plan.”
& 6.3.3
6.3.2 Environmental Protection Areas include natural heritage
features, hydrologically sensitive features, lands within the regulatory
flood plain of a watercourse, headwater drainage features with a
“Protection” classification and hazard lands associated with valley
systems, including slope and erosion hazards. Areas associated with
Environmental Protection Areas support their ecological integrity and
include vegetation protection zones and other natural heritage areas.
6.3.3 The Vegetation protection zone is currently not designated as
part of the Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A. However,
once the Vegetation Protection Zone is determined through site
specific study, it will be considered part of the Environmental
Protection Area once delineated. The boundary of the Vegetation
protection zone is flexible and is not considered a separate
designation apart from the Environmental Protection Area
designation.
We generally support this updated policy, subject to seeing the final
language, with the expectation that the boundary of the feature will
are not appropriate as the boundary of
the Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ)
is not flexible and is at minimum 15m
wide. Policy 6.3.3 states that a site-
specific study is required to confirm
boundaries.
Section 6.3.5
The delineation of the boundary of lands designated as
Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A are approximate and
shall be detailed through appropriate studies prepared as part of the
review of development applications in accordance with the policies of
this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan.
We support the above policy as it has been revised to include
by “delineation of EPA is not
automatic”.
Page 4 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
findings of the appropriate studies. However, we would like to
recommend that the policy be revised to note that the delineation of
The delineation of the boundary of lands designated as
Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A are approximate and
shall be detailed through site-specific studies prepared as part of the
review of development applications in accordance with the policies of
this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan.
We support policy 6.3.5 as the request language has been noted by
the Municipality to be included. In addition, we request that the below
policy be included in the Secondary Plan for refinements relating to
boundaries of natural heritage features.
“Where an Environmental Impact Study or other site-specific study
required as part of development proposals adjacent to a natural
heritage feature results in refinements to the boundaries of the
natural heritage feature or its related vegetation protection zone,
such refinements shall not require an amendment to the Clarington
Revised Policy 6.3.6 states: “The
boundary of lands designated as
Environmental Protection Area on
Schedule A are approximate and shall
be refined through site specific studies
prepared as part of the review of
development applications in
accordance with the policies of this
Secondary Plan and the Clarington
Official Plan without amendment to this
Secondary Plan.”
Section 6.5.3 represent those lands identified in the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study as ‘Moderate Constraint’. The lands may include features such
as linkage areas, Headwater drainage features with a conservation
or mitigation, agricultural lands displaying evidence of hydrologic
features. An Environmental Impact Study prepared in support of a
development application shall determine the extent of the features
and function to be protected from development, including the
identification of the requisite vegetation protection zone.
We support policy 6.5.3, with the removal of the sentence above and
the addition that “Modifications to a Moderate Constraint overlay will
identified as Moderate Constraint Area
Overlay in the Subwatershed Study.
As such, the policy provides important
understanding of why the lands are
delineated as Moderate Constraint.
Page 5 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-2 Section 6.5.3 Environmental Constraint: Moderate Constraint Area Overlay
represent those lands identified in the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study as ‘Moderate Constraint’. The lands may include features such
as linkage areas, Headwater drainage features with a conservation
or mitigation, agricultural lands displaying evidence of hydrologic
features. An Environmental Impact Study prepared in support of a
development application shall determine the presence of or extent of
the features and function to be protected from development,
including the identification of the requisite vegetation protection zone.
Modifications to a Moderate Constraint overlay will not require an
amendment to this Plan.
We support policy 6.5.3 as revised and request that policy is made
clear that an amendment will not be required. A moderate constraint
is not the same as EPA. We recommend that this additional text be
included to provide certainty that moderate constraints can be
development may be permitted within
an Environmental Constraint Overlay
without amendment to this Plan.
Section 6.5.5
Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay
represent areas providing candidate and / or unconfirmed significant
wildlife habitat or potential wildlife linkages identified in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study. An environmental impact study
prepared in support of development applications shall confirm the
presence or absence of the habitat and /or linkage and the extent of
sensitivity of the habitat, in accordance with the policies of the
Official Plan to the satisfaction of the municipality and appropriate
agencies.
We support policy 6.5.5, and request the removal of the language
Reference to “appropriate agencies”
deleted but the environmental impact
study must be to the satisfaction of the
Municipality.
Section 6.5.9
Following the completion of the required studies to the satisfaction of
the Municipality, development may be permitted in the Environmental
Constraint Overlays as deemed appropriate by the study, without
amendment to this Plan, and the underlying land use designation in
There is no policy requirement stating
that the lands are to be dedicated but
Policy 6.3.7 states “may” be dedicated.
Page 6 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Constraint Overlay is determined not to be appropriate, or the limits
of the Vegetation Protection Zone is confirmed, the Environmental
Constraint Overlay will be deemed to
part of the Environmental Protection Area designation.
We support policy 6.5.9, so long as the Environmental Protection
Area designation does not require dedication of the EPA lands to the
11.3.2
Stormwater management facilities shown on Schedule A are
illustrative and final location and sizing shall be determined through
the development application process.
We support policy 11.3.2 with the addition of “An amendment to the
Secondary Plan is not required for changes to the location of
stormwater management facilities.”
stormwater management ponds should
be located in Low Density Residential
designations. Stormwater
management facilities shown on
Schedule A are illustrative and final
location and sizing shall be confirmed
by a Master Drainage Plan and
Stormwater Management Reports
submitted with development
applications. An amendment to the
Secondary Plan is not required for
changes to the location of stormwater
management facilities.”
Section 12.1.2
As part of a complete application the following information is
required:
i. Net residential density by land use designation;
ii. Identification of total square footage of non-residential land uses;
iii. Number and type of units by land use designation;
iv. Total residential unit count; and
v. Estimated population;
vi. Amount/type of non-residential space and number of jobs; and
vii. The number of purpose built additional dwelling units by land use
designation.
development application for residential
developments the following information
is required for the subject application:
a) Net residential density by land
use designation;
b) Identification of total square
metres of non-residential land uses;
c) Number and type of units by
land use designation;
Page 7 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We support policy 12.1.2, so long as this information is not required
for the entire Secondary Plan, but only for the area included in the
respective complete application.
e) Estimated population;
f) Amount/type of non-residential
space and number of jobs; and
g) The number of purpose-built
additional dwelling units and affordable
housing units by land use designation.
The required information only applies
to the application.
Protect and, where possible, enhance significant natural features
within and adjacent to Environmental Protection Areas (EPA) based
on the recommendations from the subwatershed study.
We request that the above modification be made to policy 2.2.3 as
A Prominent Intersection is located at Liberty Street and Concession
Road 3 and at the intersection of the Mearns Avenue extension and
a second collector road internal to the secondary plan area.
In regards to the above policy, we request that the policy be modified
to indicate the conceptual nature of the Mearns Avenue extension
and the second collector road as these are not fixed locations.
No change. While the exact alignment
may be refined through the EA and
subdivision process, the intersection
remains conceptually identified
A Prominent Intersection is located at Liberty Street and Concession
Road 3 and at the intersection of the conceptual Mearns Avenue
extension and a second collector road internal to the secondary plan
area.
We request that the policy be revised to include the above policy
extension shown on the secondary
plan has the same status as any other
road shown in an OP or Secondary
Plan that is subject to the Class EA
Parks shall be located to achieve a number of objectives:
create larger open spaces and realize co-benefits in terms of
amenities by locating adjacent to other outdoor civic uses like
Section 3.4.3 is now 3.6.2
Policy 3.6.2 revised to “ensure that the
Page 8 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
neighbourhoods being served by the park;
i. ensure that the entire community has good access to parks within
a short walking distance of their homes; and
ii. ensure good access and visibility from public streets.
In regards to policy 3.4.3, we recommend combining ii) and iii) into
of their homes”.
b) Parks shall be located to achieve a number of objectives:
i)create larger open spaces and realize co-benefits in terms of
amenities by locating adjacent to other outdoor civic uses like
stormwater management ponds provided they are central to the
neighbourhoods being served by the park;
ii) ensure that the entire community has good access to parks within
a short walking distance of their homes; and
iii)ensure good access and visibility from public streets.
We support the Municipality’s agreement to revert to the original
policy as noted above but request to see the final text to confirm the
revised to “ensure that the entire
community has good access to parks
within a short walking distance of their
homes”.
Stormwater Management Ponds
Where appropriate, stormwater management ponds will be treated
as public assets and part of the parks and open space system. Their
amenity and ecological value will be realized as:
a) areas of passive recreation through the inclusion of paths and
trails;
In addition to the above policy, we recommend that the below policy
be included in the Secondary Plan:
“Stormwater ponds will not be included in parkland dedication until
the Planning Act prescribes regulations for acceptance of strata or
No change. Stormwater ponds will not
be included towards dedication under
the Planning Act. It is very common in
Ontario to have trails around
stormwater management ponds,
typically following the access roads for
maintenance of the storm ponds.
ensure that the entire community is within a short walking distance of
their homes.
Page 9 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We do not support the changes to policy 3.4.6, we request that this
be revised to the previous policy version as noted below:
“3.4.6 b) ensure that the entire community has good access to parks
to parks is within a short walking
distance of their homes”.
Drive-through facilities are not a permitted use in any land use
designation.
In regards to policy 4.2.4, we request that the policy be revised to
In regards to policy 4.2.5, we request that the policy be revised to
Permitted dwelling types shall include:
a. Apartment buildings;
b. Townhouses;
c. Stacked townhouses;
d. Back to back townhouses;
e. Dwelling units within a mixed use building;
f. Retail and service commercial uses; and
g. Other dwelling types that provide housing at the same or higher
densities as those above.
In regards to the above, we request clarification as to the removal of
“Additional Dwelling Units” in this policy. We request that this
amended to include ADUs, no need to
add it here.
The implementing zoning by-law shall identify lands within the
designation where ground floor retail and service commercial uses
shall be required in mixed use buildings.
In regards to the above, we request that this policy be revised so as
change only applies where a mixed-
use building is proposed.
Page 10 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
instead
that they be permitted uses not mandatory uses.
S-2 Section 4.4.3 Permitted dwelling types shall include:
a) Townhouses;
b) Stacked townhouses;
c) Back to back townhouses;
d) Apartments; and
e) Other dwelling types that provide housing at the same or higher
densities as those above.
We request that the Medium Density Residential designation permit
semi-detached dwellings. It is recognized that these will not be the
predominant housing form in the designation, but flexibility is desired
to enable varied housing types more broadly. In addition, we request
clarification for the removal of “Additional Dwelling Units” in this
policy. We request that this dwelling type be included in the
should remain in a low- density area
only.
See above ADU comment.
Buildings within the Medium Density Residential designation shall
not exceed 4 storeys in height. Lands located on Liberty Street North
with the Medium Density Residential designation shall not exceed 6
storeys in height.
We request that policy 4.4.8 be revised as noted above to include
permission of heights up to 6 storeys with the Medium Density
Residential designation on Liberty Street North. We understand that
this was already agreed to by the Municipality. In addition, it is
recognized that the recent development approval at the intersection
of Mearns Avenue and Concession Road 3 provides context for
additional density of 12 storeys in the Medium Density Residential
designation, and we look forward to discuss the merits of the above
policy modifications and potential additional height in our upcoming
Street North, with an additional 2
storeys permitted if affordable housing
is provided. 12 storeys is not
appropriate for this area.
Development within the Medium Density Residential designation
shall have a minimum site density of 45 units per net hectare.
Page 11 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We request that policy 4.4.10 be revised to include the above
density of 45 units per net hectare”.
4.4.12
A minimum building height of 3 storeys is required adjacent to the
Prominent Intersection.
In regards to policy 4.4.12, we request that the minimum building
height be revised to 3 storeys to allow for flexibility in built form while
The following residential building types are permitted:
a) Detached dwellings;
b) Semi-detached dwellings;
c) Townhouses;
d) Stacked townhouses;
e) Back-to-back townhouses;
f) Apartments; and
We request clarification as to the removal of “Additional Dwelling
Units” in this policy. We request that this dwelling type be permitted
ADUs, no need to add it here.
Detached and semi-detached dwelling units shall account for a
minimum of 80 percent of the total number of units in the Low
Density Residential designation, with various forms of townhouses
and low rise apartments accounting for the remainder.
We request that policy 4.5.3 be revised to remove the minimum
percentage or lower the 80 percent requirement to enable and
ensure flexibility of typology within the Low Density Residential
designation. based on market demand. We recommend revising this
Council direction for low density areas.
Buildings within the Low Density Residential designation shall not
exceed 3 storeys in height.
Page 12 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-2 Section 4.5.7 Development on lands designated Low Density Residential shall
have a minimum density of 20 units per net hectare.
We request that policy 4.5.7 be revised to a minimum of 13 units per
lands designated Low Density
Residential shall have a minimum
density of 13 units per net hectare”.
the Urban Design Guidelines are not policies and recommend the
below policy be included for further clarity:
“The Soper Springs Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines,
including the Demonstration Plan, are contained as Appendix 1 to
this Secondary Plan but are not considered policy. The Urban
Design and Sustainability Guidelines are to be used as guidance in
the interpretation and implementation of this Plan’s policies.”
Policy 5.1.1 revised to “The Soper
Springs community shall be developed
in accordance with the urban design
policies of Section 5 of the Official Plan
additional policies of this section, and
the Soper Springs Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines. The Soper
Springs Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines provide
guidance on the implementation of the
Secondary Plan but should not be
The network of streets shall be supplemented by mid-block
pedestrian connections to break up long blocks (generally blocks
longer than 250 metres) and to further enhance the pedestrian
permeability of the area and provide access to transit.
In regards to policy 5.1.3, we request that mid-block pedestrian
connections be considered eligible for parkland dedication under the
Planning Act. Alternatively, the owners request that the Municipality
provide compensation for the land considered for the mid-block
considered parkland and should not be
accounted as parkland dedication.
The network of streets may be supplemented by mid-block
pedestrian connections to break up long blocks (generally blocks
longer than 250 metres) and to further enhance the pedestrian
permeability of the area and provide access to transit.
‘should’, allowing flexibility while
maintaining the Municipality’s intent to
reduce long block lengths.
Connections may be achieved through
sidewalks, trails, or dedicated ‑
Page 13 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
In regards to policy 5.1.3, we request that the above language
modifications to allow mid-block pedestrian connections to be flexible
The Demonstration Plan illustrates the planning principles that are
inherent to the Secondary Plan. It is one example of how the
Secondary Plan might be implemented within the Secondary Plan
area. The Demonstration Plan is conceptual and an Official Plan
amendment is not required to implement an alternative plan.
In regards to policy 5.1.7, we request that the above language be
included.
The demonstration plan is part of the
Guidelines not part of the Secondary
Plan as such there is no requirement
for an OPA.
The policy is revised as follows to
clarify it is part of the Guidelines: “The
Soper Springs Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines contain a
Demonstration Plan which illustrates
the planning principles that are
inherent to the Secondary Plan. This
Demonstration Plan is one example of
how the Secondary Plan might be
implemented within the Secondary
Plan area and does not preclude other
plans demonstrating how the
A dense tree canopy should be provided along public streets in the
road allowance to enhance the pedestrian experience of the
community.
In regards to policy 5.2.2, we request that the above language be
coverage should be maximized to
create comfortable walking
environments for pedestrians and to
enhance the pedestrian experience of
Privately owned publicly accessible plazas shall be located at
Prominent Intersections to contribute to their visual prominence,
reinforce their role as community focal points, improve the
relationship of built form to the public right- of- way, and contribute to
the area’s identity. Alternative locations that provide a similar level of
amenity may be considered to satisfy this requirement.
No change. Privately owned publicly
accessible plazas are not exclusively
required within or adjacent to retail
uses. POPS may be provided within or
adjacent to residential buildings.
Page 14 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We request that this entire section be removed as retail is not a
requirement for Prominent Intersections.
S-2 Section 5.3.2 Privately owned publicly accessible plazas, if provided, should be
located at Prominent Intersections to contribute to their visual
prominence, reinforce their role as community focal points, improve
the relationship of built form to the public right- of- way, and
contribute to the area’s identity. Alternative locations that provide a
similar level of amenity may be considered to satisfy this
requirement.
We request that policy 5.3.2 be revised per the above language
modifications to make it clear that the privately owned publicly
accessible plazas are not mandatory.
Policy 5.3.3 revised to: “Privately
owned publicly accessible open
spaces may be located at Prominent
Intersections to contribute to their
visual prominence, reinforce their role
as community focal points, improve the
relationship of built form to the public
right- of- way, and contribute to the
area’s identity. Alternative locations
that provide a similar level of amenity
may be considered to satisfy this
Mid-rise buildings should have a clear base, middle and top to
provide articulation and high quality design.
In regards to policy 5.4.2, we request that Mid-Rise be revised as
A building stepback shall be provided above the third storey for mid-
rise buildings.
In regards to policy 5.4.3, the Municipality noted that they review this
and respond. We kindly request that an update be provided on this
Springs Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines and the
implementing zoning by-law shall
provide direction on building stepbacks
Development shall provide a transition between areas of different
heights and density within the Secondary Plan area and to the areas
and uses outside its boundaries through separation, step-backs and
intervening land uses.
In regards to policy 5.4.4, we request that the above language be
removed as it is too prescriptive and specific and there may be other
ways to address transition.
Policy 5.4.3 revised to say
“Development shall provide a transition
between areas of different heights and
density within the Secondary Plan
Area through separation, step-backs,
and intervening land uses, intervening
local roads or other similar means”.
This text provides examples on how
Page 15 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-2 Section 5.4.7 Townhouses shall generally not comprise more than 6 attached
units.
We request that consideration be made for 8 attached units. In the
Town of Whitby, site-specific application official plan amendment
was approved for blocks of 8 attached units. Please see the attached
Site Plan in Appendix 1.
Policy 5.4.6 revised to change
“Townhouses” to “Street townhouses”.
OP policy 9.4.5 h) and i) directs that
street townhouse blocks shall
generally not exceed 50 units and shall
generally not compromise more than 6
attached units. Guideline 4.1.3.10 also
direct that townhouses should not be
5.4.10
Air conditioning units, utility metres and similar features should not
be visible from the public realm (street/sidewalk) and should be well
integrated into a building massing, recessed and screened, where
appropriate.
We request that policy 5.4.10 be revised to include the above
language.
Policy revised to: “Air conditioning
units, utility metres and similar features
should not be visible from the public
realm (street/sidewalk) and should be
well integrated into a building massing,
recessed or screened”.
level of pedestrian activity and include wider sidewalks and street
furniture.
In regards to policy 5.5.2, we request that the above language be
activity should be supported with wider
sidewalks and street furniture for
pedestrian comfort.
The public realm adjacent to mixed use buildings will support a high
level of pedestrian activity and may include wider sidewalks and
street furniture.
Ground floor non-residential uses should have a floor-to-floor height
of approximately 3.5 4.5 metres in support of larger display windows
and signage area as well as providing opportunities for awnings,
lighting, and other facade enhancements.
We request that the approximate height be revised to 3.5 metres in
Policy has been deleted.
Page 16 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
order to provide non-residential uses with additional flexibility for
design and function. This would not preclude higher heights where
Parking, Servicing and Loading
New policy under Section 5.6: The Municipality may consider in the
Zoning By-law reduced parking standards where the land use
density and built form supports active transportation and public
transit. The required parking ratios for the lands within the Secondary
Plan are to be addressed in the Secondary Plan Area’s Zoning By-
law.
We request to mention that it was agreed with the Municipality that
parking ratios would be dealt with at a later phase beyond the Draft
Secondary Plan text. We request this is added into the Secondary
may consider in the Zoning By-law
reduced parking standards where the
land use density and built form
supports active transportation and
public transit”. The second sentence is
not necessary.
The visual impact of garages in Low Density Residential areas
should be reduced by:
a) Encouraging parking via laneways, where possible;
b) Recessing garages located at the front of the building facing a
street;
c) Limiting driveways widths so that they do not exceed the width of
the garage, where appropriate; and
d) Minimizing the garages’ appearance and area on a building
façade so that windows, doors, and active elements of a residential
building’s façade take visual primacy, where appropriate.
In regards to policy 5.6.3, we request that the policy be revised to
and by adding an additional broader
criteria “e) Other similar means to
reduce the visual impact of garages to
the satisfaction of the municipality.”
The visual impact of garage doors to below-grade structured parking
should be minimized by locating them discreetly away from main
pedestrian entrances and primary frontages, and where feasible,
accessed from a lane.
garage doors to below-grade
structured parking should be
minimized by such design actions as
locating them discreetly away from
Page 17 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
primary frontages, where feasible,
accessed from a lane; and / or
Above-grade structured parking adjacent to a public street(s) shall be
lined with retail and commercial uses with direct access to the public
street(s).
In regards to 5.6.8, we request that this policy be removed entirely as
retail and commercial uses are not mandatory.
Policy revised to provide a broader
range of uses: “Above-grade
structured parking adjacent to a public
street(s) shall be lined with residential
and/ or non-residential uses”.
In addition to these policies, the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
shall form the basis for any study undertaken regarding the natural
heritage system and natural hazards. More Detailed Site-specific
studies and staking of natural features and natural hazards including
flooding and erosion may refine and/or confirm development limits as
well as the presence of features on a site by site basis based on the
recommendations from the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study;
however, the more detailed studies must address the matters raised
by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
In regards to policy 6.2.2, we request that the above language be
revised as indicated.
Policy revised to: “In addition to these
policies, the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study shall form the
basis for any study undertaken with
respect to the natural heritage system
and natural hazards. Site-specific
studies may refine and/or confirm
development limits and the presence
and boundaries of natural heritage
features, provided that the general
direction and recommendations of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study are
maintained, except for
recommendations in the
Subwatershed Study related to natural
Environmental Protection Areas include natural heritage features,
hydrologically sensitive features, lands within the regulatory flood
plain of a watercourse, headwater drainage features with a
“Protection” classification and hazard lands associated with valley
systems, including slope and erosion hazards. Areas associated with
Environmental Protection Areas support their ecological integrity and
include vegetation protection zones and other natural heritage areas.
Policy revised to delete the last
sentence as requested.
Policy 6.3.3 added to confirm the
intent of the VPZ:
“The Vegetation protection zone is
currently not designated as part of the
Page 18 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Protection Area once delineated.
In regards to policy 6.3.2, we request that the above language be
removed.
Schedule A. However, once the
Vegetation Protection Zone is
determined through site specific study,
it will be considered part of the
Environmental Protection Area and
Stormwater management ponds, except for the outfall, shall
generally not be permitted to be developed in lands designated
Environmental Protection Area but may be permitted or within the
vegetation protection zones to an Environmental Protection Area.
In regards to policy 6.3.3, we request that stormwater management
ponds be considered conceptual in the Secondary Plan and that the
vegetation protection zones permit stormwater management ponds.
In addition, servicing should be a consideration in determining the
stormwater management pond locations. We request that
stormwater ponds be permitted on EPA lands subject to further
studies.
Alternatively, we request that the policy state “generally not
ponds are shown with a symbol dot on
the Plan so it is granted that they are
conceptual. In addition, Policy 11.3.2
says that they “are illustrative and final
location and sizing shall be determined
through the development application
process”. Stormwater ponds are not
permitted in the EPA except for outfalls
and LIDs. LID’s are address in Policy
6.3.4
Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A are approximate and
shall be detailed through appropriate site-specific studies prepared
as part of the review of development applications in accordance with
the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan.
In regards to policy 6.3.5, we request that the requirement to
delineate the boundary of the lands designated as Environmental
Protection Area to be determined through the Draft Plan application
process, and not a requirement of the Secondary Plan. In addition,
The delineation of the boundary of lands designated as
Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A are approximate and
Page 19 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
shall be detailed through site specific appropriate studies prepared
as part of the review of Draft Plan development applications. in
accordance with the policies of this Secondary Plan and Clarington
Official Plan.
In regards to policy 6.3.5, we request the above modifications.
Protection Area on Schedule A are
approximate and shall be refined
through site specific studies prepared
as part of the review of development
applications in accordance with the
policies of this Secondary Plan and the
Clarington Official Plan without
The Municipality may require Environmental Protection Areas to be
conveyed to a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the
development approval process at minimal or no cost to the receiving
public authority. Conveyance of lands designated Environmental
Protection Area and associated vegetation protection zones shall not
be considered as contributions towards the parkland dedication
requirements under the Planning Act.
In regards to policy 6.3.6, we request that associated vegetation
protection zones not be excluded in the parkland dedication
contribution. In addition, we request that the Environmental
Protection Area lands not be necessary to be conveyed, but can be
held in private ownership.
No change. The policy states the
Municipality “may require”. In addition,
Section 10 of the parkland dedication
by-law states: The Municipality shall
not accept any natural heritage
system, minimum vegetation
protection areas, regulatory shoreline,
flood susceptible lands or lands with
hazardous characteristics in fulfilment
of the land conveyance requirements
of this by-law.
The Municipality may require Environmental Protection Areas to be
conveyed to a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the
development approval process at minimal or no cost to the receiving
public authority. Conveyance of lands designated Environmental
Protection Area and associated vegetation protection zones shall not
be considered as contributions towards the parkland dedication
requirements under the Planning Act. It is recognized that EPA lands
may not be appropriate to be conveyed in all circumstances and no
conveyance shall be required for small scale developments,
severances or for lot patterns that provide unique relationships to
adjacent to the environmental features.
Policy 6.3.7 revised to include
“Conveyance may not be appropriate
in all circumstances.”
Page 20 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
In regards to policy 6.3.6, we request that it be revised to include
language regarding parks within the Environmental Protection Areas.
S-2 Section 6.3.8 The Soper Creek Subwatershed Study identified and assessed a
number of Headwater Drainage Features. Those identified in the
Subwatershed Study as “protection” are included in the
Environmental Protection Area designation and are to be protected
in situ, unless demonstrated otherwise by further site-specific
environmental studies.
In regards to the above, we request that the Headwater Drainage
Features be allowed to be relocated based on site-specific
assessments. Additionally, we request the inclusion of the language
For those Headwater Drainage Features identified in the
Subwatershed Study as “conservation” and located outside of an
Environmental Protection Area designation, applications for
development shall:
a) Maintain and enhance or relocate and enhance drainage features
and its riparian corridor;
b) If catchment drainage has been previously removed or will be
removed due to diversion of stormwater flows, restore lost functions
through enhanced lot level controls (i.e., restore original catchment
using clean roof drainage), as feasible;
c) Maintain or replace on-site flows using mitigation measures and/or
wetland creation, if necessary;
d) Maintain or replace external flows;
e) Use natural channel design techniques to maintain or enhance the
overall productivity of the reach;
f) Ensure that the drainage feature is connected to downstream; and
g) Apply an appropriate vegetation protect zone to either side of the
drainage feature.
In regards to the above policy, as the sections listed are already
direction to include in the Secondary
Plan.
Page 21 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
removed as the Subwatershed Study will prevail in relation to natural
heritage, particularly for Headwater Drainage Features.
S-2 Section
6.3.10
Headwater Drainage Features that have been relocated and the
associated riparian corridors established by permissions in policy
6.3.8 shall be designated Environmental Protection Area and shall
be zoned appropriately to prohibit development.
In regards to the above, as this is already included in the
Subwatershed Study, we request that this be removed as the
does not address designation or
zoning. This is important policy
direction to include in the Secondary
Plan.
Land Use to be Determined is a land use designation shown on
Schedules A and B. These lands require further analysis to
determine if development can be permitted and is feasible. These
lands are identified as Environmental Protection Area in the Official
Plan. These lands were not identified as part of the Natural Heritage
System in the Soper Creek Subwatershed study; however, the lands
were identified as containing vegetation protection zones, candidate
and / or unconfirmed significant wildlife habitat, low constraint areas
and were also identified with Status Pending further Study and noted
as locations for Enhancement/Restoration Opportunities. These are
small areas surrounded by the Natural Heritage System. The
boundary of the adjacent Natural Heritage System needs to be
confirmed and the feasibility of access, serviceability and
development of the Land Use to be Determined designation area
needs to be demonstrated prior to any
application for Official Plan Amendment to permit development.
In regards to policy 6.4.1, we support the framework that would
recognize further development feasibility and serviceability will need
to be demonstrated; however, we do not support the need for an
needed. Policy 6.4.2 has been revised
to clarify that an Official Plan
Amendment is required to change the
designation to permit development.
To confirm feasibility of development, lands within this designation
shall be subject to a number of appropriate studies and staking of
Policy revised to reference abutting
features so it is clear that the PPS
Page 22 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
analysis of adjacent lands, to confirm the presence of and boundary
of features and functions in the adjacent Environmental Protection
Area designation and confirm the extent of the Vegetation Protection
Zone to ensure no impact on the adjacent Environmental Protection
Area from urban development. Vegetation Protection Zones is part of
the Environmental Protection Area and are considered the same
when evaluating adjacent lands. It is recognized that staking of
features beyond the extent of the application area may not be
possible in all circumstances.
intended.
6.4.4 The studies referred to in this Section may shall include an
Environmental Impact Study, a Geotechnical Analysis confirming the
long-term stable top of bank, a Hydrogeological Analysis, updated
hydrology modeling to evaluate downstream flooding and erosion
impacts and a Geomorphical Study as well as a Planning
Justification and are required as part of a complete application. Prior
to undertaking the identified studies, the terms of reference shall first
be approved by the Municipality in consultation with the relevant
agencies.
In regards to policy 6.4.4 we request that the above revision be
included.
Revised Policy 6.4.5 to: “The studies
referred to in this Section shall include:
a Hydraulic Analysis Study, an
Environmental Impact Study, a
Geotechnical Analysis confirming the
long-term stable top of bank, a
Hydrogeological Analysis, updated
hydrology modelling to evaluate
downstream flooding and erosion
impacts (if not already addressed by
the Subwatershed Study) and a
Geomorphic Study as well as a
Planning Justification and are required
as part of a development application.
Prior to undertaking the identified
studies, the terms of reference shall
first be approved by the Municipality in
consultation with the relevant
agencies.”
These studies are all required based
on input from the Agencies.
Page 23 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-2 Section 6.4.6 If further studies identified in this section determine that portions of
the Land Use to be Determined designation can be developed, an
Official Plan Amendment will be required to delineate the
Environmental Protection Area boundaries and the appropriate land
use designation on the developable portion.
We request clarification for the need for an Official Plan Amendment
to delineate the Environmental Protection Are boundaries and the
appropriate land use designations on the developable portion. We
suggest an underlying designation with establishment through a
zoning by-law amendment application process based on the above
comments and that no official plan amendment be required.
No change. These lands were
previously designated EPA. We have
revised to an Environmental Constraint
Land Use to be determined but there is
a significant amount of study required
to demonstrate the principle of
development on these lands.
Environmental Constraint: Moderate Constraint Area Overlay
represent those lands identified in the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study as ‘Moderate Constraint’. The lands may include features such
as linkage areas, Headwater drainage features with a conservation
or mitigation, agricultural lands displaying evidence of hydrologic
features. An Environmental Impact Study prepared in support of a
development application shall determine the extent the presence of
or extent of the features and outline the area of removal or function
to be protected from development, including the identification of the
requisite vegetation protection zone, if required.
We request that policy 6.5.3 be revised to include the above
extent”, but no need for remaining
changes as the key matter is
determining the function to be
protected.
Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay
represent areas providing candidate and / or unconfirmed significant
wildlife habitat or potential wildlife linkages identified in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study. An environmental impact study
prepared in support of development applications shall confirm the
Policy revised to remove suggested
text.
Page 24 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
sensitivity of the habitat, in accordance with the policies of the
Official Plan to the satisfaction of the municipality and appropriate
agencies.
Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay identified in
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study comprise features in which
removal or development intrusion is not restricted by existing policies
and regulations. It is encouraged that these features be incorporated
into site level plans where possible to avoid net loss of natural cover.
Should net loss of natural cover not be avoidable, in certain
circumstances, appropriate compensation opportunities within other
areas of the Secondary Plan area may be considered where
appropriate.
We request that for policy 6.5.7, it be revised to include the above
language. Furthermore, should net loss of natural cover not be
avoidable, in certain circumstances, appropriate compensation
opportunities within other areas of the Secondary Plan area may be
Until the environmental impact studies required in this Section 6.5
have been completed, land uses within the Environmental Constraint
Overlays shall be limited to existing lawful permitted uses.
We request that the above language be removed as indicated, and
any uses permitted currently, whether existing or not, should
continue to be permitted.
No change. The secondary plan
changes the land use and the new
land uses are not permitted until the
EIS is completed.
Following the completion of the required studies to the satisfaction of
the Municipality, development may be permitted in the Environmental
Constraint Overlays as deemed appropriate by the study, without
amendment to this Plan, and the underlying land use designation in
Schedule A will apply. Where development in an Environmental
Constraint Overlay is determined not to be appropriate, or the limits
Confirmed.
Page 25 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Constraint Overlay will be deemed to part of the Environmental
Protection Area designation.
In regards to the above, we understand that the overlays are not land
use designations based on policy 6.5.1 and that all overlay
constraints would need to be verified through environmental studies
per policy 6.5.8 and based on policy 6.5.9, no amendment is
required to reflect the findings of the studies. As the environmental
overlays are not a land use designation, subject to the study, the
underlying designation would apply. It is recognized that the land use
to be determine is a different section than the overlays section. We
Following the completion of the required studies to the satisfaction of
the Municipality, development may be permitted in the Environmental
Constraint Overlays as deemed appropriate by the study, without
amendment to this Plan, and the underlying land use designation in
Schedule A will apply. Where development in an Environmental
Constraint Overlay is determined not to be appropriate, or the limits
of the Vegetation Protection Zone is confirmed, the Environmental
Constraint Overlay will be deemed to part of the Environmental
Protection Area designation.
We request that the Municipality provide clarification to the above as
well as Policy 6.3.7 with regards to “may be dedicated”. Please
provide clarity as to “may be dedicated” as well as the circumstances
The functions and sizes for the parks listed in Policy 7.2.2 are set out
in Section 18.3 of the Official Plan.
We support the introduction policies that would support or enable
stratified or encumbered Parks and request that a policy be provided
in the Secondary Plan and/or parent Official Plan in the future for the
currently allow for strata or
encumbered parks. Parks must be
unencumbered according to Section
14 of the parkland dedication by-law
2023-042.
Page 26 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We request that stratified or encumbered Parks be part of parkland
dedication.
S-2 Section 7.2.4 The functions and sizes for the parks listed in Policy 7.2.2 are set out
in Section 18.3 of the Official Plan.
In regards to policy 7.2.2, we request that the Municipality of
Clarington further consider strata or encumbered parks as introduced
in other Municipalities. The City of Markham Parkland Dedication By-
law Update 2025 allows applicants to identify land for conveyance in
preparation for when policy direction is issued by the Provincial
Government. The City of Markham also currently allows for strata
parks, dual use and privately owned public spaces (POPS) on a
case-by-case basis for parkland dedication. We request that the
Municipality of Clarington consider this for their respective Official
Plan, Soper Springs Secondary Plan, and prevailing and future
Parks shall be encouraged to be designed to be accessible and shall
have street frontage on not less than 30% of the park perimeter,
where appropriate. Backing of residential and commercial uses onto
parks shall be minimized with flankage of lots preferred.
In regards to policy 7.2.6, we request that the minimum street
be accessible and have street frontage
of 30%.
Privately owned and publicly accessible open space shall be
encouraged within the Secondary Plan Area but shall not contribute
to required parkland dedication.
We request that privately owned and public accessible open spaces
owned in order to contribute to
parkland dedication.
Privately owned and publicly accessible open space shall be
encouraged within the Secondary Plan Area but shall not contribute
to required parkland dedication.
Page 27 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
As mentioned above for policy 7.2.4, we request that consideration
be given to privately owned public spaces to contribute to parkland
dedication on a case-by-case basis as currently demonstrated in the
City of Markham and the City of Vaughan, as examples. This will
encourage landowners to build such POPs, which the local
Transportation Network
We request that policies under this section be updated to reflect the
changes to the Transportation Network. We request that the
following policy be included to this section of the Secondary Plan.
The Transportation Network is conceptual and will be confirmed
through the draft plan subdivision process.
Policy 9.3.2 revised: “The collector
road network shown in Schedule B is
conceptual and will be confirmed
through the Class C Environmental
Assessment Process. Further
refinements will be considered through
Phases 3 and 4 conducted during the
draft plan of subdivision process
without amendment to the Secondary
Subject to Section 9.2.3 herein, the road network set out on
Schedule B serves as the primary framework for all forms of mobility
and connectivity in Soper Springs. The road network includes a
hierarchy of road types which is consistent with the hierarchy and
road classifications in the Official Plan and the road classification
criteria in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Official Plan.
In regards to the above, we request that the language indicated be
included to allow site specific studies to determine the ultimate
ultimate location of roads.
The status and functionality of The collector road network shown in
Schedule B is conceptual and will be confirmed through the Class C
Environmental Assessment process, and the draft plan of subdivision
process without amendment to the Secondary Plan.
In regards to the above, we request that the language indicated be
included to allow site specific studies to determine the ultimate
determine status in terms of collector
versus arterial road. That is
determined by the OP/Secondary
Plan. The policy already allows for
Phase 3 and 4 of the EA process to
determine location.
Page 28 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-2 Section 9.3.3 The Municipality may consider development on private roads outside
of the Low Density Residential designation.
In regards to policy 9.3.3, we request that this policy be amended to
consider development on private roads within the Low Density
Residential designation. This will support the orderly design and
layout of lands within the Secondary Plan where public roads cannot
to permit private streets in Low density
residential areas.
The active transportation network within the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan includes off-street facilities including trails and multi-
use paths for pedestrians and cyclists. Some Elements of the Active
Transportation System are shown on Schedule B of this plan.
In regards to the above, we request that on-street parking
permissions be included. This is further indicated in the Peer Review
street parking is permitted on all local
and collector roads.
Destinations such as the Environmental Protection Area, parks, and
stores and connections to surrounding neighbourhoods will be
integrated through off-street active transportation network including
off-street bike lanes and multi-use paths.
In regards to the above, we request that on-street parking
permissions
be included. This is further indicated in the Peer Review Memo of the
11.2.3
Applications for development shall demonstrate that all water mains
can be appropriately looped and dead ends minimized without the
need for additional crossings of the Environmental Protection Area
outside of planned road right of way and trail crossings. If additional
crossings of the Environmental Protection Area are proposed, an
assessment of alternatives and potential impacts shall be provided to
demonstrate impacts to the Environmental Protection Area are
minimized and mitigated to the extent feasible.
No change. Policy 11.2.3 establishes a
necessary policy requirement to
address water main looping and
minimize impacts to the Environmental
Protection Area.
Page 29 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
In regards to policy 11.2.3, we request that this be removed as it is
dealt with in the Draft Functional Servicing Report.
S-2 Section
11.2.4
Applications for development shall assess whether an upstream
sanitary creek crossing as part of a trail crossing is feasible with
minimal impact to the Environmental Protection Area. If a sanitary
crossing outside of the proposed road or trail network is determined
to be not feasible, an updated servicing strategy shall be provided to
determine the need for and preferred location for a sanitary pumping
station.
In regards to policy 11.2.4, we request that this be removed as it is
dealt with in the Draft Functional Servicing Report.
Revised Policy 11.2.4: “Applications
for development shall assess whether
an upstream sanitary creek crossing
as part of a road or trail crossing is
feasible with minimal impact to the
Environmental Protection Area. If a
sanitary crossing outside of the
proposed road or trail network is
determined to be not feasible, an
updated servicing strategy shall be
provided to determine the need for and
preferred location for a sanitary
11.3.2
Stormwater management facilities shown on Schedule A are
illustrative and final location and sizing shall be determined through
the development application process.
In regards to the above policy, we request that the policy be revised
to mention that an amendment to the plan is not required for
amendment to the Secondary Plan is
not required for changes to the
location of stormwater management
facilities”.
11.3.4
A Master Drainage Plan / Master Environmental Servicing Plan shall
be completed for the Secondary Plan Area prior to the submission of
the first development application within the Secondary Plan Area.
We wish to clarify whether the above policy is subject to completion
Plan Area.
11.3.4
Following approval of the Secondary Plan, drainage will be handled
for the Secondary Plan Area separately rather than for the entire the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study Area. A Master Drainage Plan /
Master Environmental Servicing Plan shall be completed for the
Secondary Plan Area prior to the submission of the first development
No change. The Master Drainage Plan
is required for the secondary plan
area.
Page 30 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
above, a Stormwater Management Report prepared with
consideration of adjacent lands can be submitted with a development
application.
We request that policy 11.3.4 be revised to include the above
11.3.5
Stormwater Management Reports shall be prepared for each draft
plan of subdivision application building on the recommendations of
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and the Master Drainage
Plan/ Master Environmental Servicing Plan. As recommended by the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, the required Stormwater
Management Report and Plan shall incorporate:
a) Infiltration-based LID practices located on private property and
municipal property;
b) Evaluation of erosion risks to receiving watercourses; and
c) A site-specific water budget.
In regards to policy 11.3.5, we request that this be removed as it is
direction to include in a Secondary
Plan.
11.3.5
Stormwater Management Reports shall be prepared for each draft
plan of subdivision application building on the recommendations of
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and the Master Drainage
Plan/ Master Environmental Servicing Plan, and where appropriate,
include the catchment areas, and confinement to that catchment
area in accordance with the Functional Servicing Report. As
recommended by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, the
required Stormwater Management Report and Plan shall incorporate:
a) Infiltration-based LID practices located on private property
and municipal property;
b) Evaluation of erosion risks to receiving watercourses; and
c) A site-specific water budget.
Page 31 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We request that policy 11.3.5 be revised to include the above
language. The landowners reserve the right to review the final
Subwatershed Study and Master Drainage Plan/Master
12.1.2
As part of a complete application the following information is required
for the subject application:
i. Net residential density by land use designation;
ii. Identification of total square footage of non-residential land
uses;
iii. Number and type of units by land use designation;
iv. Total residential unit count; and
v. Estimated population;
vi. Amount/type of non-residential space and number of jobs;
and
vii. The number of purpose built additional dwelling units by land
use designation.
We request that policy 12.1.2 be revised to include the above
12.1.6
Approval of development applications shall be conditional upon
commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of
development to the timing and funding of the required road and
transportation facilities, parks and community facilities. These works
shall be provided for in the subdivision and / or site plan agreements.
Phasing of the development, including temporary and/or
partial/interim construction of servicing, roads and stormwater
management facilities as a result of non-participating landowners or
participating landowners with different timelines shall be permitted
prior to full completion of works, including external road works as
may be required by the Municipality of Clarington.
We request that policy 12.1.6 be revised to include the above
language.
Revised policy 12.1.8 and policy
12.1.9 added to address phasing:
“Phasing of the development, due to
partial construction of internal collector
roads or the partial completion of
internal and external sewer, water and
stormwater works as a result of non-
participating landowners, participating
landowners with different timelines or
the timelines for completion of external
road works, may be required by the
Municipality of Clarington. Phasing
may include temporary and / or interim
road and infrastructure solutions prior
Page 32 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-2 Section
12.1.7
Approval of development applications shall also be conditional upon
commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of
development to the timing and funding of required stormwater
management, sanitary sewer and water supply facilities, including
both partial/interim and temporary facilities. These works shall be
provided for in subdivision and / or site plan agreements. Phasing of
development, based on the completion of external sewer and water
services, may be implemented if required by the Municipality of
Clarington. Phasing may include interim road and infrastructure
solutions prior to full build-out. Phasing of development based on the
completion of external sewer and water services or portions thereof
is permitted and, may be implemented. Phasing may include
interim/partial road and infrastructure solutions prior to full build-out.
We request that policy 12.1.7 be revised to include the above
development applications shall be
subject to conditions of draft plan
approval, where applicable, requiring
commitments from the appropriate
authorities and the proponents of
development to the timing and funding
of the required road and transportation
facilities, parks and community
facilities which may include interim
transportation facilities. These works
shall be provided for in the subdivision
and / or site plan agreements.”
12.1.11
The Municipality will require, as a condition of draft approval, that
proof be provided to the Municipality that landowners have satisfied
all their parkland obligations with respect to the Master Parkland
Agreement prior to registration of a plan of subdivision.
We request that a Master Parkland Agreement not be required as a
condition of draft approval, but that it be encouraged, but not
the parkland agreement to ensure that
the parkland is provided.
12.1.11
The Municipality will require, as a condition of draft approval, that
proof be provided to the Municipality that landowners have satisfied
all their parkland obligations with respect to the Master Parkland
Agreement prior to registration of a plan of subdivision.
In regards to policy 12.1.11, the Municipality agreed to send the Draft
Master Parkland Agreement for the Landowners Group to review
before finalization of the Secondary Plan. Additionally, parkland
obligations and calculations should be based on Gross Developable
landowners, have entered into a
Master Parkland Agreement as set out
in Policy 12.1.10, the Municipality will
require, as a condition of draft
approval, that proof be provided to the
Municipality that the landowner has
satisfied all their parkland obligations
with respect to the Master Parkland
Page 33 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Agreement prior to registration of a
plan of subdivision.”
S-3 Ari Soberano (3253 Liberty Street N Limited Partnership
“Sharno”)
S-3 1. In relation to the Schedule A – Land Use Plan, we request that the
area identified in red in Appendix C as Medium Density Residential designate area as Medium Density
Limited Partnership and Jayzeee Properties, in relation to certain
Environmental Protection Area depictions on Schedule A and B, we
propose a special policy area approach to address refinements to
these areas and we request that the schedule be modified in those
locations for the aforementioned properties based on previous
comments, and request that the policy below be included in the
Secondary Plan. We request that the medium and low density
residential designations be depicted with the Environmental
Constraints Overlay.
“The areas with an Environmental Constraints Overlay as shown on
Schedule A Land Use and Schedule B Environmental Constraint and
Transportation Plan have been identified as containing features
consistent with Environmental Protection Area designation from the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study existing conditions report
including specifically watercourses. However, the presence and
precise delineation of the natural heritage features shall be
determined through an Environmental Impact Study prepared as part
of the review of development applications in accordance with the
policies of this Secondary Plan and the Official Plan. If the
Environmental Impact Study establishes that development can
proceed, then the underlying designation shall apply over those
lands without the requirement for an amendment to this Plan.
Further, it may be determined that only a portion of the lands within
the Environmental Constraints Overlay may be suitable for
development.”
No change. The existing policies in
Environmental Constraint overlay are
very clear and in all cases except for
the “Land Use to be Determined”
already have an underlying
designation. As such this policy is not
necessary. In the “Land Use to be
Determined” designation, the policy
framework for determining if future
development is feasible is clear and an
OPA is required.
Page 34 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We request that the above policy be included in the Secondary Plan
to support the underlying designation applying to lands or portions of
lands when the necessary site-specific study demonstrates that
development can occur. We look forward to discussing how this
Ari Soberano (3253 Liberty Street N Limited Partnership
“Sharno”)
Submissions: January 2026
S-3 Section 3.1.1 What does the word “provide” mean? We request “allow” instead.
Can this section be consistent with the language from 4.3.3 that says
retail uses and service uses may be provided, as this language
appears to give the impression that mixed-use is required which is
mixed-use development is permitted,
not required. The word “provide” has
been replaced with “allow”.
which will lead to many smaller parks.
Revised Policy 3.3.2 to replace
“5‑minute walking distance” with “short
walking distance” to allow greater
flexibility in the planning and design of
the park system while maintaining
realm network. A quantity and quality of park space shall be provided
that meets the needs of residents and enables a variety of
opportunities for passive and active recreation to the satisfaction of
the Municipality and in keeping with the current Parkland
Dedication By-law
language of “short” as outlined above.
Revised Policy 3.6.2 to replace the
5-minute standard with “short walking
distance.”
definition
Page 35 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
provides a minimum that would
achieve in excess of 60 people and
commercial uses in this SP area, so we want to make sure this is
clear within the text.
“feature” to “allow”. The term “needs”
is intended to reference day-to-day
functional needs of residents and does
not introduce a requirement for
commercial development within the
Secondary Plan area.
commercial uses in this SP, so we want to make sure this
is clear within the text.
The phrase “mix of uses” is intended to
include a mix of residential building
forms and densities, with the option to
include non‑residential uses where
office uses, as well as residential lobbies and building services shall
be permitted on the ground floor of a mixed use building. Within
Apartment buildings, only residential uses, as well as residential
lobbies and building services shall be permitted on the ground floor
of an Apartment building
4.3.10 storeys, to match “bookends”” along Concession Rd 3 with the most
recent OTL approved building.
highest densities within the Medium
Density designation (6 or 8 storeys,
where affordable housing is provided)
are directed near the Prominent
Intersection to provide built form and
housing type variety along the Local
Corridor and to function as a focal
point in the community (Policy 4.3.11).
Page 36 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
intended to introduce additional height
beyond the applicable designation.
This approach supports Clarington’s
Official Plan, which envisions Local
Corridor development at heights
Residential designation. 6 storeys has been reviewed;
however, the existing height limit
reflects the planned built form of the
Secondary Plan and supports
pedestrian connections to break up long blocks (generally blocks
longer than 250 metres) and to further enhance the pedestrian
permeability of the area and provide access to transit.
provides flexibility, while establishing
an expectation for incorporating
mid-block pedestrian connections to
improve connectivity.
streets should be extensive enough to create comfortable walking
environments for pedestrians and to enhance the pedestrian
experience of the community.
animate the street through retail uses being located close to the front
lot line and with transparent ground floor glazing, where retail uses
are proposed, and through outdoor amenity areas and street
furniture within the public right of way.
“should” establishes a design
expectation while allowing flexibility
through the development application
process.
Page 37 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
5.3.3 Privately owned publicly accessible open spaces shall be
located at Prominent Intersections to contribute to their visual
prominence, reinforce their role as community focal points, improve
the relationship of built form to the public right- of- way, and
contribute to the area’s identity. Alternative locations that provide a
similar level of amenity may be considered to satisfy this
requirement.
We request using the word “may” rather than “shall” as agreed in
“may”.
and the implementing zoning by-law shall provide direction on
building stepbacks for high-rise buildings. Stepbacks are not required
for mid-rise buildings.
Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines and the implementing
zoning by-law shall provide direction
on building stepbacks for buildings
Study shall form the basis for any study undertaken regarding the
natural heritage system and natural hazards. Site-specific studies
may refine and/or confirm development limits as well as the
presence of features on a site by site basis based on the general
recommendations from the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
These site specific studies must adhere to the general
recommendations outline in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
and address all issues identified within.
We request the addition of the word “general” as outlined above.
policies, the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study shall form the
basis for any study undertaken with
respect to the natural heritage system
and natural hazards. Site-specific
studies may refine and/or confirm
development limits and the presence
and boundaries of natural heritage
features, provided that the general
direction and recommendations of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study are
maintained, except for
recommendations in the
Subwatershed Study related to natural
Page 38 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
the development approval process at minimal or no cost to the
receiving public authority. The Municipality understands that
conveyance may not be appropriate in all circumstances.
Conveyance of lands designated Environmental Protection Area and
associated Vegetation Protection Zones shall not be considered as
contributions towards the parkland dedication requirements under
the Planning Act.
We request the revision noted above.
authority, where appropriate, as part of
the development approval process at
minimal or no cost to the receiving
public authority. Conveyance of lands
designated Environmental Protection
Area and associated Vegetation
Protection Zones shall not be
considered as contributions towards
the parkland dedication requirements
under the Planning Act. Conveyance
may not be appropriate in all
designation shall be subject to a number of studies and staking of
adjacent natural heritage features [desktop analysis for
adjacent/abutting lands if access is not provided] to confirm the
presence of and boundary of features and functions in the abutting
Environmental Protection Area designation and confirm the extent of
the Vegetation Protection Zone to ensure no impact on the abutting
Environmental Protection Area from urban development. The
municipality may consider enhancement, compensation and
restoration to ensure an overall net positive or net neutral impact on
the natural heritage features and system.
feasibility of development, lands within
this designation shall be subject to a
number of studies and staking of
abutting natural heritage features to
confirm the presence of and boundary
of features and functions in the
abutting Environmental Protection
Area designation and confirm the
extent of the Vegetation Protection
Zone to ensure no impact on the
abutting Environmental Protection
Study Overlay located adjacent to the Prominent Intersection to
Liberty Street North and Concession Road 3, further study is
required to confirm the presence and limits of environmental
constraints prior to any development.
This is no longer applicable due to revisions of Schedule A&B. We
Page 39 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
7.2.4 The functions and sizes for the parks listed in Policy 7.2.3 are
set out in Section 18.3 of the Official Plan and will be in keeping
with the current Parkland Dedication By-law.
We request the revision noted above.
are addressed in the Official Plan,
while parkland dedication
requirements are established by the
Planning Act and implemented through ‑
established by streets to improve permeability for users of
active transportation where appropriate.
We request using the word “encourage” rather than “use”.
connections and trails should be
used to augment the
network established by streets to
improve permeability for users
of active
where appropriate.”
9.4.3e) Where feasible, the integration of transit waiting areas in
buildings located adjacent to transit stops
Can you please explain what it means to integrate transit waiting
areas in buildings? It is not appropriate for private buildings to have
public waiting areas for public transit. Bus shelters may be more
Impact Development features, shall be incorporated in the
Secondary Plan Area to mitigate the impacts of development on
water quality and quantity, consistent with the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study, the policies of Section 20 of the Clarington
Official Plan and the policies of this Section. Such facilities shall
not be located within the natural heritage features but may be
permitted within the vegetation protection zone provided the
intent of the vegetation protection zone is maintained and is
supported by an Environmental Impact Study.
The sentence above was wrongfully omitted in the latest draft of the
SP text, and we request it is reinserted.
management facilities, such as ponds
and Low
Impact Development features, shall be
incorporated in the Secondary Plan
Area to mitigate the impacts
of development on water quality and
quantity, consistent with the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study, the
policies of Section 20 of the Clarington
Official Plan and the policies of this
Section consistent with Policy 6.3.4 of
this Secondary Plan and Sections 3.4,
Page 40 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-3 Section
11.3.9
Support the revisions and comments from the other landowners. Noted.
S-3 Sections
11.5.1 and 11.5.2
Request the removed of the word “strongly”. Revised as requested
S-3 Sections
11.5.3
Request the word “meeting” rather than “exceeding”. There is no
requirement to exceed the OBC.
Revised as requested.
S-3 Sections
11.5.3 planning requires the equitable sharing amongst landowners of
the costs associated with the development of land. It is a policy of
this Secondary Plan that prior to the approval of any draft plan of
subdivision, participating applicants/landowners shall have
entered into appropriate cost sharing agreements that establish
the means by which the costs (including Region of Durham costs)
of developing the property are to be shared. Certain policies will
be included in these agreements for non-participating, but
benefiting, landowners. The Municipality will require, as a
condition of draft approval, that proof be provided to the
Municipality that participating landowners have met their
obligations under the relevant cost sharing agreements prior to
registration of a plan of subdivision. Participating landowners are
encouraged to enter into a Master Parkland Agreement with the
Municipality prior to the approval of any draft plan of subdivision.
The Master Parkland Agreement shall identify the minimum size
and general location of parks that shall be provided and dedicated
in accordance with Schedule A. Certain policies will also be
included in the Master Parkland Agreement for non-
participating, but benefiting, landowners.
the development, due to partial
construction of internal collector
roads or the partial completion of
internal and external sewer, water and
stormwater works as a result of non-
participating landowners, participating
landowners with different
timelines or the timelines
for completion of external road works,
may be required by the Municipality of
Clarington. Phasing may
include temporary and / or interim road
and infrastructure solutions prior to full
build-out. “
policy Schedule A Land Use and Schedule B Environmental Constraint
and Transportation Plan have been identified as containing
features consistent with Environmental Protection Area designation
Environmental Constraint overlay are
very clear and in all cases except for
the “Land Use to be Determined”
Page 41 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
report including specifically watercourses. However, the presence
and precise delineation of the natural heritage features shall be
determined through an Environmental Impact Study prepared as
part of the review of development applications in accordance with
the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Official Plan. If the
Environmental Impact Study establishes that development can
proceed, then the underlying designation shall apply over those
lands without the requirement for an amendment to this Plan.
Further, it may be determined that only a portion of the lands within
the Environmental Constraints Overlay may be suitable for
development.
We request that the above policy be included in the Secondary Plan
to support the underlying designation applying to lands or portions of
lands when the necessary site-specific study demonstrates that
development can occur.
Additionally, the SP text must include policies that permit landowners
to upgrade infrastructure—such as culverts and bridges—at the draft
plan stage. This is necessary to allow landowners to proactively
necessary. In the “Land Use to be
Determined” designation, the policy
framework for determining if future
development is feasible is clear and an
OPA is required.
Further, the Municipality doesn’t
support relocation of watercourses,
this position is supported by CLOCA.
Ari Soberano (3253 Liberty Street N Limited Partnership
“Sharno”)
Submission: February 24, 2026
S-3 Section
3.6.2b)
the “5 minutes” to be replaced with “short” as agreed Revised as requested.
S-3 Section 4.3.9 Notwithstanding policy 4.3.8 (update to reflect correct policy number)Revised as requested.
S-3 Section
4.3.11 leaves room for more density for Prominent Intersections than just
the Medium Density Local Corridor designation.
No change. Prominent Intersections
are intended to accommodate the
tallest buildings within the permitted
height range of the designation,
including additional height where
Page 42 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-3 Section 4.5.3 Notion that this is to be calculated on a landowner-by-landowner
basis, so not one landowner takes all 20% of the
12.1.4 the upgrading of existing roads, culverts, bridges, and infrastructure
by the landowners/proponents required to facilitate development will
be considered through appropriate agreements with the Region
and/or Municipality, the Development Charge eligibility of such works
Policy Constraints Overlay as shown on Schedule A Land Use and
Schedule B Environmental Constraint and Transportation Plan have
been identified as containing features consistent with Environmental
Protection Area designation from the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study existing conditions report including specifically watercourses.
However, the presence and precise delineation of the natural
heritage features shall be determined through an Environmental
Impact Study prepared as part of the review of development
applications in accordance with the policies of this Secondary Plan
and the Official Plan. If the Environmental Impact Study establishes
that development can proceed, then the underlying designation shall
apply over those lands without the requirement for an amendment to
this Plan. Further, it may be determined that only a portion of the
lands within the Environmental Constraints Overlay may be suitable
relocation of watercourses, this
position is supported by CLOCA.
Ari Soberano (3253 Liberty Street N Limited Partnership
“Sharno”)
Page 43 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Submission: March 16, 2026
S-3 Section 4.1.1 Based on the comment matrix, this should be 53 persons not 60
persons to reflect the Envision Durham minimum density target a minimum that would achieve in
excess of 60 people and jobs per
4.3.11 intersections are key locations where massing and height are
intended. However, the density is the same as the Medium Density
Local Corridor designation, with no additional density above this for
being the Prominent Intersection. If 12 stories is not acceptable, we
would like to request at least 10 stories.
highest densities within the medium
density designation (6 or 8-storeys,
where affordable housing is provided)
are directed near the Prominent
Intersection to provide built form and
housing type variety along the Local
Corridor as well as to visually and
functionally create a focal point in the
community (Policy 4.3.11) This
supports Clarington’s Official Plan,
which envisions development along
Local Corridors to have heights
4.4.4/4.4.5 those lands outlined in 4.4.3 under the Medium Density Residential
designation? Our understanding was that this built form in past SP
text versions was applicable to all Medium Density Residential lands.
that commercial and mixed use
buildings are only permitted at the
intersection of Mearns Avenue and
Liberty Street North and the
intersection of Mearns Avenue and the
c
“
driveway widths so that they generally
do not exceed the width of the
6.3.13 Schedule A or Schedule B to remove any confusion. Also, this 1-
hectare consideration should be on the same landowner’s parcel, not
address, 3145 Mearns Avenue, and
remove reference to ratio.
Page 44 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-3 Section 9.3.2 Consider adding “Further refinements and relocations will be
considered through Phases 3 and 4 conducted during the draft plan
of subdivision process without amendment to the Secondary Plan.
What is shown in Schedule B is only an illustration rather than an
ultimate. An alternative, ultimate road network is possible and
subject to further study as outlined”
illustration. It is the municipality’s
position but refinements can occur
through Phases 3 and 4 of the EA. A
completely different collector road
network would require an OPA and
redoing the Phase 1 and 2 of the EA.
However, Policy 9.3.3 provides greater
flexibility on relocation of the northern
of an OPA. Proposing the following language: The northern collector
Road/trail and servicing crossings of the Soper Creek tributary can
be altered or relocated or an additional local road crossing provided
without amendment to the Secondary Plan subject to completion of
technical studies, determination of mitigation measures and
obtaining permits and approvals from the Municipality of Clarington,
Region of Durham, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and
other agencies
having jurisdiction. and The fulfilment of the requirements of the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for any Schedule C
include road or trails crossings. Trail
crossings and local road crossings
don’t need an amendment to the
Secondary Plan or a Class EA so they
don’t need to be mentioned in this
policy.
11.3.4 Reference to the satisfaction of the Municipality…” prior to approval of the first
11.3.5 Servicing Plan to be crossed off as well, as this will all be
incorporated into the MDP. Consider revising to “Stormwater
Management Reports shall be prepared for each draft
plan of subdivision application building on the recommendations of
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and the Master Drainage
‘Master Environmental Servicing Plan.
Page 45 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-3 Section
11.4.7 natural heritage features are destroyed or harvested pre-maturely
prior to proper study and approval, compensation should occur on
site and shall be calculated at a 3:1 ratio, or 2:1 in some
circumstances like outlined in section 6.3.13, and be subject to a
restoration / compensation plan to
remove reference to ratio.
Estates Of Soper Creek (John Spina)
in accordance with the attached Appendix B remain outstanding
identified as 'High Constraint' due to
valleylands/slope hazard, in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study. This was
confirmed through consultation with
CLOCA and Aquafor Beech. This area
remains as EP on the land use
Transportation Section 8 that would enable the following:
a. A policy that would stipulate the closure and disposal of the
portion of Mearns Avenue to the adjacent owner for the portion that
extends beyond the planned Mearns Avenue Road as depicted on
Schedule A.
closure and conveyance policy which
would be followed.
that would enable permissions for the use of “grinder pumps” as
servicing solution for residential lands where it can be demonstrated
based on good engineering principles.
not override the Region’s servicing
requirements.
designated as Medium Density – Residential in the Draft Secondary change the designation.
Page 46 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Plan where it is currently designated Environmental Constraint: Land
Use to be Determined.
S-4
to be closed and conveyed to adjoining owners and a reference be
included for the underlying designation to be Medium Density –
closure and conveyance policy which
would be followed.
Environmental Protection Areas and Associated Areas
Environmental Protection Areas are the primary component of the
parks and open space system. The conservation and enhancement
of Environmental Protection Areas will bring the imprint of the area’s
natural features and original geography into the development of the
Soper Springs Secondary Plan area in a way that defines
Community Structure and identity.
The features of the Soper Creek systems contribute particularly
strongly to Community Structure and connect to a broader natural
heritage system beyond the Secondary Plan area boundaries.
Access to Environmental Protection Areas and associated areas
through the development of public trails will be undertaken in a
manner which conserves their ecological integrity. Environmental
Protection Areas will serve as the backbone of network of parks,
trails and open spaces.
The policies state EPA lands as a primary feature and backbone of
the parks and open space system that contribute to the Community
Structure. These lands should be considered for park land dedication
as many residents will benefit from using the trails and having
accept EP as parkland dedication.
Section 10 of the parkland dedication
by-law states: The Municipality shall
not accept any natural heritage
system, minimum vegetation
protection areas, regulatory shoreline,
flood susceptible lands or lands with
hazardous characteristics in fulfilment
of the land conveyance requirements
of this by-law.
Locate the highest intensity of development and greatest mix of uses
along Concession Road 3 and Liberty Street to foster access to
commercial amenities and transit.
This policy should also permit the Mearns Avenue Extension to have
the highest density and heights within the secondary plan area since
it is proposed to be a future collector road.
No change. Liberty Street and
Concession Road 3 are identified for
the highest densities as they are along
the Local Corridor identified in the OP.
Page 47 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-4 Section 4.2.2
Schedule B identifies four overlays that establish areas where further
study is required before development, as per the underlying
designation, may be permitted:
a) Environmental Constraint: Moderate Constraint Area Overlay;
b) Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay;
c) Environmental Constraint: Vegetation Protection Zone Overlay;
and
d) Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study
Noted.
4.3.11
Notwithstanding Policy 4.3.7, the built form fronting Concession
Road 3 shall be at least 5 storeys.
We request that the above be removed and be consistent with Policy
4.3.7. We note that there is only one area with frontage on
Concession Road 3 and it is labelled as Environmentally Constrained
Land Use to be determined. Please indicate the Medium Density
Local Corridor applies to the parcel of land northeast of the Mearns
Avenue and Concession Road 3 intersection should it be determined
of Concession Road 3 and Mearns
Avenue are already designated
Medium Density Local Corridor, but
further study is required to confirm if
the property is large enough for
development to occur.
On street parking on collector or local roads adjacent to the retail and
service commercial uses shall be encouraged.
We request that on street parking should be permitted on local roads
parking is permitted on all local roads.
Garbage and recycling facilities shall be integrated within the building
envelope.
This policy is assumed to be applied to apartment buildings but is not
possible in other development forms such as a townhouse
condominium. We request that this policy be reworded to provide
recycling facilities shall be integrated
within the building envelope where
appropriate.”
6.2.1
All development within and adjacent to the Environmental Protection
Area shall adhere to the policies of the Clarington Official Plan, as it
No change. Other comments
requesting changes to Environmental
Page 48 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
3.4, the Watershed and Subwatershed Plans policies in Section 3.5,
the Hazards policies in Section 3.7 and the Environmental Protection
Areas policies in Section 14.4 and the policies of this Section and
shall have appropriate regard for the recommendations of the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study.
We request that the policy above be synthesized within the
secondary plan policies since it is part of planning for this specific
area where the policies of the secondary plan would take
precedence over the policies of the Official Plan. If we must adhere
to the Official Plan policies as specified then it would impact other
comments within the memo including asking for stormwater ponds to
be located within the VPZ and EPA lands where demonstrated to be
of following the policies of the Official
Plan.
6.3.6
The Municipality may require Environmental Protection Areas to be
conveyed to a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the
development approval process at minimal or no cost to the receiving
public authority. Conveyance of lands designated Environmental
Protection Area and associated vegetation protection zones shall not
be considered as contributions towards the parkland dedication
requirements under the Planning Act.
The Planning Act does not state that Environmental Protection Area
and associated vegetation protection zones do not count toward
parkland dedication requirements. In fact the EPA lands within the
Soper Creek Secondary Plan will provide public recreational space
through trails and greater connectivity with natural areas. An
alternative parkland rate should be considered for these lands as it
would entice developers to develop more trails. Also Policy 6.3.7
the Municipality’s parkland dedication
by-law states: The Municipality shall
not accept any natural heritage
system, minimum vegetation
protection areas, regulatory shoreline,
flood susceptible lands or lands with
hazardous characteristics in fulfilment
of the land conveyance requirements
of this by-law.
Estates Of Soper Creek (John Spina)
Submission: December 10, 2025
Page 49 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-4 Section
3.3.2 Community Structure to create neighbourhoods at a walkable scale
which contain a mix of land uses and housing types, provide access
to local retail and services, and are within short walking distance to a
Neighbourhood Park and/or Parkette.
We request that the wording be changed as noted above to be more
concise and can be better interpreted.
Policy 3.6.2 b revised to “ensure that
the entire community has good access
to parks within a short walking
distance of their homes”.
3.4.3
i) create larger open spaces, where appropriate, and realize co-
benefits in terms of amenities by locating adjacent to other outdoor
civic uses like stormwater management ponds provided they are
central to the neighbourhoods being served by the park;
We request that the additional wording, noted above, be added to
provide flexibility as larger open space blocks are not always
possible due to the significant constraints posed by the
“Parks shall be located to achieve a
number of objectives:
a) create larger open spaces and
realize co-benefits in terms of
amenities by locating adjacent to other
outdoor civic uses like stormwater
management ponds where possible
provided they are central to the
neighbourhoods being served by the
park;
b) ensure that the entire community
has good access to parks within a
short walking distance of their homes;
and
c) ensure good visibility from public
streets”.
3.4.3
b) Parks shall be located to achieve a number of objectives:
ii) ensure that the entire community has good access to parks within
a short walking distance of their homes; and
We request that the wording noted above to be removed as noted. A
‘short walking distance’ can have a variety of interpretations in terms
of distance thus the change in wording provides flexibility.
3.4.3
b) Parks shall be located to achieve a number of objectives:
Page 50 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
ii) ensure good access and visibility from public and/or private
streets.
We request the wording noted above be added since private roads
3.4.4
Stormwater Management Ponds, where appropriate
a) areas of passive recreation through the inclusion of paths and
trails
We request the wording to be added as noted above to provide
flexibility on where paths and trails are located in terms of
accessibility and planning of the larger trail network within the
No change. Policy 3.7.1 says "Where
appropriate, stormwater management
ponds will be treated as public assets
and part of the parks and open space
system. Their amenity and ecological
value will be realized as…"
4.2.2
Schedule B identifies four overlays that establish areas where further
study is required before development, as per the underlying
designation, may be permitted
a breakdown of which studies.
4.3.7
Building heights shall be a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of
6 storeys.
We request that the heights along the local corridor be determined
following the Eiram Development OLT Appeal as their proposal
would far exceed the height limitations set within the secondary plan.
There should be flexibility to allow for the maximum height to be
determined at the development application stage specifically along
Concession Road 3.
No change. The Secondary Plan
provides a baseline height.
Landowners are able to apply for an
OPA if they wish to increase the
heights beyond what is permitted in
the Secondary Plan.
4.3.11 Road 3 shall be at least 5 storeys, where appropriate.
We are requesting flexibility through the wording above to be
included as the site may not be sufficiently large enough to facilitate
a 5 storey building on the northeast corner of Mearns
"where feasible".
Page 51 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-4 Section
4.5.3 minimum of 80 70 percent of the total number of units in the Low
Density Residential designation, with various forms of townhouses
and low rise apartments accounting for the remainder
We request that detached and semi detached account for 70 percent
since this would allow 30 percent to be dedicated to other forms
including townhomes which can be large depending on the type of
townhome being proposed/designed for example a bungalow loft
may require 36-40ft for a double car garage. This housing type may
be desirable to seniors and would assist with creating homes that
support ‘aging in place’. The flexibility will greatly benefit the
proposed built form and size of townhomes being proposed.
No change. This aligns with current
Council direction for low density areas.
5.1.3 include mid-block pedestrian connections to break up long blocks
(generally blocks longer than 250 metres) and to further enhance the
pedestrian permeability of the area and provide access to transit.
We request that the wording be changed as noted above to provide
flexibility for the inclusion of mid-block pedestrian connections where
intended to break up long blocks.
5.2.1 Prominent Intersections, to contribute to the neighbourhood’s sense
of identity, where appropriate.
We are requesting flexibility through the wording noted above as
landowners should not be obligated to provide public art.
Policy 5.2.1 revised to add
“encouraged”: “Public art is
encouraged to be incorporated into the
public realm, especially at Prominent
intersections, to contribute to the
5.2.3 spaces which are designed to achieve animation and passive
surveillance and through the provision of outdoor amenity areas and
street furniture.
We request that the wording be changed as noted above as there
adjacent built form should be designed
to animate the street through retail
uses being located close to the front
lot line and with transparent ground
floor glazing, where retail uses are
Page 52 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
may be other ways of creating animated streets without obligating
landowners to solely integrate public spaces.
amenity areas and street furniture
within the public right of way."
S-4 Section
5.3.2 to be located at Prominent Intersections to contribute to their visual
prominence, reinforce their role as community focal points, improve
the relationship of built form to the public right- of- way, and
contribute to the area’s identity. Alternative locations that provide a
similar level of amenity may be considered to satisfy this
requirement.
We request that the wording be changed as noted above to provide
flexibility to landowners when designing prominent intersections.
Landowners should not be obligated to provide POPs but do so
willingly if, in their own opinion, it does contribute to the building
owned publicly accessible open
spaces may be located at Prominent
Intersections to contribute to their
visual prominence, reinforce their role
as community focal points, improve the
relationship of built form to the public
right of way, and contribute to the
area’s identity. Alternative locations
that provide a similar level of amenity
may be considered to satisfy this
requirement."
5.5.2 level of pedestrian activity and include wider sidewalks and street
furniture, where appropriate.
We request the additional wording be added as it would provide
flexibility to the landowner when designing the public realm for mixed
use buildings. The landowner should be obligated and/or limited to
include only the items identified above.
include" in last sentence. No other
changes.
6.2.1 Area shall adhere to the policies of the Clarington Official Plan, as it
pertains to the policy areas of the Natural Heritage System in Section
3.4, the Watershed and Subwatershed Plans policies in Section 3.5,
the Hazards policies in Section 3.7 and the Environmental Protection
Areas policies in Section 14.4 and the policies of this Section and
shall have appropriate regard for the recommendations of the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study. More detailed study shall prevail over
the Subwatershed Study.
additional sentence as follows: "A
more detailed study shall prevail over
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
provided the more detailed study is to
the satisfaction of the Municipality in
consultation with the Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority
(“CLOCA”)."
Page 53 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
We request the changed noted above as it would provide flexibility to
the landowners.
S-4 Section
6.2.2 where applicable, shall form the basis for any study undertaken
regarding the natural heritage system and natural hazards. More
detailed studies and staking of natural features and natural hazards
including flooding and erosion subject to any existing agreements
between the Municipality and individual landowners may refine
and/or confirm development limits as well as the presence of
features on a site by site basis with consideration of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study; however, the more detailed studies must
address the matters raised by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
We request the additional wording be added to recognize any and all
existing agreements relating to table lands.
Policy 6.2.2 revised to “In addition to
these policies, the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study shall form the
basis for any study undertaken with
respect to the natural heritage system
and natural hazards. Site-specific
studies may refine and/or confirm
development limits and the presence
and boundaries of natural heritage
features, provided that the general
direction and recommendations of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study are
maintained, except for
recommendations in the
Subwatershed Study related to natural
6.3.3
Generally Stormwater management ponds, except for the outfall,
shall not be permitted to be developed in lands designated
Environmental Protection Area or within the vegetation protection
zones to an Environmental Protection Area.
We request the additional wording be added to provide greater
flexibility and it is more aligned with the broader policies of the
MOC’s Official Plan. Please refer to policy 20.3.7 of the MOC’s
Official Plan and reflect the wording as prescribed.
No change. While stormwater
management ponds are not permitted
in these areas, Policy 6.3.5 provides
limited flexibility by allowing Low
Impact Development features within
the outer 5 metres of the Vegetation
Protection Zone, subject to specified
criteria and supporting studies.
Therefore, no additional policy wording
6.3.6 conveyed to a public authority or remain under the ownership of
private entities whose objectives are land conservation, where
appropriate, as part of the development approval process at minimal
or no cost to the receiving public authority. Conveyance of lands
the municipality "may" require
conveyance "where appropriate".
Page 54 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
vegetation protection zones shall not be considered as contributions
towards the parkland dedication requirements under the Planning
Act.
We request the wording noted above be added as some of the
landowners would like the EPA lands to remain under their
ownership without being obligated to convey them to the MOC as
part of their development approval at minimal or no cost as agreed
upon with the private entities. The MOC provides no benefit for
conveying these lands therefore the municipality must consider them
to be of no worth to them. The parkland dedication should not
account
6.3.4 metres of the vegetation protection zone provided:
a)the vegetation protection has not been reduced below that required
in Table 3-1 of the Official Plan;
c)it is supported by the findings of the appropriate studies.
Please outline the ‘appropriate’ studies for our understanding.
We also request that part a) of the policy be either deleted or
reworded as the reduction in the VPZ should not affect our ability to
implement LIDs as long as we can demonstrate it will be only within
the VPZ and will not negatively impact associated key natural and
keeping the requirements to be no less
than the Official Plan.
Policies 3.5.6, 3.4.15 and 3.4.16 and
Table 3-1 in the Official Plan provide
the requirements for the studies
needed to be completed.
6.3.5 Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A are approximate and
shall be detailed through appropriate studies prepared as part of the
review of development applications in accordance with the policies of
this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan.
of lands designated as Environmental
Protection Area on Schedule A are
approximate and shall be refined
through site- specific studies prepared
as part of the review of development
Page 55 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
policies of this Secondary Plan and the
Clarington Official Plan."
S-4 Section
6.4.1 Schedules A and B. These lands require further analysis to
determine if development can be permitted and is feasible. These
lands are identified as Environmental Protection Area in the Official
Plan. These lands were not identified as part of the Natural Heritage
System in the Soper Creek Subwatershed study; however, the lands
were identified as containing vegetation protection zones, candidate
and / or unconfirmed significant wildlife habitat, low constraint areas
and were also identified with Status Pending further Study and noted
as locations for Enhancement / Restoration Opportunities. These are
small areas surrounded by the Natural Heritage System.
An Official Plan Amendment application shall be required and should
include the boundary of the adjacent Natural Heritage System, needs
to be confirmed and the feasibility of access, serviceability and as
well as demonstrate the developability of the Land Use to be
Determined designation area needs to be demonstrated prior to any
application for Official Plan Amendment to permit development.
We request that an underlying designation be included for the “Land
Use to be Determined” designations as it would not require and
OPA. It will not circumvent the review by public agencies as we
would still need to justify the developability of these areas and the
developer would undertake and submit the appropriate studies in
support of their application. If an OPA is required, an OPA
application can be filed by the applicant with the supporting materials
rather than providing these supporting materials first and then being
needed. Policy 6.4.2 has been revised
to clarify that an Official Plan
Amendment is required to change the
designation to permit development.
6.4.2
To confirm feasibility of development, lands within this designation
shall be subject to a number of studies and staking of adjacent
natural heritage features to confirm the presence of and boundary of
features and functions in the adjacent Environmental Protection Area
Policies 6.4.4 and 6.4.5 in the
Secondary Plan outline the required
studies. Policy 6.4.2 revised to: "To
Page 56 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
designation and confirm the extent of the Vegetation Protection Zone
to ensure no impact on the adjacent Environmental Protection Area
from urban development. If any impacts to the EPA designation
are proposed then options for enhancement, compensation and
restoration should be considered if it results in an overall net
positive benefit to the natural heritage features.
We request that a list of studies be outlined for the secondary plan
area to ensure that all landowners are advised and are agreeable to
the proposed list. Also, we request that the wording noted above, in
red, be included as it would be beneficial for protection and/or
enhancement of natural heritage features from future development.
development, an Official Plan
Amendment application will be
required along with studies to confirm
the boundary of the Natural Heritage
System, confirm the feasibility of
access and serviceability and
determine the appropriate land use
designation if development is feasible."
6.4.6
If further studies identified in this section determine that portions of
the Land Use to be Determined designation can be developed, an
Official Plan Amendment will be required to delineate the
Environmental Protection Area boundaries and the appropriate land
use designation on the developable portion. An Official Plan
Amendment will be required to delineate the Environmental
Protection Area boundaries and the appropriate designation as well
as demonstrating the developability of portions of the Land Use to be
Determine designation through the submission of further studies
We request that this policy be reword as the Official Plan
Amendment submission would include the justification demonstrated
through site specific studies as part of a complete application
submission. The justification should not come before the OPA
application.
See above.
S-4 Section
7.2.6 frontage on not less than 30% 15% of the park perimeter. Backing of
residential and commercial uses onto parks shall be minimized with
flankage of lots preferred.
We request that the street frontage required be reduced to 15% to
than 30% at the sole discretion of the
Municipality: “Parks shall be designed
to be accessible and shall have street
frontage on not less than 30% of the
park perimeter. Backing of residential
parks
Page 57 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
provide greater flexibility with proposed development layouts. A 15%
street frontage would still be adequate for parks.
be minimized with flankage of lots
preferred. The municipality may
consider a lesser percentage, at its
sole discretion, where the park is
flanked by other public lands which
ensures public access and visibility”.
7.2.7
programmable lands.
We request the wording be deleted as noted above. We ask that the
policy be replaced with the following “ Areas conveyed for parkland
purposes shall demonstrate how they can be used for recreational
programmable. “Recreation purposes”
is too broad and can exclude facilities
such as playgrounds.
9.1.5 established by streets to improve permeability for users of active
transportation, where appropriate.
We request the additional wording be added to provide flexibility to
each landowner in determining and justifying where mid-block
connections may make sense to integrate within their broader
9.3.2 will be confirmed through the Class C Environmental Assessment
process, and the draft plan of subdivision process without
amendment to the Secondary Plan.
The layout shown on Schedule B should reflect or reference the new
collector road layout that we presented to Tylin for their review. This
was illustrated by Schaeffers in a separate memo.
Changes to the proposed collector
roads at this stage would require an
EA. Policy revised to say: "The
collector road network shown in
Schedule B is conceptual and will be
confirmed through the Class C
Environmental Assessment Process.
Further refinements will be considered
through Phases 3 and 4 conducted
during the draft plan of subdivision
process without amendment to the
Page 58 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-4 Section
9.3.3 of the Low Density Residential designation
Please reconsider this policy as there are building designs that could
benefit from a private
roads in low-density areas is
consistent with our other Secondary
Plans.
9.4.1 and appropriately within and adjacent to Soper Springs and ensuring
that transit requirements are addressed through municipal capital
works and private development applications.
Please identify on Schedule B where the transit facilities are planned
for the secondary plan area if they are to be addressed through
Durham Region Transit to decide on
as part of their 5-year review,
consultation, and internal
deliberations.
9.5.5 shall be are encouraged established throughout the Secondary Plan
Area and in particular through the Medium Density Local Corridor –
designation to Concession Road 3.
We request the change in wording be included since it would provide
flexibility to the landowner in determining where it is appropriate to
include mid block connections for supporting pedestrian connectivity.
The landowner should not be obligated where it isn’t appropriate or
instead of "shall be".
9.5.7 and healthy tree canopy, consisting of primarily native plantings. The
tree canopy will provide shade and enhance and establish a vibrant
urban environment. A tree canopy plan shall be prepared for each
plan of subdivision.
We request the removal of references to a tree canopy plan as this
can be submitted as part of the
required landscape architecture plans.
12.1.3 shall proceed on the basis of the sequential extension of full
Page 59 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
subdivision, including servicing through provisions or through the
Regional and Municipal capital works programs and plans of
subdivision and may be advanced by landowners/proponents with
appropriate agreements with the Region and/or Municipality.
We are seeking clarity on how sequential development and phasing
will work when additional infrastructure is needed such as a
PRIVATE pumping station to service some of the Estates of Soper
12.1.6 upon commitments from the appropriate authorities and the
proponents of development to the timing and funding of the required
road and transportation facilities, parks and community facilities.
These works shall be provided for in the subdivision and / or site plan
agreements. Phasing of the development, due to partial
construction of internal collector roads as a result of non-
participating landowners or based on the completion of external road
works, may be required by the Municipality of Clarington.
We are seeking clarity as each developer would be responsible for
the portion of the collector road within their own property and should
not be held up by another owner (participating or non-participating) if
new policy 12.1.9.
Estates Of Soper Creek (John Spina)
Submissions: January and February 2026
S-4 Section
3.6.2b) parks within a 5 minute short walking distance of their homes where
; "
Policy 3.6.2 revised to replace “5
minutes” with “Short”.
4.4.10 Residential designation shall have a minimum site density of 45 units
where feasible
appropriate.
Page 60 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Study other than on natural feature boundaries are adhered to. "
6.3.8 be possible. Would we required to compensate for removal of trees
to achieve these trails? I think since the MOC is requesting that
these trails be created that the compensation be a 1:1 ratio.
avoid disturbance. It says conserves
their ecological integrity. Trails can be
accommodated in Natural heritage
features without impacting their
ecological integrity provided they don't
6.4.5 and erosion impacts should have considered all development blocks
within the Estates and we are not supportive of having to do a
supplementary study.
Subwatershed Study didn't consider
downstream and erosion impacts of
the lands identified as 'Land Use to be
Determined'. That is why the policy
requires this analysis to be completed
9.3.2 network. Policy 9.3.2, the northern collector
road crossing of the Soper Creek
tributary can be altered or relocated or
an additional local road crossing
provided without amendment to the
Secondary Plan subject to completion
of technical studies, determination of
mitigation measures and obtaining
permits and approvals from the
Municipality of Clarington, Region of
Durham, Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority and other
agencies having jurisdiction; and the
fulfilment of the requirements of the
Page 61 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Assessment for any Schedule C
project.”
S-4 Section
9.3.4 driveway access. Official Plan outlines access on
collector road. Specifically, Individual
accesses to detached, semi-detached,
and street townhouse dwellings may
not be permitted. They are not
prohibited. An additional policy is not
12.1.4 infrastructure by the landowners/proponents in order to facilitate
development will be considered through appropriate agreements with
the Region and/or Municipality. "
Would these be reimbursed through DCs?
“Notwithstanding that the upgrading of
existing roads, culverts, bridges and
similar infrastructure by the
landowners/proponents required to
facilitate development will be
considered through appropriate
agreements with the Region and/or
Municipality, the Development Charge
eligibility of such works shall not be
6.3.13 Policy 6.3.1, the area commonly
referred to as “the lobe” located at
3145 Mearns Avenue and designated
Environmental Protection Area which
was previously the subject of
unauthorized natural feature removal,
may be designated as Low Density
Residential without amendment to this
Secondary Plan, subject to the terms
and conditions of the Compensation
Page 62 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
between the applicable landowner and
the Municipality of Clarington”.
identified as 'High Constraint' due to
valleylands/slope hazard, in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study. This was
confirmed through consultation with
CLOCA and Aquafor Beech. This area
remains as EP on the land use
Estates Of Soper Creek (John Spina)
4.3.10
Development
shall have a minimum site density of 100 units per net hectare,
where appropriate.
We are requesting this additional wording because we may not be
able to meet this minimum density requirement for our block located
an appropriate or definitive criterion for
managing density and provides neither
landowners or Municipality with
certainty.
4.4.10
Development
shall have a minimum site density of 45 units per net hectare, where
appropriate.
We are requesting this change because some of our blocks may not
an appropriate or definitive criterion for
managing density and provides neither
landowners or Municipality with
certainty.
5.2.1 encouraged at Prominent Intersections, to contribute to the be” before “incorporated”.
6.2.2 shall form the basis for any study undertaken regarding the natural these policies, the Soper Creek
Page 63 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
and/or confirm development limits as well as the presence of natural
heritage features based on the general direction of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study with respect to the natural heritage system
provided recommendations in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
other than on natural feature boundaries are adhered to, where
appropriate.
respect to the natural heritage system
and natural hazards. Site-specific
studies may refine and/or confirm
development limits and the presence
and boundaries of natural heritage
features, provided that the general
direction and recommendations of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study are
maintained, except for
recommendations in the
Subwatershed Study related to natural
feature boundaries”.
6.3.4
Stormwater management ponds
permitted to be developed in lands designated Environmental
Protection Area or within the Vegetation Protection Zones to an
Environmental Protection Area unless justified to the satisfaction of
the Municipality of Clarington in consultation with the Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority.
Please consider the wording above or using ‘generally’ in the current
other Secondary Plans.
6.3.6 on
Schedule A are approximate and shall be detailed refined through
site specific studies prepared as part of the review of development
applications in accordance with the policies of this Secondary Plan
and the Clarington Official Plan without amendment to this
6.3.7 conveyed to a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the
development approval process at minimal or no cost to the receiving
EPA’s to be used for parkland
dedication.
Page 64 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Protection Area and associated Vegetation Protection Zones shall
not be considered as contributions towards the parkland dedication
requirements under the Planning Act. Conveyance may not be
appropriate in all circumstances.
Please add that this policy be subject to the provisions of the
Planning Act relating to Parkland dedication due to the changes that
6.3.9 number of Headwater Drainage Features. Those identified in the
Subwatershed Study as “Protection” are included in the
Environmental Protection Area designation and are to be protected
in situ unless demonstrated otherwise by further site-specific
environmental studies, where appropriate.
appropriate” is not necessary. The
test is unless demonstrated by future
studies.
6.3.13 “the lobe” and designated Environmental Protection Area in the
central area of the plan which was previously the subject of
unauthorized natural feature removal shall be designated low density
residential subject to the compensation agreement dated February
2020 between the applicable landowner and the Municipality of
Clarington without amendment to the secondary plan. in-situ
restoration of the Environmental Protection Area shall be provided or
alternatively appropriate compensation at a tree replacement ratio of
2:1 and generally encompassing an area of approximately 1 hectare
may be considered within other areas of the Secondary Plan at the
Municipality's discretion in consultation with the Region of Durham
and CLOCA.
We need not spell out the nuances of the agreement as the
agreement speaks for itself and it is not widely applicable to all
landowners.
the agreement still included.
Page 65 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-4 Section
6.4.3
development
shall be subject to a number of studies and staking of abutting
natural heritage features to confirm the presence of and boundary of
features and functions in the abutting Environmental Protection Area
designation and confirm the extent of the Vegetation Protection Zone
to ensure no impact on the abutting Environmental Protection Area
from urban development. The municipality may consider
enhancement, compensation and restoration to ensure an overall net
positive impact on the natural heritage features and system
If lands are developable then they would have met the test of no
impact
of development, lands within this
designation shall be subject to a
number of studies and staking of
abutting natural heritage features to
confirm the presence of and boundary
of features and functions in the
abutting Environmental Protection
Area designation and confirm the
extent of the Vegetation Protection
Zone to ensure no impact on the
abutting Environmental Protection
6.4.4 application shall also assess the impact Any proposed road crossing
of the Environmental Protection Area into this designation to shall
demonstrate that roads and servicing can be provided without a net
negative impact on the natural heritage features and functions within
the abutting Environmental Protection Area designation without
amendment to the secondary plan.
Policy revised to: “Studies submitted in
support of an Official Plan Amendment
application shall also assess the
impact of any proposed road crossing
of the Environmental Protection Area
into this designation to demonstrate
that roads and servicing can be
provided without a net negative impact
on the natural heritage features and
functions within the abutting
Environmental Protection Area
designation. The Municipality may
consider enhancement, compensation
and restoration to ensure an overall
net positive impact on the natural
heritage features and system.”
The policy provides clarity on what the
studies are assessing and that an OPA
is required.
Page 66 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
S-4 Section
6.4.5
consist of the following
studies include, but are not limited to: a Hydraulic Analysis Study, an
Environmental Impact Study, a Geotechnical Analysis confirming the
long-term stable top of bank, a Hydrogeological Analysis, updated
hydrology modelling to evaluate downstream flooding and erosion
impacts (if not already addressed by the Subwatershed Study) and a
Geomorphical Study as well as a Planning Justification and are
required as part of a complete application. Prior to undertaking the
identified studies, the terms of reference shall first be approved by
to ‘but not limited to’.
6.4.6 Plan Amendment application to demonstrate that the remaining lands
outside of the Environmental Protection Area and associated
Vegetation Protection Zone can are large enough to be developed
for urban uses and associated roads, trails, and stormwater
management facilities and determine the appropriate density of
development without impact on the abutting Environmental
Protection Area.
Please elaborate on what is meant by ‘large enough’. If the lands can
6.5.8 the Municipality, development may be permitted in the Environmental
Constraint Overlays as deemed appropriate by the study, without
amendment to this Plan, and the underlying land use designation in
Schedule A will apply. Where development in an Environmental
Constraint Overlay is determined not to be appropriate, or the limits
of the Vegetation Protection Zone is confirmed, the Environmental
Constraint Overlay will be deemed to be part of the Environmental
satisfactory to the Municipality.
9.2.2 Area should be developed in accordance with Schedule B
Environmental Constraint and Transportation and the policies of this
Assessment Report will be finalized
once the Trip Generation Memo is
Page 67 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Secondary Plan, with further guidance provided in the Urban Design
and Sustainability Guidelines and the Soper
as revised from time to time
9.3.3 be altered or relocated or reclassified an additional local road
crossing provided without amendment to the Secondary Plan subject
to completion of technical studies, determination of mitigation
measures and obtaining permits and approvals from the Municipality
of Clarington, Region of Durham, Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority and other agencies having jurisdiction; and the fulfilment of
the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
that the collector road function is
necessary.
Request Determined. It was understood that this change would be
accommodated. This will not circumvent the review process as we
would justify that the block can be developed.
No change. The area in question is
identified as 'High Constraint' due to
valleylands/slope hazard, in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study. This was
confirmed through consultation with
CLOCA and Aquafor Beech. This area
remains as EP on the land use
Request a policy to be included that states “Requests for conveyance of the
Mearns Avenue road allowance to any landowner shall be reviewed
at the draft plan application stage. If the road allowance is used for
any proposed future roadways an amendment to the secondary plan
will govern and an OPA is not required
for use of the road allowance for a
local road.
Jay Strasser (Jayzeee Properties)
the lands municipally addressed as 3347 & 3403 Liberty Street
North. This Appendix demonstrates the existing conditions and
environmental constraints on the lands. We would request that this
be considered in Schedule A and B depictions of the Environmental
information at this time would require a
full EIS and peer review of the EIS as
well as staking of the features in the
field.
Page 68 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
at the draft Plan of subdivision stage.
S-5 In relation to previous site-specific requests for 3253 Liberty Street N
Limited Partnership and Jayzeee Properties, in relation to certain
Environmental Protection Area depictions on Schedule A and B, we
propose a special policy area approach to address refinements to
these areas and we request that the schedule be modified in those
locations for the aforementioned properties based on previous
comments, and request that the policy below be included in the
Secondary Plan. We request that the medium and low density
residential designations be depicted with the Environmental
Constraints Overlay.
“The areas with an Environmental Constraints Overlay as shown on
Schedule A Land Use and Schedule B Environmental Constraint and
Transportation Plan have been identified as containing features
consistent with Environmental Protection Area designation from the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study existing conditions report
including specifically watercourses. However, the presence and
precise delineation of the natural heritage features shall be
determined through an Environmental Impact Study prepared as part
of the review of development applications in accordance with the
policies of this Secondary Plan and the Official Plan. If the
Environmental Impact Study establishes that development can
proceed, then the underlying designation shall apply over those
lands without the requirement for an amendment to this Plan.
Further, it may be determined that only a portion of the lands within
the Environmental Constraints Overlay may be suitable for
development.”
We request that the above policy be included in the Secondary Plan
to support the underlying designation applying to lands or portions of
Environmental Constraint overlay are
very clear and in all cases except for
the “Land Use to be Determined”
already have an underlying
designation. As such this policy is not
necessary and adds confusion. In the
“Land Use to be Determined”
designation, the policy framework for
determining if future development is
feasible is clear and an OPA is
required.
Page 69 of 75
Submission
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
Page 70 of 75
Urban Design Guidelines Comments
2.2 Neighbourhood Parks are to serve the basic active and low intensity
recreational needs of the surrounding residents. Neighbourhood parks are to
be a minimum size of 2.5 hectares depending on the area served and the
activities to be provided.
In regards to the above guideline, we suggest this goes beyond the Official
Plan and request that it be revised to be in conformity with the Official Plan
hectares.
Rows of street townhouses should generally be limited to a maximum of 8
units.
Rows of street townhouses is outlined as a maximum of 8 units, which should
Revised to 6 units to match SP
and OP policies.
Minimize the design of a slab building and reduce the overall massing with a
maximum building length of 60m.
We request that the above noted guideline be removed and addressed at the
To help mitigate overlook and maximize sunlight to the lower levels of the
buildings, a minimum separation distance of 15m is required. This space
should be void of any building projections.
A minimum 15 metre separation was not contemplated in the previous draft
and we request that this be removed to provide flexibility for appropriate and
where there is a window-to-
window separation.
Apply a 45 degree angular plane, measured from the property line of an
adjacent low rise residential area to the proposed mid-rise building.
We request that guideline 4.2.7 be removed as this may limit potential building
envelopes on development sites. We are not certain that angular plane is
stepbacks applying to buildings
above 6 storeys
Page 71 of 75
Guideline
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
as they are mid and low rise, which can co-exist without the need for an
angular plane requirement.
5.1.1 (5) Ensure off-road trails or Multi-use path provide a continuous and connected
network that led to destinations such as a transit stops or Local Corridor, where
possible.
In regards to policy 5.1.1 (5), please include the requested language as
transportation network should
connect to sidewalks,
pedestrian connections or
cycling infrastructure to ensure
Trails are an important part of the active transportation network and should be
connected to sidewalks, pedestrian connections and cycling infrastructure,
where possible.
In regards to policy 5.1.2(1), please include the requested language as
change.
Neighbourhood parks a minimum 2.5 hectares in size and configured to
accommodate both passive and active programming.
In regards to the above guideline, we suggest this goes beyond the Official
Plan and request that it be revised to be in conformity with the Official Plan
Energy Conservation
We request that section 7.1 be revised as in our opinion there is too much
John Spina/Estate of Soper Springs Comments (December 10, 2025)
any prescriptive guidelines within the Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines.
any Gateway.
on both sides of the road. Will the MOC consider sidewalks on one side of the
road for local roads as it isn’t common to have sidewalks on both sides of the
to allow sidewalks on at least
one side of the street.
Page 72 of 75
Guideline
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
minimum width of 6m. Will the MOC consider 3m pedestrian connections as
6m is a large width and is typically required for access to a stormwater facility
for vehicular access.
250m being referenced is
consistent with policy 5.1.3.
The illustration showing a 6
metre wide pedestrian
connection is illustrative in
Ari Soberano / Sharno (February 24, 2026)
to connect to key features in
the community. “Such as” is a
qualifier and transit/local
corridor connection is a
Steven Ramjass/John Spina/Estates of Soper Creek (February 27, 2026)
Municipal MUP are proposed for Soper Springs."
Why distinguish the Municipal MUP from the NHS Trails? It is preferable to
name it all NHS Trails because they both go through the NHS.
clarify. The park trails are
specific connections from the
parks to the trail system. The
multi-use paths are
connections to through the
neighbourhood to the NHS.
The Municipal MUP is part the
Page 73 of 75
Guideline
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
that connects this
neighbourhood to others.
2.5 "The NHS parks / trails and Municipal MUPs are either paved or unpaved that
provide access to environmental areas such as the EPA. They are intended to
keep users on a designated path to minimize disruption to the surrounding
landscape. These trails are narrower than MUPs and usually have a surface of
crushed aggregate or woodchip."
Further to my comment above there is no difference between the Municipal
MUP and NHS trails based on this description. It is preferable that they all be
revised for clarity.
building between 3 and 6 storeys in height."
Could this be reworded for buildings greater than 3 but less than 6 stories? As
community. "
so this guidelines matches with
the purpose of collector road
bound by Arterial Roads."
What about private roads?
Demo Plan local road network,
which is conceptual. Private
roads are not contemplated in
the Demo Plan, but they are
only allowed in medium
reference we would defer to the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. If a confirmed through development
Page 74 of 75
Guideline
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
sidewalks on one side which is consistent with private roads in other areas of
Bowmanville.
5.3.2.3 The sidewalk network should be designed to connect to adjoining trails and
MUPs and transit stops, where possible.
No change. The pedestrian
network should connect.
6.2.3.4 "They should be highly visible and located within Local Corridors at Prominent
Intersections and gateways."
ion of may be
Solar Ready, which includes all the necessary piping and equipment needed to
install a rooftop solar power system. "
Consider
Consider ng
where possible
Consider ing
Consider ing
Ari Soberano / Sharno (March 16, 2026)
the way to the southern end of the development limits for this block to be
consistent with the conceptual road patterns of all other developable blocks
made to ensure that all low
density units in this area front
onto a conceptual local road.
As this Demonstration Plan is
conceptual and not a final plan
for the area, alternative road
layouts can be submitted as
part of an application for the
Page 75 of 75
Guideline
Number
Details of Submission Staff Response
4.3.10 We request the following: Utility meters, air conditioning units, and similar
infrastructure should generally be incorporated as part of the building design,
and generally be screened and not visible from the public realm.
follows policy direction for
utilities to be hidden from view
outstanding revised TIS. Many of the sizing for sidewalks, etc, will need to be
updated. Kindly make a note of this in the UDG text.
TYLIN.. Local roads cross-
section is conceptual and
shown to have sidewalk on one
side.
leave as ‘short’.
No change. Metre sizing for
parks is typical for urban design
guidelines to more closely
leave as ‘short’.
No change. Metre sizing for
parks is typical for urban design
guidelines to more closely
Agency Comment Summary Table
Central Lake
Ontario
Conservation
Authority
June 2025
Alternative designates some areas on the north side of the
SP area as “Environmental Constraint: Land Use to be
Determined”. As noted previously, CLOCA staff are
concerned that these designated areas are prone to natural
hazards and development constraints. Staff at CLOCA
anticipate the steep valley slopes, watercourse crossing
requirements, geotechnical considerations and floodplain
issues along with required buffers would reduce the overall
developable lands. Also, the provision of access and
servicing would involve significant interference with valley
features. As such, it is CLOCA staff opinion that there is no
establishes a policy framework that
requires comprehensive technical
studies at the development application
stage to determine whether any
portion of these lands may be suitable
for development, consistent with
Section 6.4 of the Secondary Plan
and in consultation with CLOCA.
System to the north and are within the former Lake Iroquois
shoreline. Section 3.2.6.3 of the Greenbelt Plan (2017)
includes a policy that applies to this area:
In addition to the urban river valleys, portions of the former
Lake Iroquois shoreline, particularly within Durham Region,
traverse existing or approved urban areas. Municipalities
should consider planning, design and construction practices
that maintain or, where possible, enhance the size, diversity,
connectivity and functions of key natural heritage features,
key hydrologic features and key hydrologic areas of those
portions of the Lake Iroquois shoreline within their approved
urban boundaries.
Accordingly, we require that the hazardous lands associated
designation includes hazard lands
(Policy 6.3.2). The Municipality may
request Environmental Protection
lands to be conveyed at minimum or
no cost (Policy 6.3.7), but it doesn't
require conveyance.
Attachment 6 to Report PDS-026-26
environmental protection zone category and conveyed to the
Municipality free of encumbrances through future
from Liberty Street through southwest portions of the SP
area. On Schedule “A”, the lands associated with this
watercourse are mapped as EPA, however, the watercourse
is not shown on the drawing. Please delineate the
watercourse on the mapping to be consistent with the
Schedules A and B.
improved access through the land use scheme. CLOCA staff
generally prefer a land use structure that has a fewer
number of crossings and has minimal interference with valley
lands. Crossings should be sized and located such that there
is no increase in upstream or downstream erosion or
flooding. Crossing locations, width, and alignment should be
compatible with stream morphology, which typically requires
location of the crossing on a straight and shallow/riffle reach
of the watercourse with no evidence of erosion with the
crossing situated at right angles to the watercourse. The
crossing proposed for the northwest side of the SP area
does not seem to be perpendicular to the watercourse.
CLOCA staff recommend that the north access road
connecting the site to Liberty Road be re-aligned to yield a
it crosses the stream can be
addressed through Phases 3 and 4 of
the EA at the draft plan of subdivision
stage. A policy (6.3.12) has been
added to generally require road
crossings to be situated at right
angles to the watercourse where
feasible.
heritage features, significant groundwater discharge areas in
the for of baseflow springs and seeps, hydrologically
sensitive features, lands within the regulatory flood plain of a
watercourse, headwater drainage features with a
“Protection” classification and hazard lands associated with
baseflow…”.
associated with Environmental Protection Areas support their
ecological integrity and include vegetation protection zones
and other natural heritage areas. Vegetation protection
zones will form part of the Environmental Protection Area
shall be undertaken on a volume control basis and shall
demonstrate the maintenance of recharge rates, flow paths
and water quality to the greatest extent possible under
varying subsurface conditions. Peak flow control and the
maintenance of pre-development water balance and
prevention of erosion shall be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington in consultation
Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas shall
maintain a pre-development water balance in accordance
include, but is not limited to, a Hydraulic Analysis Study, an
Environmental Impact Study, a Geotechnical Analysis
confirming the long-term stable top of bank, a
Hydrogeological Analysis, updated hydrology modeling to
evaluate downstream flooding and erosion impacts and a
Geomorphical Study as well as a Planning Justification and
are required as part of a complete application. Prior to
undertaking the identified studies, the terms of reference
shall first be approved by the Municipality in consultation with
the relevant agencies.
studies referred to in this Section shall
include a Hydraulic Analysis Study, an
Environmental Impact Study, a
Geotechnical Analysis confirming the
long-term stable top of bank, a
Hydrogeological Analysis, updated
hydrology modelling to evaluate
downstream flooding and erosion
impacts (if not already addressed by
the Subwatershed Study) and a
Geomorphical Study as well as a
Planning Justification and are required
as part of a complete application.
studies, the terms of reference shall
first be approved by the Municipality in
consultation with the relevant
ponds and Low Impact Development features, shall be
incorporated in the Secondary Plan Area to mitigate the
impacts of development on water quality and quantity,
consistent with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and
the policies of Section 20 of the Clarington Official Plan.
Such facilities shall not be located within natural heritage
features but Low Impact Development features may be
permitted within the vegetation protection zone provided the
intent of the vegetation protection zone is maintained and it
is supported by an Environmental Impact Study. See Section
6.3.4.
management facilities, such as ponds
and Low Impact Development
features, shall be incorporated in the
Secondary Plan Area to mitigate the
impacts of development on water
quality and quantity, consistent with
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study,
the policies of Section 20 of the
Clarington Official Plan and the
policies of this Section consistent with
Policy 6.3.4 of this Secondary Plan
and Sections 3.4, 14.4 and 20 of the
Ontario
Conservation
Authority
February 2026
Side
The current land use alternative (Schedule A) designates
some areas on the north side of the SP area as
“Environmental Constraint: Land Use to be Determined”.
These areas are designated as “Environmental Constraint:
Additional Area for Further Study Overlay” through Schedule
B. As noted previously, CLOCA staff are concerned that
these designated areas are prone to natural hazards and
development constraints. Staff at CLOCA anticipate the
steep valley slopes, watercourse crossing requirements,
geotechnical considerations and floodplain issues along with
required Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ) would reduce the
overall developable lands. Also, the provision of access and
establishes a policy framework that
requires comprehensive technical
studies at the development application
stage to determine whether any
portion of these lands may be suitable
for development, consistent with
Section 6.4 of the Secondary Plan
and in consultation with CLOCA.
features. As such, it is CLOCA staff opinion that there is no
development opportunity on these portions.
In addition, these areas abut Greenbelt Natural Heritage
System to the north and are within the former Lake Iroquois
shoreline. Section 3.2.6.3 of the Greenbelt Plan (2017)
includes a policy that applies to this area:
In addition to the urban river valleys, portions of the former
Lake Iroquois shoreline, particularly within Durham Region,
traverse existing or approved urban areas. Municipalities
should consider planning, design and construction practices
that maintain or, where possible, enhance the size, diversity,
connectivity and functions of key natural heritage features,
key hydrologic features and key hydrologic areas of those
portions of the Lake Iroquois shoreline within their approved
urban boundaries.
Accordingly, we recommend that the hazardous lands
associated with valley features in this area be placed in an
appropriate environmental protection zone category (e.g.
High Constraint Areas) and conveyed to the Municipality free
designation includes hazard lands
(Policy 6.3.2). The Municipality may
request Environmental Protection
lands to be conveyed at minimum or
no cost (Policy 6.3.7), but it doesn't
require conveyance.
have not been considered as a part of the ongoing hydrology
and hydraulic modelling and mapping exercise associated
with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. Should
development potential be contemplated for these areas, it
must be demonstrated there would be no downstream
flooding and erosion impacts.
The required studies for evaluating the feasibility within these
areas are stated through Section 6.4.5 of the Draft SP. But it
hydrology modelling to evaluate
downstream flooding and erosion
impacts.
inclusion of these areas as developed areas may impact the
land use structure across other parts of the SP given the
potential increase in the extent of hazardous areas as a
result of increased downstream impacts. Should the
Municipality consider the Environmental Constraint Land Use
to be Determined as potentially developable (subject to
applicable studies) in this area, a high level assessment of
the serviceability of these lands, updated hydrology
modelling, and downstream flooding and erosion impacts
improved access through the land use scheme. CLOCA staff
generally prefer a land use structure that has a fewer
number of crossings and has minimal interference with valley
lands. Crossings should be sized and located such that there
is no increase in upstream or downstream erosion or
flooding. Crossing locations, width, and alignment should be
compatible with stream morphology, which typically requires
location of the crossing on a straight and shallow/riffle reach
of the watercourse with no evidence of erosion with the
crossing situated at right angles to the watercourse. The
crossing proposed for the northwest side of the SP area
does not seem to be perpendicular to the watercourse.
CLOCA staff recommend that the north access road
connecting the site to Liberty Road be re-aligned to yield a
it crosses the stream can be
addressed through Phases 3 and 4 of
the EA at the draft plan of subdivision
stage. A policy (6.3.12) has been
added to generally require road
crossings to be situated at right
angles to the watercourse where
feasible.
Area of Further Study Overlay located adjacent to the
Prominent Intersection to Liberty Street North and
Concession Road 3, further study is required to confirm the
presence and limits of environmental constraints prior to any
it needs to be shown under appropriate category through
Schedule A and Schedule B.
Throughout Schedule B, several areas are designated as
areas that further studies for them would be required.
However, through Schedule A such areas are not designated
as “Land Use to Be Determined” rather, they are categorized
within designated land uses such as “Medium Density
Residential”. To be consistent, these areas should be
marked as “Land Use to be Determined” through Schedule
constraint overlays, these are not
areas designated as 'Land Use to be
Determined' on Schedule A.
Protection Zone is currently not designated as part of the
Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A. However,
once the Vegetation Protection Zone is determined through
site specific study, it will be considered part of the
Environmental Protection Area and zoned accordingly.”
Based on this policy, areas designated as Environmental
Constraint: Vegetation Protection zone (VPZ) Overlay on
Schedule B should be shown as “Land Use to be
Determined” through Schedule A to be consistent with the
SP text.
These areas include all VPZ Overlay designated lands on
the perimeter of residential areas as well as the Medium
Density Residential at the intersection of Mearns Ave. and
Zone (VPZ) Overlay is not shown as
Environmental Protection Areas on
Schedule A. The VPZ Overlay is
shown on Schedule B and is based on
the findings of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study. An
Environmental Impact Study prepared
in support of development
applications shall confirm the extent of
the Vegetation Protection Zone based
on the sensitivity of the adjacent
feature and in accordance with
minimum Vegetation Protection Zone
requirements of the Official Plan.
Environmental Protection Area shall adhere to the policies of
the Clarington Official Plan, as it pertains to the policy areas
of the Natural Heritage System in Section 3.4, the Watershed
and Subwatershed Plans policies in Section 3.5, the Hazards
policies in Section 3.7 and the Environmental Protection
with CLOCA".
and shall have appropriate regard for the recommendations
of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. A more detailed
study shall prevail over the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study provided the more detailed study is to the satisfaction
of the Municipality and the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (CLOCA).
Environmental Protection areas that have been subject to
unauthorized removals. Should net loss of natural cover not
be avoidable, appropriate mitigation and compensation
opportunities within other areas of the Secondary Plan area
may be considered where appropriate. Also, criteria for the
compensation of environmental features such as tree
replacement at a ratio of 3:1 should be added.
shrubs and other natural heritage
features are destroyed or harvested
pre-maturely prior to proper study and
approval, compensation should occur
on site and shall be calculated at a 3:1
ratio and be subject to a restoration /
compensation plan to create an
overall net benefit to the natural
based on accurate and current background information
compiled through appropriate studies, to provide direction on
the appropriate land uses. The finalization of the of the
proposed land use structure for the Soper Springs SP should
be informed by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. It is
our understanding that the floodplain modeling, resulting
constraints mapping, and the master functional servicing and
stormwater management plan within the subwatershed study
area should be completed prior to the finalization of land use
scheme within the SP area. CLOCA staff recommend the
SWS be completed and approved to guide the location of
SWM pond locations, establish appropriate stormwater
targets and recommendations based on the proposed land
the Secondary Plan will have no
downstream impacts on the Soper
Creek Subwatershed. The Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study Phase 2/3
report will be finalized and approved
by the Deputy CAO. A Master
Drainage Plan Terms of Reference will
be approved shortly in co-ordination
with the Municipality and consultants.
This approach is acceptable to the
Conservation Authority.
determine the least impactful locations for watercourse
crossings.
Central Lake
Ontario
Conservation
Authority
March 2026
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study was provided to CLOCA
by the Municipality of Clarington on March 19, 2026, and its
review will be expedited by technical staff in an attempt to
meet Municipal staff’s internal reporting deadline to finalize
the SP policy document and schedules by March 27, 2026.
In terms of the required sequence of studies and approval
governing the proposed development, it is CLOCA staff
position that the Subwatershed Study (SWS) be completed
and approved first, as it establishes the foundational
hydrologic and hydraulic conditions that inform the final
secondary plan. Currently, Hydrology and Hydraulics model
updating exercise is being undertaken.
Once the SWS has been finalized it is then appropriate to
seek approval of the secondary plan, as all policy directions
and land use considerations are to be informed by, or based
on, the analysis and findings of the SWS including those
critical to natural hazards and protection of people and
property for the lands within the SP and downstream. We
understand that recommendations of the SP will be refined
through the Master Servicing Plan/Preliminary Municipal
the Secondary Plan will have no
downstream impacts on the Soper
Creek Subwatershed. The Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study Phase 2/3
report will be finalized and approved
by the Deputy CAO. A Master
Drainage Plan Terms of Reference will
be approved shortly in co-ordination
with the Municipality and consultants.
This approach is acceptable to the
Conservation Authority.
draft which addressed unauthorized vegetation and wetland
removals in the area referred to as “the lobe”. It should be
noted that CLOCA provided previous commentary regarding
the systematic and unauthorized vegetation removals across
the SP area. For example, the area shown on the mapping
below was subject to vegetation and watercourse alterations.
“Notwithstanding Policy 6.3.1, the
area commonly referred to as “the
lobe” located at 3145 Mearns Avenue
and designated Environmental
Protection Area which was previously
the subject of unauthorized natural
The SP needs to be modified to add a policy to address all
unauthorized removals (past or future) in addition to the lobe
area. Any net loss of natural cover either as a result of
unauthorized activities or contemplated within a complete
Planning Application must be addressed through appropriate
mitigation and compensation opportunities within other areas
of the Secondary Plan area, where appropriate. However,
criteria for the compensation of lost environmental features
should be ‘like for like’ such as tree removals should be
replacement at a ratio of 3:1 (at a minimum) should be
added into the policies. Note that the current draft provides a
tree replacement ratio of 2:1 requirement and is focused on
the lobe area. A policy item should be added to Section 6.3
of the SP including the following:
For areas that were previously the subject of unauthorized
environmental feature removals and for areas where
environmental features are destroyed pre-maturely prior to
Municipal approval, appropriate in-situ mitigation and
compensation should occur on-site and shall be calculated at
Low Density Residential without
amendment to this Secondary Plan,
subject to the terms and conditions of
the Compensation Agreement dated
February 2020 between the applicable
landowner and the Municipality of
Clarington.
Policy 11.4.7 is included which states:
“Where trees, shrubs and
other natural heritage features are
destroyed or harvested pre-maturely
prior to proper study and
approval, compensation should occur
on site and shall be calculated at a 3:1
ratio except as set out in Policy
6.3.13 and be subject to a restoration
/ compensation plan to create an
overall net benefit to the natural
heritage system”
use alternative (Schedule A) designates some areas on the
north side of the SP area as “Environmental Constraint: Land
Use to be Determined”. These areas are designated as
“Environmental Constraint: Additional Area for Further Study
Overlay” through Schedule B. As noted previously, CLOCA
staff do not support this approach are concerned that these
designated areas are prone to natural hazards and
development constraints. Staff at CLOCA anticipate the
steep valley slopes, watercourse crossing requirements,
establishes a policy framework that
requires comprehensive technical
studies at the development application
stage to determine whether any
portion of these lands may be suitable
for development, consistent with
Section 6.4 of the Secondary Plan
and in consultation with CLOCA.
required Vegetation Protection Zone (VPZ) would reduce the
overall developable lands. Also, the provision of access and
servicing would involve significant interference with valley
features. As such, it is the position of CLOCA staff that there
is no development opportunity on these portions and provide
further justification in the section below.
These areas abut Greenbelt Natural Heritage System to the
north and are within the former Lake Iroquois shoreline.
Section 3.2.6.3 of the Greenbelt Plan (2017) includes a
policy that applies to this area:
In addition to the urban river valleys, portions of the former
Lake Iroquois shoreline, particularly within Durham Region,
traverse existing or approved urban areas. Municipalities
should consider planning, design and construction practices
that maintain or, where possible, enhance the size, diversity,
connectivity and functions of key natural heritage features,
key hydrologic features and key hydrologic areas of those
portions of the Lake Iroquois shoreline within their approved
urban boundaries.
Accordingly: The SP needs to be modified, consistent with
the Planning Act requirements and Provincial Policy
Statement to ensure that hazardous lands associated with
valley features in this area are placed in an appropriate
environmental protection zone category (e.g. High Constraint
areas are stated through Section 6.4.5 of the Draft SP.
However, based on the findings of the Draft Subwatershed
Study, it is likely that updating the hydraulic model to include
downstream flooding and erosion impacts. Should the
Municipality consider the Environmental Constraint Land Use
to be Determined as potentially developable (subject to
applicable studies) in this area, a high level assessment of
the serviceability of these lands, updated hydrology
modelling, and downstream flooding and erosion impacts
should be undertaken prior to adding development
designations in this portion of the draft plan. Where
supporting analysis is not available, “land use to be
documents Regarding crossings: “Where new roads cross
watercourses they should do so generally at right angles
where feasible”. It is staff opinion that the oblique angles for
crossings should be considered at a time when all alternative
angles for crossings have been explored and there is no
feasible right-angle option available.
Accordingly: CLOCA staff request that the north access road
connecting the site to Liberty Road be re-aligned to yield a
watercourse crossing at right angles. We also request the
following requirements be added to the policy regarding
watercourse crossings:
- culverts have an open bottom where it is feasible, or where
it is not feasible, the culverts should be appropriately
embedded into the watercourse;
- maintenance of ecological and hydrological functions of the
valley or stream corridor be preserved;
- crossing location, width, and alignment should be
compatible with stream morphology, which typically requires
requirements for watercourse
crossings.
of the watercourse with no evidence of erosion with the
crossing situated at right angles to the watercourse;
- the crossing is sized and located such that there is no
increase in upstream or downstream erosion or flooding;
- risks associated with erosion and flood hazards on the
crossing structure are avoided or mitigated as verified by a
qualified professional;
- there is no obstruction of fish and wildlife passage;
- where unavoidable, intrusions on natural features or
hydrologic or ecological functions are minimized and it can
be demonstrated that best management practices including
site and infrastructure design and appropriate remedial
measures will adequately restore and enhance features and
functions;
- any works that are to be located below the bed of the river
within a watercourse shall be located below the long term
scour depth.
In addition and as it relates to CLOCA requirements,
enclosures of watercourses are not permitted, whereas
daylighting of buried watercourses is required if associated
as areas that further studies for them would be required.
However, through Schedule A such areas are not designated
as “Land Use to Be Determined” rather, they are categorized
within designated land uses such as “Medium Density
Residential”. To be consistent, these areas should be
designated as “Land Use to be Determined” through
constraint overlays, these are not
areas designated as 'Land Use to be
Determined' on Schedule A.
issue related to the nonparticipating landowner. The policy regarding the northern collector road.
partial construction of internal collector roads or the partial
completion of internal and external sewer, water and
stormwater works as a result of non-participating
landowners, participating landowners with different timelines
or the timelines for completion of external road works, may
be required by the Municipality of Clarington. Phasing may
include temporary and / or interim road and infrastructure
solutions prior to full build-out.”
Given the nonparticipating parcel covers of a large portion of
the SP area, a phased and / or interim solution for servicing
and infrastructure provision may not be feasible. Accordingly,
an alternative road network should be considered as well,
given there is possibility that the nonparticipation issue may
crossings.
Functional Servicing Study report. As per the circulation
email, the draft Functional Servicing/PMER report was
anticipated for March 20, 2026. Staff look forward to
reviewing the report once circulated. To maintaining
consistency throughout the review process, carry over
comments from our Engineering staff are attached to this
Engineering Report will address these
comments.
Durham
June 2025
deferring all real servicing work to a later phase of the
project. Regional works understands that these lands can be
serviced, however it has not been confirmed how they will be
Engineering Report will provide
servicing options.
-Watermain and sanitary sewer crossing of the NHS over
and above the proposed road network are likely required.
- The limits of the areas that would need to be serviced by
Engineering Report to address these
comments.
been confirmed. A future Class EA will be required to
determine the location for the SSPS.
- Not enough detail has been provided to show an
acceptable local water system for these lands. To prevent
unacceptable dead ends, it is quite likely that additional
crossings of the NHS will be required. It is our understanding
that Clarington is deferring this work to the Draft Plan stage.
- Not enough detail related to future sanitary sewer design
has been provided for at least three critical crossings of the
NHS. The proposed ‘sanitary sewer to be suspended
underneath pedestrian bridge’ is not acceptable. It is our
understanding that Clarington is deferring this work to the
Draft Plan stage.
- At this time, it is not clear if the entire Secondary Plan Area
can be serviced without the proposed Bowmanville –
Northeast Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station identified within
the 2023 Region Development Charge Background Study. It
is our understanding that Clarington is deferring this work to
the Draft Plan stage.
If acceptable solutions to these key issues cannot be
confirmed as part of the Draft Plan stage, future changes
and revisions to the Secondary Plan may be required, even if
as it appears low relative to the required minimum densities
in specific land uses and in background reports.
4.1.1 Realize efficient and transit-supportive urban densities
by achieving minimum density target of 50 people and jobs
and transit-supportive urban densities
by achieving a minimum density target
of 60 people and jobs per gross
hectare.”
The Preferred Land Use Plan Paper (2024) states that the
target density is 74 people and jobs per hectare.
To clarify, the density identified is the
actual density of the Land Use Plan.
Former Regional Official Plan policy 5.4.5.1 sets a minimum
target of 53 people and jobs per hectare in the designated
for within the study area, including along Liberty St. N. /
uses, including retail and non-residential uses, are being
include park benches at close distances throughout walking
trails and parks to allow for rest points.
7.2.6 Parks shall be designed to be accessible and shall
have street frontage on not less than 30% of the park
perimeter. Backing of residential and commercial uses onto
parks shall be minimized with flankage of lots preferred.
Accessibility features will include park benches at close
distances throughout walking trails and parks to allow for rest
park benches should maximize
accessibility and rest points.”
Sidewalks – Consider adding: Sidewalks will include resting
points with furniture that is complimentary to the streetscape
to provide resting points for older adults and those with
to “should”.
Exhibits C (Map J1) an Exhibit D (Map J3) – The proposed
OPA to implement the Soper Springs Secondary Plan
identifies the deletion of the east-west Type C Arterial road,
from Liberty Street North to Lambs Road bordering the north
end of the Secondary Plan area. Although the Envision
Durham Regional Official Plan is now Clarington’s plan to
which it should conform post Bill 23, we identify that the Draft
Transportation Assessment Report (April 2025), prepared by
TYLin, does not provide any analysis to recommend the
justification of the deletion of this section of the Type C
Arterial road. In fact, it acknowledges that the protection for
this arterial road corridor in the future can be accommodated
through a local road connection in the Secondary Plan and
has no impact on the development of the area. Policy 8.4.5
in Envision Durham provides criteria that should be met to
justify the deletion of an arterial road, and the analysis of the
criteria noted in this policy is not part of the Transportation
Assessment Report. We suggest that this component of the
OPA be removed and that the deletion of the road be
investigated through another study (e.g., Clarington OP
prepared by municipal staff concludes
that removal of the Type C Arterial
road will not adversely affect network
connectivity or capacity and is
supported given the planned collector
road network and environmental
constraints.
Durham
August 2025
Notes should be added to the Secondary Plan mapping to
identify that the proposed collector road intersection
locations along Liberty Street are subject to change pending
completion of the EA study for these roads
road network shown in Schedule B is
conceptual and subject to
confirmation through the Class C
Environmental Assessment process.
Additional notes have not been added
to Schedule A or Schedule B, as the
policy framework is considered
sufficient to convey flexibility in
collector road alignment and
intersection locations pending
Policies 4.4.4 - 4.4.6: For the proposed commercial uses at
the intersection of Liberty Street and the Mearns Avenue
Extension, the development blocks will need to have
sufficient frontage along Mearns Avenue to accommodate
the on-street parking noted in Policy 4.4.6, as well as vehicle
access. On-street parking will not be permitted on Liberty
Street, and vehicle access from Liberty Street may not be
Assessment Report. Transportation Assessment Report to
Liberty Street immediately north of Concession Road 3. This
local road appears to be within the functional area of the
planned roundabout at the Liberty Street/Concession Road 3
intersection, so the Region would not allow it. We recognize
that the Demonstration Plan is conceptual, but this local road
connection should be removed to avoid creating an
conceptual and does not imply
approval for access locations. The
local road connection is shown for
illustrative purposes only and does not
represent an approved access.
sufficient frontage to accommodate access at an appropriate
spacing from nearby intersections, particularly for blocks
located along arterial roads. We suggest adding vehicle
access to the considerations listed in this point, i.e., “Block
depths should be designed to maximize density, allow for
appropriate built form typologies, and accommodate
adequate setbacks, outdoor amenity spaces, service,
parking and vehicle access arrangements, and transitions in
Concession Road 3, and Lambs Road are all designated as
Type B Arterial roads.
Page 34, Section 5.3.2: Point #1 should include sidewalks on
both sides of arterial roads, not just collectors
Noted.
Region of
Durham
February 2026
Works stated they were comfortable with Clarington
deferring all real servicing work to a later phase of the
project.
Regional Works understands that these lands can be
serviced, however it has not been confirmed how they will be
serviced. This draft has not included any new servicing work
to address the comments in the June 2025 submission.
The Region had considerable comments on the servicing
report for the Soper Springs Secondary Plan that have not
yet been addressed. Clarington, the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and the landowners should
all be aware that the Region expects that there are utility
corridors that need to cross the natural heritage system that
are not shown on the attached land use plan. Typically, these
the Preliminary Municipal Engineering
Report to address these comments.
- A comment-response table should have been provided to
identify how our previous comments were addressed and to
facilitate our review of the current submission.
- An update to the Transportation Assessment Report is in
progress. The Region may have additional comments on the
Secondary Plan once this update is complete.
- Notes should be added to Schedule A and Schedule B to
identify that the proposed collector road intersection
Preliminary Municipal Engineering
Report to address these comments.
completion of the EA study for these roads, consistent with
revised Policy 9.3.2.
If acceptable solutions to these key issues cannot be
confirmed as part of the Draft Plan stage, future changes
and revisions to the Secondary Plan may be required, even if
progress. the Region may have additional comments on the Transportation Assessment Report to
identify that the proposed collector road intersection
locations along Liberty Street are subject to change pending
completion of the EA study for these roads, consistent with
revised Policy 9.3.2.
Policy 9.3.2 states that the collector
road network shown in Schedule B is
conceptual and subject to
confirmation through the Class C
Environmental Assessment process.
Additional notes have not been added
to Schedule A or Schedule B, as the
policy framework is considered
sufficient to convey flexibility in
collector road alignment and
intersection locations pending
density in Policy 4.1.1 now meets the former Regional
Official Plan Policy 5.4.5.1, which sets a minimum target of
53 people and jobs per hectare in the designated greenfield
population of the secondary plan is 3,250 residents and
1,280 units. This results in an estimated designated
greenfield area density of approximately 77 people per
hectare (assuming a net designated greenfield area of
This is well above the estimated designated greenfield area
density of 48 people and jobs / ha in the Durham GMS
Phase 2 Area Municipal Growth Allocations and Land Needs
2051 - Final Report. If this trend continues, staff may wish to
reassess the land needed to accommodate planned growth
to 2051, as the existing Community Area within the 2051
Urban Boundary may accommodate growth well beyond
Medium Density Local Corridor designation may reduce the
assist with growth monitoring and forecasting activities, and
to confirm the above estimates, especially given that the
minimum required densities were lowered for the Medium
Density Residential and Low Density Residential
Durham
March 2026
2025, Regional Works stated they were accepting of
Clarington deferring all detailed servicing work to a later
phase of the project; however, it still has not been confirmed
how the lands will be serviced.
As a reminder, considerable comments on the servicing
report that accompanied the Soper Springs Secondary Plan
have not yet been addressed. It is noted that utility corridors
that need to cross the natural heritage system are not shown
on the attached land use plan. Typically, these issues are
Engineering Report will address these
comments.
scoped update to the Master Servicing Report, known now
as PMER. Once the PMER is received, Regional Works will
No additional materials related to the Transportation Study
was provided in the circulation. Therefore, the Region’s
comments from the previous submission should be
addressed prior to approval of the Soper Springs Secondary
Plan. Once the scoped update to the Traffic Impact Study is
provided, the Region will review the document and provide
comments.
An update to the Transportation Assessment Report is in
progress. The Region may have additional comments on the
Transportation Assessment Report to
address these comments.
and Schedule B to identify that the proposed collector road
intersection locations along Liberty Street are subject to
change pending completion of the EA study for these roads,
consistent with revised Policy 9.3.2.
road network shown in Schedule B is
conceptual and subject to
confirmation through the Class C
Environmental Assessment process.
Additional notes have not been added
to Schedule A or Schedule B, as the
policy framework is considered
sufficient to convey flexibility in
collector road alignment and
intersection locations pending
Ridge District
School Board
and
Peterborough
Victoria
Northumberland
and Clarington
Catholic School
Springs Secondary Plan area. However, it is important that
the potential school sites in Soper Hills Secondary Plan area
remain as this will be part of the overall accommodation plan
for both boards.
DRAFT REPORT
PREPARED BY HEMSON FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
SOPER SPRINGS SECONDARY PLAN
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
April 2nd, 2026
1000 -
Attachment 7 to Report PDS-026-26
CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
1 A.Growth Forecasts for Build-Out of SS
B.Key Data and Assumptions 4
2.CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS 6
A.Developer Funded Capital (Local Service Capital)7
B.DC-Funded Capital 8
3.OPERATING COST ANALYSIS 11
4.REVENUE ANALYSIS 14
A.Assessment 14
B.Municipal Property Tax Revenue 14
C.Development Charge Revenue 15
5.SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT 17
Introduction and Background | 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
As part of the Soper Springs Secondary Plan presented by the Municipality of Clarington,
Hemson Consulting Ltd. has been retained to complete a fiscal impact analysis. This report
summarizes Hemson’s evaluation of the capital costs, operating costs, and revenue sources
associated with the secondary plan area.
A. GROWTH FORECASTS FOR BUILD-OUT OF SS
The Soper Springs Secondary Plan Area (SSSP Area) is 184-hectares in size, bounded by
Liberty Street North to the west, Concession Road 3 to the south, and Lambs Road in the
northeast (See Figure 1 and Figure 2). The focus of this analysis and of residential
development in the SSSP Area is the 39.9-hectare central and western segment, which
includes both low- and medium – density residential areas, as well as higher – density
residential areas, bordering segments of Concession Road 3 on the SSSP Area’s southern
boundary. Also included in the 39.9-hectare development area is a neighbourhood park (1.5
ha), 2 parkettes (1.0 ha), 4 stormwater management facilities (4.4 ha), and a 1.2-hectare
segment for the construction of a regional pumping station. The remaining SSSP Area
contains primarily Environmental Protection Areas. An estimate of 1,279 units is estimated
at full build-out of the SSSP Area; no non-residential development or employment is
included in the SSSP Area. See Table 1 for a summary of the anticipated forecast
development used in the fiscal impact analysis.
Introduction and Background | 2
Figure 1. Map of SSSP Area
Source: Municipality of Clarington
Introduction and Background | 3
Figure 2. SSSP Area Land Use Plan
Source: Municipality of Clarington
Introduction and Background | 4
Densities across the SSSP Area are expected to range from approximately 24 units per
hectare in Low Density development areas to 110 units per hectare in the Medium Density
Local Corridor development area. As shown in Table 1, the SSSP Area is anticipated to add
approximately 1,279 residential units to accommodate a population of approximately 3,256.
The Low Density development area comprises a majority of the land in the 39.9-hectare
total development area and is expected to hold the largest share of the SSSP Area’s
population, while the Medium Density development area will see the most significant
addition of new residential units.
Table 1: Summary of SSSP Area Growth to Build-Out (Target)1
Land Use Gross Area
(ha) Residential Units Population Persons Per Unit
(PPU)
Low Density 16.8 398 1,441 3.14
Medium Density 11.9 529 1,287 2.43
Medium Density -
Local Corridor 3.2 352 529 1.50
Additional Lands 8.0 - - -
Total 39.9 1,279 3,256
1 Forecast provided by Municipality of Clarington
B. KEY DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS
The results of the analysis are advanced in nature and are intended to illustrate the
potential fiscal impact of new development on municipal budgets at full build-out of the
SSSP Area, based on the projected development. Actual impacts will be influenced by
several factors, including the cost and timing of infrastructure projects and the rate of
development.
The analysis is based on the following key inputs:
Municipality of Clarington Financial Data: actual expenditures and non-tax revenues
for 2024, as reported in the Financial Information Returns (FIRs) and municipal budget
documents, were used to establish current municipal expenditures per capita;
Current value assessments (CVAs): derived from the current assessment roll to
estimate future property tax revenues, using data from recently constructed (last ten
years) units and buildings; and
Introduction and Background | 5
Development assumptions: derived from the SSSP Draft Preferred Land Use Plan to
estimate future total costs and revenues.
Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in constant 2026 dollars.
This report is organized as follows:
Section 2 provides the analysis of the capital costs associated with the anticipated
servicing needs of the SSSP Area to build-out. Developer-funded, DC-funded, and
Municipality-funded costs are examined, as well as the long-term lifecycle costs associated
with the new infrastructure.
Section 3 examines the additional annual operating costs arising from new infrastructure,
as well as the associated population growth in the SSSP Area.
Section 4 provides a forecast of the assessment growth and Municipality property tax
revenue potential of the SSSP Area at full build-out and compares this potential with
Municipality-wide averages.
Section 5 summarizes the long-term annual tax-supported costs and revenues associated
with the SSSP Area and provides concluding observations on the fiscal impact analysis.
Capital Cost Analysis | 6
2. CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS
The fiscal impact analysis examines growth-related capital costs to be funded through
direct developer contributions and development charges (DCs) on new development; no
non-growth shares of the project to be funded by the Municipality have been identified. The
potential long-term lifecycle costs associated with the new infrastructure is also examined.
Given that the Soper Springs Secondary Plan is a primarily greenfield development and
therefore will require net new infrastructure during the build-out, no existing infrastructure
is being replaced or upgraded during development, and therefore none of the capital costs
are allocated as replacement shares; all examined costs are fully development-related.
Anticipated capital costs to support growth within the SSSP Area are summarized in Table 2
and total $46.9 million to full build-out of the area. These capital costs will be paid for
through a combination of development charges and local services, without the need of
property tax funding.
The Average Annual Cost values shown on Table 2 are the amounts necessary to replace
the assets at the end of useful life, providing monies to maintain assets in a state of good
repair (SOGR). To estimate the Municipality’s incremental increase in capital replacement
contributions, useful life assumptions were applied. Assumptions for long-term inflation
(2.0%) and borrowing (3.5%) were also used. The costs have been assigned against the
development as part of this fiscal impact analysis.
Capital Cost Analysis | 7
Table 2. Capital Cost Summary
Asset Type Gross Cost Average Annual
SOGR Cost Source
Stormwater $8,280,000 $78,821 Hemson DCBS
Transportation Services $19,769,341 $313,968 Secondary Plan Infrastructure
Details
Recreation & Parks Services $3,045,065 $60,451 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Indoor Recreation Services $11,315,474 $224,635 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Fire Protection Services $1,632,285 $90,741 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Public Works $1,132,004 $54,406 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Library Services $1,745,699 $66,879 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Total $46,919,868.45 $889,900
Note: DC Study costs have been indexed to $2026.
A. DEVELOPER FUNDED CAPITAL (LOCAL SERVICE CAPITAL)
This analysis estimates the amount of additional funding for the future lifecycle
replacement capital cost (or state of good repair costs) required as a result of the
installation of local services capital by developers. Local services capital typically includes
local roads, streetlights, and sidewalks, as well as any water, sanitary, and storm sewer
infrastructure that is internal to a development. For the purposes of this analysis, any
sanitary sewers, storm sewers and associated infrastructure along local roads are
considered to be local services capital. In addition, parkland improvements provided by
developers through Section 42 of the Planning Act is considered to be local services capital.
Capital Cost Analysis | 8
To estimate the Municipality’s incremental increase in capital replacement contributions,
useful life assumptions were applied. Assumptions for long-term inflation (2.0%) and
borrowing (3.5%) were also used.
This information was used to estimate an annual replacement contribution that would be
required by the end of each asset’s useful life. As shown in Table 3, the anticipated
replacement costs are estimated at approximately $273,600 per year, which translates to
$84.03 per capita when allocated across the SSSP Area’s development forecast.
Table 3. Summary of Replacement Costs and Annual Tax-Supported Replacement Contribution
for Local Services Capital
Asset Type Replacement
Cost Useful Life Annual
Provision Per Capita
Municipal Stormwater $49,209,142 90 Years $78,821 $24.21
Municipal Transportation
Services $33,013,847 50 Years $194,797 $59.83
Total $82,222,989 $273,617 $84.03
B. DC-FUNDED CAPITAL
For the purposes of this analysis, DC-eligible capital costs include collector and arterial
roads and related infrastructure to be developed in the SSSP Area. DC-eligible general
services capital costs have also been estimated based on service levels set out in the
Municipality’s 2025 DC Background Study.
Table 4 compares the total anticipated DC-eligible costs with anticipated revenues
associated with the build-out of the SSSP Area under the recently updated (2026) DC rates
imposed by the Municipality. Overall, DC revenues exceed DC costs by approximately $15.3
million.
This notional DC revenue “surplus” is primarily associated with the Municipal Road
infrastructure. As Roads and Related Infrastructure account for 59% of current Municipal
DC rates, it is the primary source of revenue from DCs in the SSSP Area during it’s build-
out. It is important to stress that development of the subject lands will generate additional
road activity which will necessitate improvements to roads across the Municipality; these
needs are reflected in Clarington’s DC Background Study.
Capital Cost Analysis | 9
Table 4. DC-Eligible Costs and Revenues Under Current (2026) DC Rates
DC Service Category Total Cost
DC Revenues
Under Current
Rates
Net Revenue
Library Service $1,745,699 $1,458,652 ($287,047)
Emergency & Fire
Services
$1,632,285 $793,721 ($838,563)
Parks & Indoor
Recreation
$14,360,540 $14,383,785 $23,246
General Government $0 $479,416 $479,416
Land Acquisition $0 $53,080 $53,080
Public Works: Services
Related to a Highway
$8,635,780 $24,536,169 $15,900,389
Total $26,374,304 $41,704,823 $15,330,519
The difference may also be due to the categorization of costs as local vs. DC-eligible
services in the analysis (it is noted that municipalities are granted some flexibility in the
determination of local services).
The development-related infrastructure needs for general services are based on the level of
service standards and capital program costs set out in the DC Background Study.
DC revenue calculations incorporate the inability of the Municipality to impose DCs for
social housing and public health as of November 28, 2022. The calculations also do not
account for DC revenue losses arising from Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act
changes: rental housing discounts, exemptions for affordable housing, attainable housing,
non-profit housing, and inclusionary zoning, changes to historical service level calculations,
fixed interest rates on frozen DCs, and potential ineligibility of certain capital costs (e.g.
land acquisition). Any such revenue loss is assumed to be minor or indeterminable for the
SSSP Area at the present time.
i. Lifecycle Costs
Once again, useful life assumptions were used to estimate the Municipal long-term
incremental increase in capital replacement contributions associated with the new DC-
funded infrastructure. As shown in Table 5, at full build-out these replacement costs are
estimated at approximately $616,300 per year, which translates to $189.27 per capita when
allocated across the SSSP Area development forecast.
Capital Cost Analysis | 10
Table 5. Summary of Replacement Costs and Annual Tax-Supported Replacement Contribution
for DC-Funded Capital
Asset Type Replacement
Cost Useful Life Annual
Provision Per Capita
Transportation Services $20,197,074 50 Years $119,172 $36.60
Recreation & Parks Services $8,196,062 50 Years $60,451 $18.57
Indoor Recreation Services $30,456,595 50 Years $224,635 $68.99
Library Services $4,109,552 10 - 50 Years $66,879 $20.54
Public Works $2,142,936 15 - 50 Years $54,406 $16.71
Fire Protection Services $3,326,838 10 - 50 Years $90,741 $27.87
Total $68,429,056 $616,283 $189.27
Operating Cost Analysis | 11
3. OPERATING COST ANALYSIS
Tax-supported operating costs arising from the construction of new developer- and DC-
funded capital, and the addition of households and people in the SSSP Area, were
estimated based on data from the Municipality and Region’s 2024 FIR, SSSP Draft Land
Budget and projected development minimums. Utility-supported Water and Wastewater
services are not included in this analysis.
Table 6 summarizes the gross operating costs anticipated to be associated with
development in the SSSP Area. Cost drivers were applied to FIR operating cost data net of
any amortization and interest on long-term debt. Where appropriate, costs are driven by the
planned infrastructure investments (e.g. Roads and Related, Parks), whereas many services
are considered to be driven by population growth or household growth. For all services,
incremental cost savings are common and factors of 50% and 75% were applied accordingly.
The total additional annual operating cost associated with development of the SSSP Area is
calculated at approximately $2.2 million.
Table 7 summarizes the anticipated non-tax revenues and resulting net operating costs.
These non-tax revenues include grants, user fees, and service charges as per the FIR. It is
assumed that these revenues will remain consistent on a per-capita basis in the SSSP Area.
Annual non-tax revenues associated with the SSSP Area at build-out are calculated at
approximately $468,400.
The total net annual operating cost associated with the SSSP Area is approximately $1.74
million. This translates to about $534.06 per capita in the SSSP Area.
Operating Cost Analysis | 12
Table 6. Anticipated Additional Operating Costs Based on 2024 Financial Information Return
Service
Operating Unit of Measure &
Factor
SSSP Area
Quantity
SSSP Area
Total Operating
Cost Cost / Unit
General
Government $35.65 Population (50%) 3,256 $116,066
Fire $399.89 Households (75%) 1,279 $511,456
Protective
Inspection and
Control
$11.71 Population (75%) 3,256 $38,140
Building Permit and
Inspection Services $60.68 Households (75%) 1,279 $77,613
Emergency
Measures $0.11 Population (75%) 3,256 $344
Roads and Related $142.57 Population (75%) 3,256 $464,204
Parking $4.68 Population (75%) 3,256 $15,237
Storm - Urban $17.83 Households (75%) 1,279 $22,807
Storm - Rural $34.11 Households (75%) 1,279 $43,627
Other (Port
Granby) $0.00 Households (75%) 1,279 $0
Erosion Control &
Region Services $1.37 Households (75%) 1,279 $1,746
Cemeteries $8.17 Population (75%) 3,256 $26,585
Social Services $0.00 Population (75%) 3,256 $0
Parks $53.86 Population (75%) 3,256 $175,368
Recreation $144.96 Population (75%) 3,256 $471,977
Libraries $36.62 Population (75%) 3,256 $119,234
Museums &
Cultural Services $5.20 Population (50%) 3,256 $16,930
Planning and
Development $32.56 Population (50%) 3,256 $106,000
Total $2,207,334
Notes: Unit costs based on 2024 FIR operating expenditures, Census estimates of population (109,379),
Households (38,265), and 2025 DC Background Study estimate of employment (33,376)
Operating Cost Analysis | 13
Table 7. Anticipated Grant, User Fees, and Service Charges and Resulting Net Operating Costs
Service
Municipal
Unit of Measure
SSSP Area
Total Non-
Tax
Revenues
SSSP Area
Total Net
Operating
Costs
Per Capita Non-Tax
Revenues
Per Unit
General Government $5.40 Population (3,256) $17,570 $98,496 $30.25
Fire $11.66 Households (1,279) $14,916 $496,540 $152.50
Protective
Inspection and
Control
$0.46 Population (3,256) $1,489 $36,652 $11.26
Building Permit and
Inspection Services $0.15 Households (1,279) $193 $77,421 $23.78
Emergency
Measures $0.00 Population (3,256) $0 $344 $0.11
Roads and Related $31.63 Population (3,256) $102,987 $361,217 $110.94
Parking $1.44 Population (3,256) $4,702 $10,535 $3.24
Storm - Urban $2.15 Households (1,279) $2,753 $20,054 $6.16
Storm - Rural $0.00 Households (1,279) $0 $43,627 $13.40
Other (Port Granby) $0.00 Households (1,279) $0 $0 $0.00
Erosion Control &
Region Services $0.00 Households (1,279) $0 $1,746 $0.54
Cemeteries $3.16 Population (3,256) $10,296 $16,289 $5.00
Social Services $0.00 Population (3,256) $0 $0 $0.00
Parks $6.14 Population (3,256) $19,992 $155,376 $47.72
Recreation $64.86 Population (3,256) $211,197 $260,780 $80.09
Libraries $1.64 Population (3,256) $5,339 $113,894 $34.98
Museums & Cultural
Services $1.63 Population (3,256) $5,299 $11,631 $3.57
Planning and
Development $22.02 Population (3,256) $71,691 $34,309 $10.54
Total $468,424 $1,738,910 $534.06
Revenue Analysis | 14
4. REVENUE ANALYSIS
This section describes the analysis of the future assessment, property tax revenues, and
development charge revenues in the SSSP Area.
A. ASSESSMENT
The major source of new revenue generated by new development in the SSSP Area will be
annual property taxes. To estimate future property taxes, forecasts of new residential and
non-residential assessment were prepared.
Assessed values for residential units were determined with reference to the current value
assessment (CVA) of homes constructed in Clarington between 2014 - 2024 that are of
similar quality and size to those that are likely to be constructed in SSSP Area. The CVAs
used for analysis are assumed to be slightly higher per unit than those assumed in previous
fiscal impact analysis studies conducted for the Municipality of Clarington to reflect the
comparatively lower density of units in the SSSP Area. This indicates that each unit will
occupy more land and therefore be of higher relative value. Three categories of CVAs are
used to calculate residential property tax revenues: Low Density Residential. Medium
Density Residential, and High Density Residential (corresponding to all Medium Density
Local Corridor units in the SSSP Area).
The CVAs used in the analysis are as follows:
Low Density Residential Units $520,000 per unit
Medium Density Residential Units $390,000 per unit
High Density Residential Units $260,000 per unit
B. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
The property tax revenue forecasts at build-out of the SSSP Area were developed by
applying the current 2026 Municipal tax rates for the applicable land classes to the
projected assessments.
As shown in Table 8, the total CVA of new buildings within the SSSP Area is forecast at
approximately $504.8 million, primarily associated with Low Density Residential
Development ($206.7 million) and Medium Density Residential Development ($206.5
million). After applying the Municipality’s 2026 tax rates to each property class, total annual
Revenue Analysis | 15
Municipal property tax revenue is calculated at approximately $2.5 million, or an average of
$766.33 per person in the area (see Table 9).
Table 8. Summary of Annual Municipal Tax Revenues at Build-Out
Land Use Forecast Assessment
(2026)
Total
Assessment
Municipal
Tax Rate
(2026)
Annual
Municipal Tax
Revenue
Per Unit
Residential Units Per Unit
Low Density 398 $520,000 $206,740,417 0.00485458 $1,003,638 $2,524.38
Medium
Density 529 $390,000 $206,480,781 0.00485458 $1,002,377 $1,893
High Density 352 $260,000 $91,613,770 0.00534004 $489,221 $1,388
Total 1,279 $504,834,968 $2,495,237
Generally, development of the SSSP Area is anticipated to generate higher taxation
revenues per capita than the most recent (2024) Municipality-wide averages (see Table 9).
This reflects the higher assessed values of newer homes, which are typically larger and
constructed with more modern materials and amenities.
Table 9. Municipal Property Tax Revenue Comparison with Municipality Average
SSSP Area Municipal Average (2024)
Annual Revenue Per Capita Annual Revenue Per Capita
Residential $2,495,237 $766.33 $65,623,144.00 $603.37
C. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVENUE
Table 10 summarizes the development charge revenue that would be generated up to full
build-out of the SSSP Area, using current 2026 development charge rates.
The development charge revenue calculations assume 70% of High Density Residential
development in the Medium Density Local Corridor will be in two-bedroom or larger
apartments with the remaining 30% of developed units being one-bedroom or smaller
apartments. The applied calculations also account for the inability of the Municipality to
impose DCs for social housing and public health.
Revenue Analysis | 16
The calculations do not account for DC revenue loss arising from the following changes
arising from the More Homes Built Faster Act 2022: rental housing discounts, exemptions
for affordable housing, attainable housing, non-profit housing, and inclusionary zoning,
changes to historical service level calculations, fixed interest rates on frozen DCs, and
potential ineligibility of certain capital costs (e.g. land acquisition). Any such revenue loss is
assumed to be minor or indeterminable for the SSSP Area at the present time.
Table 10. Development Charge Revenue Generated in SSSP Area (Current Rates)
Residential
Service Low Density Medium Density Medium Density -
Local Corridor Total
Municipal DCs
Library Service $587,620 $642,738 $228,294 $1,458,652
Emergency & Fire Services $320,050 $349,429 $124,242 $793,721
Parks & Indoor Recreation $5,795,888 $6,336,313 $2,251,585 $14,383,785
Operations $0 $0 $0 $0
General Government $193,223 $211,246 $74,947 $479,416
Land Acquisition $21,469 $23,295 $8,316 $53,080
Services Related to a Highway $9,886,963 $10,808,475 $3,840,731 $24,536,169
Total SSSP Area DC Revenue $16,805,213 $18,371,495 $6,528,115 $41,704,823
.
Summary of Fiscal Impact | 17
5. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT
Table 11 provides an overall summary of the estimated fiscal impacts associated with the
full build-out of the SSSP Area. Revenues are projected at $766 per capita annually, while
expenditures are estimated at $807, resulting in an annual deficit of approximately $41 per
capita, or a -5.4% difference. This result indicates that the SSSP development will likely be
fiscally neutral to slightly negative - additional revenues (largely property taxes and
development charges) should generally cover the additional municipal costs generated by
the development,
Table 11. Overall Findings
Revenue or Expenses Total Amount $/Person
Revenue
Property Taxes (Assessment growth) $ 2,495,237 $ 766
Sub-Total Revenue $ 2,495,237 $ 766
Expenses
Developer Constructed Assets - AMP Contribution $ 273,617 $ 84
DC Funded Assets - AMP Contribution $ 616,283 $ 189
Municipal-Funded Assets - AMP Contribution $ - $ -
Net Operating Impacts $ 1,738,910 $ 534
Sub-Total Expenses $ 2,628,811 $ 807
Net Difference ($) $ (133,574) $ (41)
Net Difference (%) -5.4% -5.4%
Before reviewing the key implications, it is important to reiterate that the main purpose of
the analysis is to inform decisions regarding the Soper Springs Secondary Plan as it relates
to the SSSP Area. The fiscal impact analysis results should not be viewed as precise
forecasts of what will occur at full build-out of the SSSP Area.
The results point to incremental operating cost efficiencies within the SSSP Area. Due to
economies of scale arising from the high density and localized nature of development, the
cost to service new residents is expected to be lower on a per capita basis than the cost to
service existing populations. As well, the relatively high assessed values of new residential
units in the SSSP Area are expected to generate higher property taxes per capita than
existing development in the Municipality. Overall, the SSSP Area is anticipated to be fiscally
sustainable over the long-term.
Summary of Fiscal Impact | 18
That said, several areas of caution must be noted:
First, the analysis assumes full municipal funding of new infrastructure lifecycle costs.
In reality, contributions toward lifecycle funding for existing infrastructure may not
currently meet 100% of calculated needs. Moreover, infrastructure renewal
requirements are expected to grow as existing infrastructure ages and is adapted to
address climate change.
Second, the fiscal projections of development charge revenue assume the use of the
Municipality’s recently-passed development charge rates, but do not account for the
anticipated passage of new DC by-laws during the build-out period. Therefore, the total
SSSP Area DC revenue is likely to exceed estimates when new rates are inevitably
implemented. In addition, any future legislative changes that restrict the ability to levy
development charges could materially affect the financial outlook set out in this report
negatively.
Finally, the fiscal impact analysis evaluates the fiscal impact at full build-out of the
SSSP Area. However, costs associated with financing SSSP Area infrastructure—such
as debt costs incurred to cover servicing expenditures prior to development—are not
included in the analysis.